Since at Broadlands communion with devils through spiritualism found an
important place, it is not surprising that Grubb was by no means the only
heretic who used the ecumenicalism of Keswick to spread doctrines of demons.[1] “James Mountain, Keswick’s early
song-leader,” who led the singing at “the Brighton Convention of 1875, and at
the first Keswick” and many following meetings, “subscribed to British
Israelism[2]
. . . for forty years.”[3] The “liberal evangelicalism” that denied the
verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture and other key tenets of Christian
orthodoxy found its place at Keswick among men such as John Battersby Harford,
the “most prominent of the [Keswick] founder’s sons.”[4] Keswick council members had “no agreement
about the appropriateness of [the] term . . . ‘inerrancy’” for the Holy Bible;
indeed, Keswick President Graham Scroggie “stated that subscription to a
particular theory of inspiration was not . . . a true test of doctrinal
orthodoxy.”[5]
important place, it is not surprising that Grubb was by no means the only
heretic who used the ecumenicalism of Keswick to spread doctrines of demons.[1] “James Mountain, Keswick’s early
song-leader,” who led the singing at “the Brighton Convention of 1875, and at
the first Keswick” and many following meetings, “subscribed to British
Israelism[2]
. . . for forty years.”[3] The “liberal evangelicalism” that denied the
verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture and other key tenets of Christian
orthodoxy found its place at Keswick among men such as John Battersby Harford,
the “most prominent of the [Keswick] founder’s sons.”[4] Keswick council members had “no agreement
about the appropriateness of [the] term . . . ‘inerrancy’” for the Holy Bible;
indeed, Keswick President Graham Scroggie “stated that subscription to a
particular theory of inspiration was not . . . a true test of doctrinal
orthodoxy.”[5]
In 1894, “John R. Mott, an American who became the foremost
international and ecumenical misionary figure of his time, was at the Keswick
camp.”[6] Sadhu Sundar Singh, who “was converted to
Christianity by a vision on 18 Dec. 1904 . . . and donned the robe of a Sadhu
(i.e. ‘holy man’) in an endeavour to present Christianity in a Hindu form,”[7] and
who “claim[ed]
to have received many visions and experienced many miracles”[8] validating his
Hindu-Christian syncretism, spoke at Keswick despite “sympathy towards Hinduism
and Spiritualism.”[9] Key Keswick leaders manifested a very
spiritually dangerous willingness to share platforms at Holiness Conventions
and other settings with false teachers and fanatical perfectionists—for example,
shortly before speaking at Keswick in 1886, Handley Moule and other Keswick
speakers preached at a Convention at Cambridge organized by Douglas Hamilton
with the unabashed perfectionist Smyth-Piggott, as a result of which many
Cambridge undergraduates, including Charles Harford, Canon Harford-Battersby’s
youngest son, came to believe
“themselves to be quite free from all internal evil.” A few months later,
Hamilton joined the Agapemonites,[10]
and “[w]hen Pigott joined him . . . the extremist wing of Holiness made
shipwreck.”[11] As time passed, the Pentecostal movement
found a home at Keswick, so that by the 1960s Keswick, along with its
association with the wider ecumenical movement,[12]
invited charismatics to speak at the Convention, while their ministers became
part of the Keswick council itself.[13] Doctrinal confusion and apostasy has found a secure
home in the ecumenical atmosphere of the Keswick Convention from the time of
its founding. Keswick ecumenicalism has
never been purged out. On the contrary,
ecumenicalism has constantly been rejoiced in and fostered.
