Romans — By Dr. M. Lloyd-Jones, Banner of Truth, £1.95.
In previous reviews we have felt justified in giving Dr. M. Lloyd-Jones a well deserved mead of praise, as an able and faithful expositor of the Word of God. This volume, we regret to say, fails, in our view to merit similar commendation because of faulty argumentation, exposition and doctrine. The study of this work, has left us in no doubt as to the diligence and earnestness of the author, but there are several points to which we cannot subscribe.
I. In his preface, we are duly cautioned against the danger of the subjective, or experimental approach to this chapter. No sooner had we read the caveat, than the words of Psalm 73 verse 15, came to mind:
“If I say I will speak thus; behold, I should offend against the generation of thy children.” Against this hazard, we think the Doctor should be immediately warned. He who feels himself disposed and equipped to set his own “waverings” judgment against the age-long experiences and convictions of the godly, need not be surprised if he finds himself in logical and doctrinal difficulties from which he cannot extricate himself. To find one’s self at variance with ‘that godly generation,’ furnishes a strong presumption that it is we who are in error, and not they.
II. Further, we cannot agree with the writer’s contention that the Apostle is not describing his own experience in Romans chapter 7 — quite the contrary. Apart from the common and obvious meaning of the first personal pronoun, we are convinced that the heart rending cry of sheer disgust, self dissatisfaction and wretchedness is clearly wrung from Paul’s own heart — the heart that he knew better than any other. The depths of honesty to confess, as well as insight into his own heart, plus the poignancy of the grief stricken cry, are, we consider, genuine evidences of a soul hungering and thirsting after a perfection in sanctification, only to be realised in glory.
III. The affirmation that the man of Romans 7 is definitely un-regenerate followed by the statement that he is as definitely regenerate, is a contradiction in terms, and does not make sense. Should such confusion in thought and terminology not cause the author to have second thoughts on the whole subject?
IV. The difficulty in assigning this ‘man’ to his proper place, speaks for itself, but the final contention, that the ‘man’ is not fully regenerate, is, we reckon, doctrinally unsound. There is sense in the phrase — not fully
sanctified — but no sense in the term, not fully regenerate. The doctor has evidently confused the act of regeneration with the work of sanctification, although, strangely enough, he maintains that if Romans 7 refers to the regenerate man, we exclude the doctrine of sanctification altogether. Here, we think, is confusion worse confounded.
V. To us it appears that the Doctor’s errors and difficulties stem, not so much from his approach to the subject matter, as from his obsession with that particular form of approach which he so frequently commended, and no doubt used to good effect in the past.
VI. To separate the cry of wretchedness from the shout of gratitude, appears to us to be utterly unwarranted. Surely it is not without significance that, contextually, they are found in such close proximity. Is the writer trying to divide the inseparable? We fail to see any logical, exegetical, doctrinal, or experimental reason for so doing.
VII. In fine the author has failed to grasp the paradox of true Christian experience. Advancing in grace, leads invariably to an increase in the knowledge of sin, but what must not be forgotten is, that with that ever deepening knowledge, there is a corresponding growth in the knowledge of Christ, giving rise in turn to a deeper sense of indebtedness to, and appreciation of the grace of God.
F.M.