1939 Review of D R Davies's On to orthodoxy

On Onto orthodoxy by D R Davies in The Christian World October 12, 1939
The Story of a Spiritual Pilgrimage

If ever a book was written to meet a precise historical situation, surely this book was written for the hour in which we live. As the author tells us, it is is a sense a product of the times through which we have been passing. But it s not merely timely in that sense, but in the deeper and more vital sense that it is a prophetic message, a positive contribution to an understanding of the present and a preparation for the future. It is not that it has anything new to say, or that it is the first of  a series. It is in line, in general, with what has been written by Barth, Brunner, Niebuhr and others. But nevertheless there is that quality about it which makes it not only distinctive, but quite unique. Mr Davies does not merely repeat what he has read, or re-state the opinions and convictions of others. What he has written he has discovered and thought through for himself. As I read it, Onto orthodoxy constantly reminded me of Rosalind Murray's The failure of a good pagan the common feature being that both are written on the basis of personal experience and are avowedly personal confessions.

There is nothing doctrinaire or detached in the outlook of the book.  It is intensely practical and vital; indeed, exciting. With the thoroughness of  a true zealot, Mr Davies has invariably practised what he preached.  He has staked his all on what he believed, and has suffered the consequences.  His book therefore is an intensely human record, and when he writes with passion and with heat, one feels that he is entitled to do so.  From his early days as a boy in South Wales, through to the period of his days as a working miner, and afterwards a student in college, and an ordained minister, to his subsequent experiences as a freelance journalist, life has been to him a fight and a struggle.  And yet there is no bitterness here.  The whole background of the book is stated perfectly in the following passage, which is also a good example of his virile, pungent style.

In journeying from Pacifism to Marxism, I may claim that I have fairly boxed the compass of modernist navigation. To change the figure, I have explored most of the areas of Humanism and Modernism. I have travelled the world in order to reach next door. It is true no doubt that I would have saved much time, and avoided much complication and acute suffering, if I had gone straight next door. But, in that case, the thought of what I would have missed oppresses me. I have journeyed the desert stretches of Christian Liberalism; I have trudged along the Arctic wastes of Pacifism, where everything was simple and remote - oh! so remote! Everything just plain white or black. I saw men as figures walking. ... I have groped my painful way in the caverns of psycho-analysis. I have known even the despair of atheism. And I have been under the thrall of Marxism. From every one of these explorations I gained something I am certain I would never have won if I had been a good boy and stayed at home. For good or ill, my wondering has been the world, not the back garden.

That being the story the author tells us what he thinks now of the various places he has visited in his pilgrimage. It is difficult to think of anything more devastating on the subject of Christian Liberalism and Humanism than what we find here; and in like manner with the social gospel of which he was ever a fervent advocate and preacher.

From what I have said it will now be plain that I regard preaching the gospel of the forgivene of sin as the distinctive, unique and certainly most important tasl of the Church. Whatever she does in the way of social services constitutes no substitute. However many cheap meals she provides for the unemployed; however many billiard-tables and tennis clubs she gives to young people; however many psychological clinics, even, she opens - all these are worse than useless without preaching.Though she gives her body to be burned and reach not of sin, and of man's powerlessness and of the grace of God, it shall profit her nothing

He insists that the message of the gospel is primarily and most essentially personal, that nations cannot be convicted of sin, and that "committees and classes cannot repent". As negative apologetic and preparation for the gospel I have rarely if ever read anything stronger or more convincing. The utter futility of all that has so often passed as gospel during the past hundred years is made terribly and tragically clear. Surely this is what is needed above all else at the present time. And especially, first and foremost, in the Churches. That complacent optimistic view of man and his nature that has so long controlled and directed thought and preaching must be given up, and must be replaced by the tragic view which is taught everywhere in the Bible. Those who are still uncertain of that can do nothing better than study the arguments presented so cogently in this book.

