Additionally,
the related Keswick idea that, in this life, “sin . . . need not be a continued
source of trouble,”[1] is
likewise unbiblical. Such a concept lays
the groundwork for either self-deception in the believer who thinks he has
arrived at such a state of complete triumph over sin, or for hopeless despair
in the believer who knows his own heart too well to make such an
affirmation. The support by Keswick
leaders of such ideas, along with their unabashed affirmations of the truth of
perfectionism,[2] explain
why “from the first, opponents of Keswick have accused it of holding a shallow
view of sin. . . . [and of being] perfectionist.”[3] Indeed, Scripture does not present
progressive sanctification as an instantaneous transition from a state of utter
defeat to one of total victory.
Likewise, the fact that sinless perfection is impossible in this life is
Biblically a motive to continue striving for ever-greater progressive victory
against sin—not, as is commonly argued by many groups of perfectionists, a
reason to give up the fight in despair.[4]
Barabas states: “The value of a system
of thought or of a doctrine therefore depends upon the manner in which it
proposes to deal with the problem of sin.
Any failure here means failure all along the line.”[5] Unfortunately, the Keswick theology does not
properly deal with sin. While some who
have been helped spiritually because of Keswick preaching are blessedly
inconsistent, consistent belief that sin no longer need trouble the believer is
only possible by disregarding the true nature of sin or by adopting
perfectionism. Furthermore, to the
extent that Keswick lowers the standard of God’s requirement from literal and
absolute sinlessness to a lower and subjective standard of “known sin” that
downplays the evils of sins of ignorance,[6]
it leads believers to be satisfied with less than what God requires and
discourages them from striving after the actual standard of perfect conformity
to the absolute holiness of the Most High.[7]
the related Keswick idea that, in this life, “sin . . . need not be a continued
source of trouble,”[1] is
likewise unbiblical. Such a concept lays
the groundwork for either self-deception in the believer who thinks he has
arrived at such a state of complete triumph over sin, or for hopeless despair
in the believer who knows his own heart too well to make such an
affirmation. The support by Keswick
leaders of such ideas, along with their unabashed affirmations of the truth of
perfectionism,[2] explain
why “from the first, opponents of Keswick have accused it of holding a shallow
view of sin. . . . [and of being] perfectionist.”[3] Indeed, Scripture does not present
progressive sanctification as an instantaneous transition from a state of utter
defeat to one of total victory.
Likewise, the fact that sinless perfection is impossible in this life is
Biblically a motive to continue striving for ever-greater progressive victory
against sin—not, as is commonly argued by many groups of perfectionists, a
reason to give up the fight in despair.[4]
Barabas states: “The value of a system
of thought or of a doctrine therefore depends upon the manner in which it
proposes to deal with the problem of sin.
Any failure here means failure all along the line.”[5] Unfortunately, the Keswick theology does not
properly deal with sin. While some who
have been helped spiritually because of Keswick preaching are blessedly
inconsistent, consistent belief that sin no longer need trouble the believer is
only possible by disregarding the true nature of sin or by adopting
perfectionism. Furthermore, to the
extent that Keswick lowers the standard of God’s requirement from literal and
absolute sinlessness to a lower and subjective standard of “known sin” that
downplays the evils of sins of ignorance,[6]
it leads believers to be satisfied with less than what God requires and
discourages them from striving after the actual standard of perfect conformity
to the absolute holiness of the Most High.[7]
Associated
with the Keswick idea that sin need no longer trouble believers who have
entered into the Higher Life is the Pelagianizing and perfectionist idea,
adopted by Keswick from the Broadlands Conference,[8]
that the obligation of the believer to obey God is coextensive with his ability
to do so.[9] “A saying frequently heard at Keswick is
this[:] ‘God’s commandment is his enablement,’ meaning that God never issues a
command that He does not give us grace to fulfil.”[10] The Keswick theology asks, “Does God
therefore make demands of human beings that they cannot fulfil? Does He expect of them conduct beyond their
reach? . . . God’s requirements cannot be greater than His enablements. If they were, man would be mocked. . . . What
He demands He makes possible.”[11] Barabas cites no texts from the Bible to
prove his position, since none teach his equation of obligation and
ability. His argument, however, stands
squarely in the line of centuries of perfectionist argumentation and arises out
of the denial of total depravity that accompanied the Divine Seed heresy of the
Broadlands Conference and the Quakerism of the Pearsall Smiths. Consistency with the affirmation that man has
the inherent ability to perform all that God demands of him requires sinless
perfection, since God’s standard for man is nothing less than the perfect
purity and holiness of His own nature.
Affirming that, in this life, one can be entirely without sin is a
dangerous heresy affirmed only by unregenerate individuals (1 John 1:8, 10).
with the Keswick idea that sin need no longer trouble believers who have
entered into the Higher Life is the Pelagianizing and perfectionist idea,
adopted by Keswick from the Broadlands Conference,[8]
that the obligation of the believer to obey God is coextensive with his ability
to do so.[9] “A saying frequently heard at Keswick is
this[:] ‘God’s commandment is his enablement,’ meaning that God never issues a
command that He does not give us grace to fulfil.”[10] The Keswick theology asks, “Does God
therefore make demands of human beings that they cannot fulfil? Does He expect of them conduct beyond their
reach? . . . God’s requirements cannot be greater than His enablements. If they were, man would be mocked. . . . What
He demands He makes possible.”[11] Barabas cites no texts from the Bible to
prove his position, since none teach his equation of obligation and
ability. His argument, however, stands
squarely in the line of centuries of perfectionist argumentation and arises out
of the denial of total depravity that accompanied the Divine Seed heresy of the
Broadlands Conference and the Quakerism of the Pearsall Smiths. Consistency with the affirmation that man has
the inherent ability to perform all that God demands of him requires sinless
perfection, since God’s standard for man is nothing less than the perfect
purity and holiness of His own nature.