international and ecumenical misionary figure of his time, was at the Keswick
camp.”[6] Sadhu Sundar Singh, who “was converted to
Christianity by a vision on 18 Dec. 1904 . . . and donned the robe of a Sadhu
(i.e. ‘holy man’) in an endeavour to present Christianity in a Hindu form,”[7] and
who “claim[ed]
to have received many visions and experienced many miracles”[8] validating his
Hindu-Christian syncretism, spoke at Keswick despite “sympathy towards Hinduism
and Spiritualism.”[9] Key Keswick leaders manifested a very
spiritually dangerous willingness to share platforms at Holiness Conventions
and other settings with false teachers and fanatical perfectionists—for example,
shortly before speaking at Keswick in 1886, Handley Moule and other Keswick
speakers preached at a Convention at Cambridge organized by Douglas Hamilton
with the unabashed perfectionist Smyth-Piggott, as a result of which many
Cambridge undergraduates, including Charles Harford, Canon Harford-Battersby’s
youngest son, came to believe
“themselves to be quite free from all internal evil.” A few months later,
Hamilton joined the Agapemonites,[10]
and “[w]hen Pigott joined him . . . the extremist wing of Holiness made
shipwreck.”[11] As time passed, the Pentecostal movement
found a home at Keswick, so that by the 1960s Keswick, along with its
association with the wider ecumenical movement,[12]
invited charismatics to speak at the Convention, while their ministers became
part of the Keswick council itself.[13] Doctrinal confusion and apostasy has found a secure
home in the ecumenical atmosphere of the Keswick Convention from the time of
its founding. Keswick ecumenicalism has
never been purged out. On the contrary,
ecumenicalism has constantly been rejoiced in and fostered.
While Keswick rejects separatism for
ecumenicalism, Scripture never commands individuals or true churches to ignore
Biblical doctrine to come together in an ecumenical setting. Rather, God requires a strict separation of
the faithful from false teachers and even disobedient brethren. They are to be
separate from all false doctrine, false teachers, and error. So far from ignoring such, they must, to
honor the Lord, specifically mark and reprove error and those who advocate it.[14] Keswick denigrates creed to exalt conduct in
relation to spiritual life, while Scripture exalts both creed and conduct (1
John 3:7, 14; 2 John 9) in relation to spiritual life. Faithful Biblical preaching deals with all that
is in the Word, whether it is “in season” or “out of season” (2 Timothy
3:16-4:2), but Keswick speakers “consider themselves pledged . . . not to teach
during the course of any Keswick Convention any doctrines or opinions but those
upon which there is general agreement [at the Convention]. . . . Speakers are
not permitted to discuss controversial matters at the Convention.”[15] Contrary to Keswick, true churches must
tolerate “no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3), not overlook doctrine to become
ecumenical. The fact that Keswick fails
to expose, but rather tolerates and supports[16]
the heresies of Protestant denominations, such as the baptismal regeneration
that plagues the large majority of the paedobaptist world,[17]
is a great failure on its part.
Keswick’s utter lack of strict association with the modern
representatives of the congregations of the New Testament—historic Baptist
churches—leaves the movement apart from the authority of the pillar and ground
of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and the work of spiritual edification that God
has ordained take place within that context (Ephesians 4:11-16). The movement thus lacks the promise which the
Biblical Baptist congregation possesses—that Christ would build up or edify His
church (Matthew 16:18).[18] As a result, error can take root firmly and
easily at Keswick as the movement is without the special protection that Christ
provides as Head of His congregation.
ecumenicalism, Scripture never commands individuals or true churches to ignore
Biblical doctrine to come together in an ecumenical setting. Rather, God requires a strict separation of
the faithful from false teachers and even disobedient brethren. They are to be
separate from all false doctrine, false teachers, and error. So far from ignoring such, they must, to
honor the Lord, specifically mark and reprove error and those who advocate it.[14] Keswick denigrates creed to exalt conduct in
relation to spiritual life, while Scripture exalts both creed and conduct (1
John 3:7, 14; 2 John 9) in relation to spiritual life. Faithful Biblical preaching deals with all that
is in the Word, whether it is “in season” or “out of season” (2 Timothy
3:16-4:2), but Keswick speakers “consider themselves pledged . . . not to teach
during the course of any Keswick Convention any doctrines or opinions but those
upon which there is general agreement [at the Convention]. . . . Speakers are
not permitted to discuss controversial matters at the Convention.”[15] Contrary to Keswick, true churches must
tolerate “no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3), not overlook doctrine to become
ecumenical. The fact that Keswick fails
to expose, but rather tolerates and supports[16]
the heresies of Protestant denominations, such as the baptismal regeneration
that plagues the large majority of the paedobaptist world,[17]
is a great failure on its part.