So much for the negative aspect of the case. What of the positive? Mr Davies chooses as his title On to orthodoxy and in his conclusion he says "I shall have every sympathy with the reader who feels that my recovery of orthodoxy is incomplete". As a reader who belongs to that class I may be permitted a few observations. I am not concerned to point out how, in his view of the Bible, his attitude towards the proof of the facts of the Resurrection, his interpretation of the judgement of God and his teaching of the larger hope, Mr Davies deviates, and at times seriously, from traditional Protestant orthodoxy. For there is something else which is still more important. The great central and all important question for both Protestant and Roman Catholic orthodoxy has always been how should a man be right with God? The saints were not concerned primarily about their incapacity to "create a just society" but about themselves and their utter hopelessness and helplessness face to face with God. And at that point their primary problem was not as to how they could overcome and conquer the power of sin but how o be delivered from the guilt of sin and its penalty. In a most significant passage Mr Davies says:

In the logical order of my recovery of orthodoxy, it was the problem of eschatology that that raised anew for me the whole question of the being and character of God. The reader, especially if he is a theologian, may argue that I ought to have begun with God. The fact is I didn't. I began with Europe and the world of political, economic and social events.

That statement, perhaps more perfectly than any other, states the essence of the difference between the new orthodoxy of Mr Davies and the school to which he belongs and traditional Protestant orthodoxy. The latter does not arrive at God as the only ultimate solution to the problem of society; it starts with God because its whole experience is that it cannot escape from God. The man has been apprehended by God, chased by "the hound of heaven" and is incapable of fleeing from His presence much as he has tried to do so. His crisis is not intellectual and philosophical, primarily, but spiritual and moral. Neo-orthodoxy does not count all its former achievements and experiences as "but dung and loss," it cannot say that "old things are passed away, behold all things are become new!. He does not believe in Revelation but decides rather on the basis of his own reasoning and understanding to adopt certain biblical ideas. In spite of itself, it is still tied to this terrible situation, and for that reason tends to forget the power and the activity of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Mr Davies suggests that the modern preacher knows too little about modern man and his problems. I would suggest that the trouble rather is ignorance of the power of God, especially in our own lives

I have, I trust, stimulated all who are concerned deeply about the Church in the world today to read this moving, challenging, thought-provoking book.

(For more on D R Davies see here)

Lloyd-Jones on Karl Barth

In December 1968 following Barth's death this article by the Doctor appeared in the newly founded Evangelical Times, under the editorship of Peter Masters. 

THE PASSING of Dr Karl Barth at the age of 82 is an event that calls for comment.

As a man, there is only one adjective to apply to him and that is ‘great’. Everything about him was big. He clearly had a first-class intellect. Nothing else could account for his acute criticism of various theological outlooks and his own massive Church Dogmatics. He was said by those who knew him to be a ‘great character’. But his greatness was seen supremely in his heroic stand against Hitler and Nazism as expressed in the Barmen Declarations which led to his expulsion from Germany.

There is no question also but that he stood out above all others as a theological giant in this century. No name has been quoted more freely not only in Protestant circles but also among Roman Catholics.

He first became known in the early twenties and in this country in 1927 with the publication of a translation of one of his books under the title of The Word of God and the Word of Man. This was followed in a few years by the English translation of the second edition of his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Others followed in rapid succession such as Credo and then his great work on dogmatics in many volumes.

The great question is – What has all this meant from the evangelical standpoint? The answer is quite simple – practically nothing! At first many evangelicals of reformed persuasion felt that Barth was a great new ally. His attacks on Liberalism and Modernism were devastating, and he appeared to be reasserting the old Calvinistic position. But alas, it was only a matter of appearance.

To start with he accepted a radical criticism of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. His view of revelation was clearly not that of the Reformers. He denied propositional revelation, and his view of the historicity of the foundational facts of the Christian faith expressed itself in his strange division of history into ‘holy’ and ‘secular’.

‘By their fruits ye shall know them’ and when this canon of judgement is applied to Barth and his works it is clear that the result has been entirely negative from the evangelical standpoint.

Though his works and influence have been in existence for 50 years, he has brought no revival to the church. This is not surprising as his approach, in spite of his denials, is essentially philosophical. His style was involved and difficult and while for a time he produced a crop of intellectual preachers, who were always preaching about ‘the Word’, it soon became clear that they were not preaching the Word itself.

By now his influence from the continent has been eclipsed by that of more radical thinkers.

Barth never had much influence in England, his whole approach being alien to the English type of thinking. In Scotland he had a much greater following and succeeded in turning into Barthians a number of younger men who had been prominent in evangelical circles. His keenest students at the present time seem to be Roman Catholic theologians, especially those of the liberal school that is accepting more and more the Higher Critical view of the Bible, and is at the same time anxious to interpret the pronouncements of the Council of Trent in a Protestant direction. It may well be that his greatest achievement will be to provide a bridge between a modified (but not truly reformed) Roman Catholicism and a degenerate Protestantism, which often does not know what it believes.

