Home » Uncategorized » Keswick’s Biblical Strengths: where Keswick is Correct, in an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 3 of 4
The content of this post is now available at the link viewable by clicking here. It combines all the parts of this series of blog posts in one file. Please view the material at that link. This part covers from the words: Perhaps the clearest way to indicate the positive truths affirmed by both Keswick and its critics … they were by no means the
peculiar possession of the Kewick theology.
"Jesus our Priest and our Sacrifice, let us keep our eyes set on Him! And though our poor sinful hearts so little know how to yield to that great spectacle the homage of a suitable response, His blood will yet avail even for us.
“Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to Thy cross I cling”—
here—and let us bless God for it—here is the essence of Christianity."
This is very well said.
Chasing a rabbit… Thomas, having read of Augustine, do you consider him a saved man?
Thanks for the comment. May brethren that are against Keswick theology, as Warfield was, take the same stand for vital piety that he took.
By the way, I have seen many Keswick people misrepresenting Warfield as an advocate of self dependence, faithlessness, etc. It appears that very rarely have they taken the time to put down their Watchman Nee and Hannah W. Smith to actually read what Wafield said.
Regrettably, Augustine appears to clearly have been an advocate for Roman Catholic ecclesiology. He wrote a whole book against the Donatists arguing that outside the Catholic church there is no salvation. Based on Galatians 1:8–9, he is anathema. Where the Reformed follow Augustine is in his doctrine of grace – Augustine believed that the elect, who were only members of the Roman Catholic Church and no one else, were unconditionally elected, and if they sinned and lost their salvation, they would get it back before they died. He is about the closest you can come to Calvinism among the patristic writers, and it is not especially close. Augustine, therefore, had a somewhat Reformed doctrine of grace and a definitely Roman Catholic ecclesiology.
"Jesus our Priest and our Sacrifice, let us keep our eyes set on Him! And though our poor sinful hearts so little know how to yield to that great spectacle the homage of a suitable response, His blood will yet avail even for us.
“Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to Thy cross I cling”—
here—and let us bless God for it—here is the essence of Christianity."
This is very well said.
Chasing a rabbit… Thomas, having read of Augustine, do you consider him a saved man?
Dear Bro Camp,
Thanks for the comment. May brethren that are against Keswick theology, as Warfield was, take the same stand for vital piety that he took.
By the way, I have seen many Keswick people misrepresenting Warfield as an advocate of self dependence, faithlessness, etc. It appears that very rarely have they taken the time to put down their Watchman Nee and Hannah W. Smith to actually read what Wafield said.
Regrettably, Augustine appears to clearly have been an advocate for Roman Catholic ecclesiology. He wrote a whole book against the Donatists arguing that outside the Catholic church there is no salvation. Based on Galatians 1:8–9, he is anathema. Where the Reformed follow Augustine is in his doctrine of grace – Augustine believed that the elect, who were only members of the Roman Catholic Church and no one else, were unconditionally elected, and if they sinned and lost their salvation, they would get it back before they died. He is about the closest you can come to Calvinism among the patristic writers, and it is not especially close. Augustine, therefore, had a somewhat Reformed doctrine of grace and a definitely Roman Catholic ecclesiology.
"Warfield" should be above, not "Wafield."