Keswick’s utter lack of strict association with the modern
representatives of the congregations of the New Testament—historic Baptist
churches—leaves the movement apart from the authority of the pillar and ground
of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and the work of spiritual edification that God
has ordained take place within that context (Ephesians 4:11-16). The movement thus lacks the promise which the
Biblical Baptist congregation possesses—that Christ would build up or edify His
church (Matthew 16:18).[18] As a result, error can take root firmly and
easily at Keswick as the movement is without the special protection that Christ
provides as Head of His congregation.
See here for this entire study.
[1] See further, e. g., the biographical studies in the
section “Keswick and Continuationism” below.
section “Keswick and Continuationism” below.
[2] British
Israelism, the view adopted by the Identity Movement, Aryan and Neo-Nazi
groups, the Ku Klux Klan, and cults such as anti-Trinitarian segregationist
Herbert W. Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God, teaches the following:
Israelism, the view adopted by the Identity Movement, Aryan and Neo-Nazi
groups, the Ku Klux Klan, and cults such as anti-Trinitarian segregationist
Herbert W. Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God, teaches the following:
[British Israelism is a]
fanciful theory which holds that Great Britain is really the Israelite tribe of
Ephraim, the United States is Manasseh, and the British throne is the throne of
David. British Israelism (B.I.) has constructed a theory, which it passes off
as history, that makes the British and American white populations direct
descendants of the Israelites from the dispersion period. . . . [A]rguments [in
its favor] are purely imaginary. . . . The entire theory of the ten lost tribes
is a myth also. According to B.I., the ten northern tribes were lost and were
not included in the regathering with Judah after the exile. But according to
Luke 2:36, Anna was of the northern tribe of Asher. In Acts 26:7 Paul mentions
the presence of “our twelve tribes,” indicating that none of them had been “lost.”
B.I. exhibits an arbitrary exegesis of Scripture married to a fairy-tale
tradition posing as history and has produced one of the most baseless and
absurd varieties of Bible study that the human mind has yet produced. (pgs. 70-71,
Dictionary
of Theological Terms, Alan
Cairns. Greenville, SC: Ambassador
Emerald International, 2002)
fanciful theory which holds that Great Britain is really the Israelite tribe of
Ephraim, the United States is Manasseh, and the British throne is the throne of
David. British Israelism (B.I.) has constructed a theory, which it passes off
as history, that makes the British and American white populations direct
descendants of the Israelites from the dispersion period. . . . [A]rguments [in
its favor] are purely imaginary. . . . The entire theory of the ten lost tribes
is a myth also. According to B.I., the ten northern tribes were lost and were
not included in the regathering with Judah after the exile. But according to
Luke 2:36, Anna was of the northern tribe of Asher. In Acts 26:7 Paul mentions
the presence of “our twelve tribes,” indicating that none of them had been “lost.”
B.I. exhibits an arbitrary exegesis of Scripture married to a fairy-tale
tradition posing as history and has produced one of the most baseless and
absurd varieties of Bible study that the human mind has yet produced. (pgs. 70-71,
Dictionary
of Theological Terms, Alan
Cairns. Greenville, SC: Ambassador
Emerald International, 2002)
[3] Pgs. 83, 134, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Note that early Pentecostal leaders from Charles Parham to George
Jeffryes similarly believed in British Israelism (See, e. g., pg. 253, The Making of the Modern Church:
Christianity in England since 1800, B. G. Worrall. London: SPCK, 1993; “Parham, Charles Fox,” in
Dictionary of Christianity in America,
Daniel G. Reid et al. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.).
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Note that early Pentecostal leaders from Charles Parham to George
Jeffryes similarly believed in British Israelism (See, e. g., pg. 253, The Making of the Modern Church:
Christianity in England since 1800, B. G. Worrall. London: SPCK, 1993; “Parham, Charles Fox,” in
Dictionary of Christianity in America,
Daniel G. Reid et al. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.).
[4] Pg. 137, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall; pg. 150, The Keswick Story: The
Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall; pg. 150, The Keswick Story: The
Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
[5] See pgs. 64-69, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[6] Pg. 117, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[7] Pg. 1568, The
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev.), F. L. Cross,
& E. A. Livingstone.