As a negative critic of the old Modernism he was superb, but because he tried to bend the Scriptures and their message to his philosophical system and failed to become ‘a fool for Christ’s sake’ in the Pauline sense, and to submit himself to that ‘simplicity which is in Christ Jesus’, his positive contribution to the cause of the Gospel was virtually nil. It is because of this that his name should never be coupled with those of Luther and Calvin. What a difference there is between causing a stir, or even a flutter, in the theological dovecotes, and being used of God to produce a reformation and a re-awakening!

All honour to a great man . . . but!

Lloyd-Jones on the Altar Call

According to an article on the Banner website here early in the 1970s Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones was the speaker at a ministers’ conference in the USA and at a question session was asked the following question and gave the answer given:

Q During recent years, especially in England, among evangelicals of the Reformed faith, there has been a rising criticism of the invitation system as used by Billy Graham and others. Does Scripture justify the use of such public invitations or not?

A. Well, it is difficult to answer this in a brief compass without being misunderstood. Let me answer it like this: The history of this invitation system is one with which you people ought to be more familiar than anyone else, because it began in America. It began in the 1820s; the real originator of it was Charles G. Finney. It led to a great controversy. Asahel Nettleton, a great Calvinist and successful evangelist, never issued an "altar call" nor asked people to come to the "anxious seat." These new methods in the 182Os and were condemned for many reasons by all who took the Reformed position. One reason is that there is no evidence that this was done in New Testament times, because then they trusted to the power of the Spirit. Peter preaching on the Day of Pentecost under the power of the Spirit, for instance, had no need to call people forward in decision because, as you remember, the people were so moved and affected by the power of the Word and Spirit that they actually interrupted the preacher, crying out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" That has been the traditional Reformed attitude towards this particular matter. The moment you begin to introduce this other element, you are bringing a psychological element. The invitation should be in the message. We believe the Spirit applies the message, so we trust in the power of the Spirit. I personally agree with what has been said in the question. I have never called people forward at the end for this reason; there is a grave danger of people coming forward before they are ready to come forward. We do believe in the work of the Spirit, that He convicts and converts, and He will do His work. There is a danger in bringing people to a "birth," as it were, before they are ready for it. The Puritans in particular were afraid of what they would call "a temporary faith" or "a false profession." There was a great Puritan, Thomas Shepard, who published a famous series of sermons on The Ten Virgins. The great point of that book was to deal with this problem of a false profession. The foolish virgins thought they were all right. This is a very great danger. I can sum it up by putting it like this: I feel that this pressure which is put upon people to come forward in decision ultimately is due to a lack of faith in the work and operation of the Holy Spirit. We are to preach the Word, and if we do it properly, there will be a call to a decision that comes in the message, and then we leave it to the Spirit to act upon people. And of course He does. Some may come immediately at the close of the service to see the minister. I think there should always be an indication that the minister will be glad to see anybody who wants to put questions to him or wants further help. But that is a very different thing from putting pressure upon people to come forward. I feel it is wrong to put pressure directly on the will. The order in Scripture seems to be this – the truth is presented to the mind, which moves the heart, and that in turn moves the will.

Transcript TV Interview

This is the transcript of a televised interview from December 1970 between Dr Lloyd-Jones and Joan (now Dame Joan) Bakewell. The transcript is here.

Bakewell: Dr. Jones, you are an evangelical preacher and it is your wish to bring people back to the biblical truth about man. Now, in so doing, you persuade man that the modern popular idea of what man is is on the wrong track. Could you specify where you think he’s making mistakes?

