Dr. Lloyd-Jones on Foundational Truths - Part 2

In Dr. Lloyd-Jones' lectures to the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students he outlined several general characteristics of the definition of an evangelical. The following are excerpts regarding foundational and secondary truths necessary in an Evangelical.

SCRIPTURE: THE ONLY AND FULL AUTHORITY

The first is the doctrine of Scripture. The basis of faith says: `We believe in the divine inspiration and entire trustworthiness of holy Scripture as originally given, and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.' I contend that it is not enough just to say that; we have got to go further.

....we have to say some specific things such as that the Scripture is our sole authority, not only the `supreme' authority, but our sole authority, our only authority. I say this to emphasize that we do not accept tradition as an authority in any sense of that term. We reject the Roman Catholic teaching with regard to tradition which is, as you know, that tradition is equal in authority with the Scriptures. Roman Catholics do not deny the authority of the Scriptures, but they give to tradition, the tradition elaborated in and by the church, an equal authority with the Scriptures. And in that tradition they would claim to have received revelation subsequent to the end of the New Testament canon.

Furthermore it seems to me that we have got to spell out much more clearly the whole notion of revelation. The basis speaks of `the divine inspiration and entire trustworthiness', but we must go beyond that. We have got to assert today this category of revelation. We have got to exclude the notion that men have arrived at the truth as a result of searching and thinking, or by means of philosophy. We must affirm that it is entirely given, that `holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost' (2 Pet. 1:2 I), or, as Paul is constantly reminding his readers, that his gospel is not his own, `For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ' (Gal. 1:12).

In the same way we have got to assert today that we believe that Scripture contains propositional truth. This has often been the dividing line between evangelicals and pseudo-evangelicals.

Likewise we have to assert particularly the supernatural element in the Scripture. What do I mean? Well, we have got to emphasize that we believe in prophecy in the sense of foretelling. The emphasis today is on `forthtelling'. We admit that we agree that prophecy is forthtelling but, over and above that, it is foretelling. To me one of the profoundest arguments for the unique inspiration of the Scriptures is the truth of prophecy, the fulfilment of prophecy. We have got to emphasize this extraordinary manifestation of the supernatural.

We have also to insist upon a belief in the literal truth and historicity of the miracles of the Old and the New Testament, because there are people who say that they can still subscribe to our general statement about the inspiration and the authority of the Scriptures, who increasingly are denying the historicity of many of the Old Testament miracles, and indeed are trying to explain away some of the New Testament miracles in terms of science or psychology. We must assert the historicity of these manifestations of the supernatural.

Then the next thing to be said under this heading of Scripture is that we must believe the whole Bible. We must believe the history of the Bible as well as its didactic teaching. Failure here is always an indication of a departure from the true evangelical position. Today there are men who say, Oh yes, we believe in the Bible and its supreme authority in matters of religion, but, of course, we don't go to the Bible for science; we go to it for help for our souls, for salvation and help and instruction in the way to live the Christian life. They are saying that there are, as it were, two great authorities and two means of revelation: one of them is Scripture and the other is nature. These, they say, are complementary, they are collateral, and so you go to the Scriptures for matters concerning your soul, but you do not go to them to seek God's other revelation of Himself in nature. For that, you go to science.

We accept the biblical teaching with regard to creation and do not base our position upon theories of evolution, whichever particular theory people may choose to advocate. We must assert that we believe in the being of one first man called Adam, and in one first woman called Eve. We reject any notion of a preAdamic man because it is contrary to the teaching of the Scripture.

We must therefore hold to the vital principle, to which I have referred earlier, of the wholeness and the close interrelationship of every part of the biblical message. The Bible does not merely make statements about salvation. It is a complete whole: it tells you about the origin of the world and of man; it tells you what has happened to him, how he fell and the need of salvation arose, and then it tells you how God provided this salvation and how He began to reveal it in parts and portions. Nothing is so amazing about the Bible as its wholeness, the perfect interrelationship of all the parts.

We go on to assert that we must underline the fact of the historical fall of the first man, and that it happened in the way described in the third chapter of Genesis. Whether we can understand it or not is not the question. That is what we are told, and the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians i I :3 reminds the Corinthians that `the serpent beguiled Eve'. You cannot play fast and loose with these facts without involving the inspiration of the apostles, and, ultimately, the person of our Lord. You will soon be saying that He was a child of His own age, that He was ignorant in certain respects, and that He had simply the scientific knowledge of His own times, and so on. You begin to query and to question His statements, and ultimately you will have no authority at all.

Not only must we accept the historicity of Genesis 3 and its account of the fall. If you do not accept that as history, you are going to exclude from your belief one of the most amazing and comforting facts in connection with our faith, the proto-evangel of Genesis 3:15, the glorious promise that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head, the first prophecy concerning the virgin birth of Christ and how He was going to bring us this great deliverance. There is the first glimpse of the work, of the blessed work of the cross, all concretely stated in the historical account.

General statements are no longer enough. We must insist upon knowing what people believe in detail. We must test their statement that they accept the supreme authority of the Scriptures, and their trustworthiness in all these matters of faith and conduct.

From the book, "What Is An Evangelical" by D.M. Lloyd-Jones, publ by Banner of Truth Trust, 1971.

posted by john d.