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev.), F. L. Cross,
& E. A. Livingstone.
[8] Pg. 647, Who’s Who
in Christian History, ed. J. Douglas & P. W. Comfort.
in Christian History, ed. J. Douglas & P. W. Comfort.
[9] Pg. 175, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[10] The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church notes:
Dictionary of the Christian Church notes:
[The] Church of the . . .
Agapemone . . . [was a] small 19th-cent. English sect. It was founded by Henry
James Prince (1811–99), who in 1840 was ordained as curate of Charlynch . . .
in Somerset. Together with his rector, Samuel Starky, he started a revivalist
movement which soon resulted in illusions of the grossest kind. Both left the
Church of England and began a ministry of their own, asserting that they were
the Holy Spirit personified, the Two Witnesses of Rev. 11, or Elijah. In 1849
they opened the “Agapemone” or “Abode of Love” in the village of Spaxton (in
Somerset), being amply supported by their followers, who believed Prince to be
a Divine being. The morals of the sect caused great scandal, and a trial in
1860 revealed the licentiousness of Prince and his followers. In the early
1890s the sect conducted a campaign in Clapton in NE London, calling themselves
the “Children of the Resurrection.” J. H. Smyth-Pigott, Prince’s successor in
the leadership, proclaimed himself to be Christ. The sect disappeared early in
the 20th century. (pg. 27, The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd rev. ed., Cross &
Livingstone)
Agapemone . . . [was a] small 19th-cent. English sect. It was founded by Henry
James Prince (1811–99), who in 1840 was ordained as curate of Charlynch . . .
in Somerset. Together with his rector, Samuel Starky, he started a revivalist
movement which soon resulted in illusions of the grossest kind. Both left the
Church of England and began a ministry of their own, asserting that they were
the Holy Spirit personified, the Two Witnesses of Rev. 11, or Elijah. In 1849
they opened the “Agapemone” or “Abode of Love” in the village of Spaxton (in
Somerset), being amply supported by their followers, who believed Prince to be
a Divine being. The morals of the sect caused great scandal, and a trial in
1860 revealed the licentiousness of Prince and his followers. In the early
1890s the sect conducted a campaign in Clapton in NE London, calling themselves
the “Children of the Resurrection.” J. H. Smyth-Pigott, Prince’s successor in
the leadership, proclaimed himself to be Christ. The sect disappeared early in
the 20th century. (pg. 27, The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd rev. ed., Cross &
Livingstone)
Likewise, the New International Dictionary of the
Christian Church records:
Christian Church records:
Agapemonism
[was a] religious movement founded by Henry James Prince (1811–99), an
evangelical perfectionist. Ordained in 1840, Prince became a curate first in
the Bath and Wells diocese and later in the diocese of Ely. Both bishops
inhibited him. It was probably in 1843 that he began to make extravagant
statements which gave the impression that he was claiming to be in some sense
an incarnation of God. A community was formed at Spaxton where a magnificent
residence was acquired and called Agapemone (Abode of Love). Prince declared
that community of goods was binding upon believers, and numerous devotees
handed over their property to him. The legal case Nottidge v. Prince
revealed grave disorders, and the movement was generally discredited, though
Prince and a number of followers continued to live in the Agapemone. In the
1890s the movement enjoyed a revival under J.H. Smyth-Pigott, formerly a curate
of St. Jude’s, Mildmay Park. Calling themselves “Children of the Resurrection,”
his followers built a meeting place known as the “Ark of the Resurrection.” In
1902 Smyth-Pigott proclaimed himself to be Jesus Christ, and the movement lost
its vogue. Some of Prince’s writings breathe a spirit of devotion to Christ,
but they are marred by an erotic element. Regarding himself and Samuel Starky,
his former Somerset rector, as the two witnesses of Revelation 11, Prince
proclaimed the doom of Christendom, for example in The Council of God in Judgment. (“Agapemonism,” in The New International Dictionary of the
Christian Church, gen. ed. J. D. Douglas)
[was a] religious movement founded by Henry James Prince (1811–99), an
evangelical perfectionist. Ordained in 1840, Prince became a curate first in
the Bath and Wells diocese and later in the diocese of Ely. Both bishops
inhibited him. It was probably in 1843 that he began to make extravagant
statements which gave the impression that he was claiming to be in some sense
an incarnation of God. A community was formed at Spaxton where a magnificent
residence was acquired and called Agapemone (Abode of Love). Prince declared