Dr. Jones: Well, he makes mistake that thee essential biblical view of man is that he is a creature who has gone astray. In other words, I criticise the modern view of man on two grounds: One is that it makes too much of man. Secondly, that it doesn’t make enough of man. He doesn’t make enough of man, in that he tends to regard him as just an animal, but that the cerebellum is more developed than most animals, but still, essentially, an animal. And I think that’s degrading man and debasing him. But then, you see on the other side, they make too much of him, in the sense that they believe that he’s got it within himself to order himself and this society, and more or less, to create a perfect world. So, I criticise on both those grounds, whereas, the biblical view to me is a consistent view of man in this way: that it says that man is a creature created in the image and likeness of God; that he is not a mere animal. That he is the lord of creation; that the image of God, which means his reason and his power to criticise and evaluate, and to control himself. This image of God is in him, and that is man, essentially. Well then, why is man as he is? Well, that is because he’s rebelled against this, rebelled against God and regards himself as God- and he is incapable of functioning as such. The result is you’ve got chaos. But, this is a unified view.

Bakewell: Can we talk of the elements that you find wrong in the modern image of man. Now, you say that he’s treated as less than man, but, in respect to his animal instincts, and the research that has been done into man, as the naked ape, the victim of environment and heredity. Now, you cannot presumably quarrel with the actual facts that have been scientifically ascertained about this.

Dr. Jones: I would do a little query about the ‘scientifically ascertained’ .. See, so much today is as certain as fact in the realm of science, which is nothing but theory and hypothesis. This is one of the great troubles, it seems to me today. And, I’m not only sceptical about it, I tend to ridicule it for this reason, that I know in my medical training we were told, you see, that 100 years ago we regarded the thyroid gland as a vestigial remains, no function. But, we know now that you can’t live without it; and they’re still saying that about the appendix. They said this about so much; this is the arrogance of modern man. Because his knowledge is limited, he makes these wild assertions that can’t be proved. All I’m prepared to agree with is this: That man today is behaving like an animal. But the question is, why?

Bakewell: You say in one of your books that the very essence of the problem is in the nature of sin. And you also say that in fact sin has always been part of man’s nature, but sin used to be ashamed of itself, whereas today, sin excuses itself.

Dr. Jones: Well, yes. I don’t think I’ve ever said sin is an essential part of man. Man, I would say as the Bible teaches, was originally perfect. But, since man’s original fall, sin has been a part of human nature. And that has been true, of course, throughout the centuries. I would say that the story of humanity is just a proof of this fact, that man is sinful now by nature, and this is bound to show itself. Bakewell: What you quarrel with is that the initial assumption about man today is that he’s basically good, but he goes astray and blame must be put elsewhere. Now, indeed, there is some legitimacy in that point of view, in that poverty, and pressure, exploitation does set many problems for man in which he doesn’t always behave well. Will you not subscribe to it at all?

Dr. Jones: Yes. This is where we’ve got to start, with man as he is today. And my quarrel is, with the general outlook of today is this: that they begin to talk about treatment before they establish a true diagnosis. Now, I can’t help putting it like this, you see; it’s a very poor doctor who medicates symptoms and isn’t aware of the disease that is producing the symptoms. Well, to me, the disease is this fallen sinful nature of man. And because that is true, none of your medication of the symptoms is going to deal with the problem. And I maintain that this is what history is teaching us, that with all our advantages today, the problem is as great as ever.

Bakewell: What then is the nature of man’s sin that you wish us to recognise?

Dr. Jones: It is this. It isn’t so much that he does things that are wrong, and thereby makes himself miserable. No, I think this is an important point, if I may say so, I’m glad you asked that question. There are some people who represent sin as a sickness. and say that ‘man is sick’. There are a lot of Christians who would say this. Well, I agree that man is sick. But to me, that’s not the essence of the problem. The essence of the problem is that man is a rebel, and he is sick because he is a rebel. In other words, the business of Christianity, ultimately, is not simply to make us feel happier, or even to make us live a better life. It is to reconcile us to God. Man, you see, from this biblical standpoint, was never meant to be autonomous or self contained. This is my quarrel with the modern view. They regard man as autonomous- he is the master of his fate, the captain of his soul. It is so obviously ridiculous, because he isn’t. But, this is where they start. Whereas, I start by saying, that man was not only meant not to be autonomous, and can’t be and can’t act as such, but, he only functions truly when he lives his life under God; the God who made him, and made him in a given way and has put laws in his nature. Well, man doesn’t respond to this essential law of his being and is quarrelling with his maker; he’s bound to go wrong. He’s bound to be miserable in what he does. He’ll produce chaos. And he has done so throughout the centuries. This is the whole story of the human race. But, it isn’t merely that he’s sick; it’s that his attitude towards his maker is wrong. Now, the apostle Peter, for instance, puts it in a phrase like this, that Christ came into the world to bring us to God. That’s why Christianity must never be thought of of as a sort of cult which heals your body, enables you to sleep at night and stop worrying… now, that’s a cult. The real object is to bring man to his true position, which is that he’s in communion with his maker and he’s living to the glory of his maker. Now, there’s a very well known definition of this, a Scottish confession of faith, a Presbyterian confession of faith, known as the Westminster Confession of Faith. They produced a shorter catechism, and the first question in that is about man: ‘What is the chief end of man?’ And this is the answer: ‘The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.’ But, do you see the order? You glorify God. Well, let me put it in another way to you. A clever fellow, a lawyer, I don’t know why they tackled Jesus Christ, and said, ‘Which is the first and the greatest commandment of the law?’ You see, they were dealing with about 613 commandments, and they were arguing about which one is the greatest. Well, that fellow had a great shock when Christ answered him. He said, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength. That is the first and the chiefest commandment. The second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’ Now today, people start with the second and forget the first.

