D. Paul
Puritan Board Sophomore
This was a very interesting scenario made even stranger by by research...
I just so-happened across Joyce Meyer's program and listened for just a few minutes. After a few comments, she said "...and I have a first rate theologian right here with me to check if what I say is the truth or not."
That theologian was R.T. Kendall, the successor to M. Lloyd Jones at Westminster Chapel. Personally, I had never heard much about him so I did some research. From his own website, the following is part of a Q & A. I ask myself, is there anything wrong with his definition of the doctrine of Limited Atonement? The larger Q is what is he doing supporting Joyce Meyer?
So, I thought I'd ask "the pro's" here for your take on my Q's!
Q: Did you and Dr. Lloyd-Jones have any differences?
A: Yes, but not many. There were no theological differences except on the interpretation of two or three passages and I refer to them also in IN PURSUIT OF HIS GLORY.
Q: Did he believe in limited atonement?
A: Yes, but only just. He knew exactly what I believed regarding this and actually encouraged me "“ "˜you go on´, he would say - in my view of the atonement, which varied from traditional reformed theology. He loved my thesis which was published by Oxford University Press under the title CALVIN AND ENGLISH CALVINISH TO 1649.
Q: What do you believe about limited atonement?
A: I believe that Jesus died for everybody without exception but that the blood he shed was applied to God´s elect only and made effectual as a consequence of Christ´s intercession at the Father´s right hand. Dr. Lloyd-Jones was fascinated by this concept but that is not to say he began preaching it himself. I regard myself as a four and a half point Calvinist.
Q: Then what differences did the two of you have?
A: I think the essential differences between us was my accepting preaching invitations he might not approve of and, probably (though he was not alive to know for sure), my having visiting ministers at Westminster Chapel that he himself would not invite. He was by nature a very conservative person and was uneasy with anything innovative.
I just so-happened across Joyce Meyer's program and listened for just a few minutes. After a few comments, she said "...and I have a first rate theologian right here with me to check if what I say is the truth or not."
That theologian was R.T. Kendall, the successor to M. Lloyd Jones at Westminster Chapel. Personally, I had never heard much about him so I did some research. From his own website, the following is part of a Q & A. I ask myself, is there anything wrong with his definition of the doctrine of Limited Atonement? The larger Q is what is he doing supporting Joyce Meyer?
So, I thought I'd ask "the pro's" here for your take on my Q's!
Q: Did you and Dr. Lloyd-Jones have any differences?
A: Yes, but not many. There were no theological differences except on the interpretation of two or three passages and I refer to them also in IN PURSUIT OF HIS GLORY.
Q: Did he believe in limited atonement?
A: Yes, but only just. He knew exactly what I believed regarding this and actually encouraged me "“ "˜you go on´, he would say - in my view of the atonement, which varied from traditional reformed theology. He loved my thesis which was published by Oxford University Press under the title CALVIN AND ENGLISH CALVINISH TO 1649.
Q: What do you believe about limited atonement?
A: I believe that Jesus died for everybody without exception but that the blood he shed was applied to God´s elect only and made effectual as a consequence of Christ´s intercession at the Father´s right hand. Dr. Lloyd-Jones was fascinated by this concept but that is not to say he began preaching it himself. I regard myself as a four and a half point Calvinist.
Q: Then what differences did the two of you have?
A: I think the essential differences between us was my accepting preaching invitations he might not approve of and, probably (though he was not alive to know for sure), my having visiting ministers at Westminster Chapel that he himself would not invite. He was by nature a very conservative person and was uneasy with anything innovative.