that community of goods was binding upon believers, and numerous devotees
handed over their property to him. The legal case Nottidge v. Prince
revealed grave disorders, and the movement was generally discredited, though
Prince and a number of followers continued to live in the Agapemone. In the
1890s the movement enjoyed a revival under J.H. Smyth-Pigott, formerly a curate
of St. Jude’s, Mildmay Park. Calling themselves “Children of the Resurrection,”
his followers built a meeting place known as the “Ark of the Resurrection.” In
1902 Smyth-Pigott proclaimed himself to be Jesus Christ, and the movement lost
its vogue. Some of Prince’s writings breathe a spirit of devotion to Christ,
but they are marred by an erotic element. Regarding himself and Samuel Starky,
his former Somerset rector, as the two witnesses of Revelation 11, Prince
proclaimed the doom of Christendom, for example in The Council of God in Judgment. (“Agapemonism,” in The New International Dictionary of the
Christian Church, gen. ed. J. D. Douglas)
Since
Oliphant and Smyth-Pigott held Holiness missions together, one would expect the
presence of the Agapemonite sect’s erotic elements (which included “spiritual”
wives with whom very physical immorality was committed). The Agapemonites also supported many other
shameful and unspeakable abominations (pg. 68, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck; cf. “Agapemone,”
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/453-agapemone).
Oliphant and Smyth-Pigott held Holiness missions together, one would expect the
presence of the Agapemonite sect’s erotic elements (which included “spiritual”
wives with whom very physical immorality was committed). The Agapemonites also supported many other
shameful and unspeakable abominations (pg. 68, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck; cf. “Agapemone,”
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/453-agapemone).
[11] Pgs. 71-72, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Charles Harford later renounced Smyth-Piggot perfectionism.
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Charles Harford later renounced Smyth-Piggot perfectionism.
[12] Pg. 79, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall; pg. 130, The Keswick Story: The
Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall; pg. 130, The Keswick Story: The
Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
[13] Pgs. 251-2, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[14] Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 5:11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1;
2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14; 2 Timothy 3:5.
2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14; 2 Timothy 3:5.
[15] Pg. 35, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[16] For example, Barabas records that Keswick’s influence on
H. W. Webb-Peploe’s congregation resulted in their increasing ten-fold their
contributions to the Anglican Church Missionary Society, where Webb-Peploe was
a Committee member. Barabas fails to
mention that the Society supported both charismatics and men who preached and
associated with a sacramental false gospel and other soul-damning heresies (cf.
pg. 165, So Great Salvation, Barabas;
pg. 11, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick
Convention, Polluck pg. 158, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall).
The natural, Biblical expectation mentioned by Barabas that “the Church
Missionary Society would get no more out of that church ‘now that a revivalist
had come,’” was, unfortunately, disappointed.
Rather, “the C. M. S. . . . [was among] the earliest [societies] to
recognize Keswick’s value” (pg. 85, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck).
Webb-Peploe had been associated with the Higher Life and Keswick
theology from the time of its founding at the first Broadlands Conference (pg. 148, Memorials [of William Francis
Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890; but see pg. 29, Forward Movements, Pierson).
H. W. Webb-Peploe’s congregation resulted in their increasing ten-fold their
contributions to the Anglican Church Missionary Society, where Webb-Peploe was
a Committee member. Barabas fails to
mention that the Society supported both charismatics and men who preached and
associated with a sacramental false gospel and other soul-damning heresies (cf.
pg. 165, So Great Salvation, Barabas;
pg. 11, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick
Convention, Polluck pg. 158, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall).
The natural, Biblical expectation mentioned by Barabas that “the Church
Missionary Society would get no more out of that church ‘now that a revivalist
had come,’” was, unfortunately, disappointed.
Rather, “the C. M. S. . . . [was among] the earliest [societies] to
recognize Keswick’s value” (pg. 85, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck).