Bakewell: You know, this point of view is obviously held with great conviction by you. But, I would have thought it brought you into great conflict not only with people who don’t subscribe to the Christian religion, but to many other Christians too.

Dr. Jones: Well, of course it does. I’m sorry about this; this is something I deeply regret. But, you know, this isn’t the first time that my – have been right. And, in any case, we don’t decide this kind of question by counting heads. I know nothing about these things properly, except for what I find in the Bible. But, I maintain that the story of the human race, and the story of civilisation is a proof of the truth of the Bible.

Bakewell: But, what I would suggest is that whereas they would tolerate your point of view as rather different and divergent view of Christianity, you are unprepared to tolerate their view as a possible version of the truth

Dr. Jones: I am, of course I am. And I say this quite deliberately, for this reason: that Christianity is a very exclusive and dogmatic faith. Take the apostle Paul, for instance, writing- ‘Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you any other Gospel except that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.’ He puts it like that. Now, you may say, ‘That’s the arrogance of Paul.’ I say, ‘No, this man has been given his message, he has received it by revelation. It isn’t his point of view.’ If a man asserts his own point of view, as a result of his own thinking, in this intolerant manner, well, he’s a –, he’s not to be tolerated; he’s a hopeless fellow. But, when you are given truth, what you claim is truth from God, well, then you have no right to be anything but intolerant. When I find people insinuating their own theories and ideas, and using the name of Christ, well, I have to protest. This is dishonest, apart from anything else, in my opinion.

Bakewell: But, none the less, sir, it’s a highly regarded Christian virtue these days to be both charitable and tolerant with people of different views of oneself. Do you disapprove of that?

Dr. Jones: Again, for the same reason, I am bound to. Christ Himself said, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.’ He says all others have been thieves and robbers. So when I find the thieves and robbers being accepted into the church, and their views being tolerated and praised, surely I am bound to protest. The point is this, that Christ- we claim, I claim- is unique; you mustn’t put anybody near Him. You mustn’t mention Him in the same category as Confucius, or the Buddha, or Mohammad, or anybody else. Why not? Well, because He is the only begotten Son of God. This is not my theory; this is Christianity. This is what the apostles preached. They preached Jesus and the resurrection. Now, take a man like the apostle Paul; he, as a Pharisee, resented all this. The Pharisees regarded Christ as a blasphemer. ‘Who is this fellow? How can this man teach, never having learned Himself? Who is this man who claims to be equal with God?’ And Saul of Tarsus persecuted the church and he hated Christ. He says so. But then, he came to see that this was the Lord of glory. And he preached nothing else.

Bakewell: I must take you up on the social relevance of all the things you’ve been saying, because, if the church here on earth has a role to play in the lives of all people, whether Christian or not, and I wonder where the dogma, the dogmatic nature of the church, as you speak of it, doesn’t inhibit you from having a role in the lives of ordinary people. A lot of people would find it, in a sense, easier to reject you, than someone who you would regard as liberal social minded regimen?

Dr. Jones: Precisely. And that’s why the world is as it is. That’s exactly the explanation. You’ve put it very perfectly. Now, I cannot accept the statement that the church is a social institution in your sense. A church, to me, consists of people who are truly Christian. Now then, you say: What is the relevance of this to the social conditions and the problems? Well, I would say that it is the business of individual Christians to play their part in society. And, of course, historically, this is what is the most interesting. The church has had its greatest influence upon society and social conditions when she’s been most evangelical. Now, this isn’t, again, my theory. I can establish this. I was in Scotland last week, commemorating the 400th anniversary of the death of John Knox. You read the accounts of the conditions in Scotland before Knox, and he’s always charged with intolerance and all the things you were saying, but that man changed the life of the whole of Scotland. He introduced an educational system, He changed it politically, and in every respect. The Puritans did it in this country. Cromwell, don’t forget was an evangelical Christian. And then, you come on to the 18th century, you have the evangelical awakening, and the Whitley’s and the Wesley’s, that did more to improve social conditions in this country than all the dabbling of ecclesiastics in politics.

Bakewell: You know, and yet, it’s often alleged against evangelicals: They promise salvation at the end of life and don’t, in fact, apply themselves to relieving man’s lot here on earth. Now, how concerned are you with man’s lot here on earth?

Dr. Jones: Well, I’m very concerned and I’ve always criticised that particular presentation of evangelicalism. To me it wasn’t biblical. You see, the biblical view of man is that he’s to function in society. For instance, Paul’s teaching is that the powers that be are ordained of God. That magistrates, and all, are ordained by God. There are two elements in my position: Man fundamentally needs this Gospel, which can renew him and renovate him, and make a new man of him. But in the mean time, He’s a believer in law and order, because sin must be held within bounds. If you don’t have magistrates and punishment and so on, you’ll get chaos. And, I think we’re witnessing a great deal of it at the present time. But this is a part of the whole Christian position. And Christian people, in the past, have played their part in politics and in various other aspects of Christian life. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years or so, I agree, they have been somewhat guilty of the charge that you bring against them. By now, I think, that’s more or less gone. I find today that most evangelical Christians are very much concerned about the social implications and are laying a great stress upon it.

Bakewell: Can we go back to this matter on ‘man having lost his sense of sin’, and therefore not being in a situation of being able to be saved? I would say, a great many people now feel that matters of sin are less than their immediate concern. And that being so, do you see much possibility of your point of view prevailing?

Dr. Jones: I not only see the possibility, I already see it happening. I find people are turning back to this. I’m travelling about the country a great deal now. I was telling you, I was in Scotland last week, I was in Glasgow Wednesday night; I preached to 2,100 people. Well, it seems to me that something’s happening. I find, politicians, have it very difficult to get 50 people to listen to them. In other words, I believe, people are beginning to realise the utter bankruptcy of most of what’s been offered them, and are turning, perhaps vaguely, and even wistfully back in the direction of this great authoritative message of the New Testament, which I maintain is only represented by the evangelical – and we’ve got to bring them to an awareness of this. Of course they’re ignorant, but that’s the business of preaching.

Bakewell: But, isn’t this need for an authoritative line, whatever it might be, in conflict with the other trend in man’s development, which is for self expression, fulfilment, self realisation, which you actually disapprove of?

Dr. Jones: Well, yes, of course I do, because man as he is, the more he expresses himself, the worst things become. You see, if each man is autonomous, and is to express himself or herself, you’re bound to get conflict, aren’t you? If each one of us is a god, and I determine I do what I think is right, well, you would think differently. Well, there’s a clashing immediately and you get chaos. You see, we must both of us, unto all others submit ourselves to God. We’ve got an authority outside of ourselves. And we have a motive and a reason and a purpose. You see, when people deny this, you must get chaos. And you’ve got it. This is the tragedy. And so, my business is to call people back to this. You’ve got, first of all, to show them why things are as they are. They’ve got to be clear about this. There’s no hope until they are. Now, I know that there are people going around today saying, ‘Jesus loves you…’ and so on. Well, if I was to be on the street, I would say, ‘Well, what about it? Who is your Jesus? I don’t want Him. I’ve got a car, I’ve got a refrigerator, I’ve got a television set; what are you bothering about? I’m not interested.’ That is my reply to them. You see, the Old Testament is the law, and as Paul puts it: the law was our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, to show us our need. Now, when people confront the 10 commandments, there they see their failure. And it’s only when they realise this, truly, they see their failure. And it’s only people who see their failure, who are ready to listen to the offer of salvation

Bakewell: Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones, thank you very much.