Webb-Peploe had been associated with the Higher Life and Keswick
theology from the time of its founding at the first Broadlands Conference (pg. 148, Memorials [of William Francis
Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890; but see pg. 29, Forward Movements, Pierson).
[17] Compare pgs. 1-10, Heaven
Only For the Baptized? The Gospel of Christ versus Baptismal Regeneration
and “Were the Reformers Heretics?” by Thomas Ross. Elec. acc. http://faithsaves.net.
Only For the Baptized? The Gospel of Christ versus Baptismal Regeneration
and “Were the Reformers Heretics?” by Thomas Ross. Elec. acc. http://faithsaves.net.
[18] The defender of Keswick ecumenicalism can appeal in vain
to the alleged command of Christ for unity within the universal church, for
such an entity is itself another error and false doctrine Protestantism has taken
from its corrupt Roman Catholic fountain.
For representative refutations of the universal church dogma, see Ecclesia, B. H. Carroll (Emmaus, PA:
Challenge Press, n. d. reprint ed.; The Myth of the Universal, Invisible Church
Theory Exploded, Roy Mason (Emmaus, PA: Challenge Press, 2003) & Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine, Robert
Sargent, Vol. 4 (Oak Harbor, WA: Bible Baptist Church Publications,
1990), pgs. 481-542. Erroneous
ecclesiology also leads the Keswick theology into an erroneous view of the connection
of Spirit baptism and sanctification (cf. the exegetical analysis in the
chapter, “Spirit Baptism: A Completed Historical Event. An Exposition and
Defense of the Historic Baptist View of Spirit Baptism”).
to the alleged command of Christ for unity within the universal church, for
such an entity is itself another error and false doctrine Protestantism has taken
from its corrupt Roman Catholic fountain.
For representative refutations of the universal church dogma, see Ecclesia, B. H. Carroll (Emmaus, PA:
Challenge Press, n. d. reprint ed.; The Myth of the Universal, Invisible Church
Theory Exploded, Roy Mason (Emmaus, PA: Challenge Press, 2003) & Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine, Robert
Sargent, Vol. 4 (Oak Harbor, WA: Bible Baptist Church Publications,
1990), pgs. 481-542. Erroneous
ecclesiology also leads the Keswick theology into an erroneous view of the connection
of Spirit baptism and sanctification (cf. the exegetical analysis in the
chapter, “Spirit Baptism: A Completed Historical Event. An Exposition and
Defense of the Historic Baptist View of Spirit Baptism”).
Why do the footnotes to this article mention the tribe of Asher? I'm confused on this one. Luke 2:36 and Revelation 7:6 talk about the tribe of Aser, but not Asher. Was this a typo?
I'm not saying I'm necessarily correct. Are there two different spellings: Asher and Aser?
Dear Anonymous,
Yes, "Aser" and "Asher" are alternative spellings, both referring to the same son of Jacob and his tribe.
Thanks.
Just to shed some light on the reason for the alternative spellings:
The Old Testament was translated to English from Hebrew (and a small amount of Aramaic)
The New Testament was translated from Greek
When you go from one language to another, there are different sounds available. One major difference between Hebrew and Greek is the fact that Greek has no "sh" sound.
When a name is brought from Hebrew to Greek, any "sh" sounds are changed to "s" because Greek has no "sh".
The correct English translation of the Hebrew is Asher. The correct English translation of the Roman representation is Aser.
I hope this clarifies things.
Thomas, Kent, or anyone else, feel free to add to this or correct any mistake I made about this.
You are correct that the KJV is literally translating the Greek NT into English while the Hebrew OT is literally translated in the KJV and this explains the difference between the spellings. I wouldn't say that there is only one, universal reason why sounds go one way vs. the other, but it is why the Lord is "Jesus" in English, "Jésus" in Spanish, "Iesous" in Greek, and "Yehoshua/Joshua" in Hebrew.
Thank you for the input, posters.
What would be the reason for Revelation 7:6 being "Manasses" in the KJV instead of "Manasseh" like it is in most if not all other versions?
Yes, "Manasses" is a transliteration of the Greek, and it is why the KJV has that reading in Rev 7:6.
Thanks.