Affirming that, in this life, one can be entirely without sin is a
dangerous heresy affirmed only by unregenerate individuals (1 John 1:8, 10).
Keswick,
however, since it at times recognizes the dangerous and unscriptural character
of a more consistent perfectionism,[12]
does not usually take its perfectionist doctrine that obligation is limited to
ability to its actual conclusion, but stops with the affirmation that believers
can live without known sin, while at the same time affirming that all believers
still are sinners and do sin, although unwittingly. It is certainly true that believers can have
a clear conscience and determinately oppose all sin. It is likewise true that genuine and ever-greater
progressive victory over sin—although not the absolute victory coming in
heaven—is given to the saints on earth (Romans 6:14). However, the restricted Keswick perfectionism
is not compatible with its doctrine that obligation is limited to ability. God commands all men and angels to be
perfect, just as He is perfect (Matthew 5:48), but the Holy One of Israel is
not just free from certain areas of conscious sinning. God does not lower His standard to what is
possible for either unregenerate fallen man or pre-glorified regenerate man who
still has indwelling sin. Consistency
with its affirmation that man’s obligation is limited to his ability would
require Keswick to affirm either literal, absolute perfectionism for fallen men
or to downgrade the character of God’s holy character and law, and the nature
of sin, to something less than absolute conformity to the holiness of Jehovah.[13] Such conclusions cannot be avoided by Keswick’s
affirming that grace enables ability to meet Divine obligation. Absolute perfection or a downgrade in the nature
of sin must still follow—only the sinless perfection would now be allegedly enabled
by grace.[14] God certainly will give all His people the
grace to be sinlessly perfect, but He will only do so when they are forever
with Him, not during this life. The
necessary consequences of the Keswick doctrine of ability and obligation
explain why “opponents of Keswick have accused it [of being] perfectionist.”[15] Happily, Keswick advocates do not usually
believe what is truly involved in their affirmation that God’s standard for
fallen man is limited by the sinner’s ability.
But would it not be better to simply represent the teaching of the Bible
on sanctification accurately than to affirm a Pelagian and perfectionistic view
of obligation and ability, but inconsistently deny its consequences?
however, since it at times recognizes the dangerous and unscriptural character
of a more consistent perfectionism,[12]
does not usually take its perfectionist doctrine that obligation is limited to
ability to its actual conclusion, but stops with the affirmation that believers
can live without known sin, while at the same time affirming that all believers
still are sinners and do sin, although unwittingly. It is certainly true that believers can have
a clear conscience and determinately oppose all sin. It is likewise true that genuine and ever-greater
progressive victory over sin—although not the absolute victory coming in
heaven—is given to the saints on earth (Romans 6:14). However, the restricted Keswick perfectionism
is not compatible with its doctrine that obligation is limited to ability. God commands all men and angels to be
perfect, just as He is perfect (Matthew 5:48), but the Holy One of Israel is
not just free from certain areas of conscious sinning. God does not lower His standard to what is
possible for either unregenerate fallen man or pre-glorified regenerate man who
still has indwelling sin. Consistency
with its affirmation that man’s obligation is limited to his ability would
require Keswick to affirm either literal, absolute perfectionism for fallen men
or to downgrade the character of God’s holy character and law, and the nature
of sin, to something less than absolute conformity to the holiness of Jehovah.[13] Such conclusions cannot be avoided by Keswick’s
affirming that grace enables ability to meet Divine obligation. Absolute perfection or a downgrade in the nature
of sin must still follow—only the sinless perfection would now be allegedly enabled
by grace.[14] God certainly will give all His people the
grace to be sinlessly perfect, but He will only do so when they are forever
with Him, not during this life. The
necessary consequences of the Keswick doctrine of ability and obligation
explain why “opponents of Keswick have accused it [of being] perfectionist.”[15] Happily, Keswick advocates do not usually
believe what is truly involved in their affirmation that God’s standard for
fallen man is limited by the sinner’s ability.
But would it not be better to simply represent the teaching of the Bible
on sanctification accurately than to affirm a Pelagian and perfectionistic view
of obligation and ability, but inconsistently deny its consequences?
See here for this entire study.
[1] Pg. 36, So Great
Salvation, Barabas. Compare Robert
Pearsall Smith: “The Christian who has
the faith [of the Higher Life] need never sin” (pg. 257, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875).
Of course, Smith reduces “sin” to “conscious sin.”
Salvation, Barabas. Compare Robert
Pearsall Smith: “The Christian who has
the faith [of the Higher Life] need never sin” (pg. 257, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875).
Of course, Smith reduces “sin” to “conscious sin.”
[2] E. g., W. H. Griffith Thomas, responding to Warfield’s
critique of Keswick theology and attempting to justify Keswick, boldly stated: “‘Keswick’
stands for perfectionism. I have heard
that scores of times, and so have you—and it does” (pg. 283, “The Victorious
Life (I.).” Bibliotheca Sacra (76:303) July 1919, 267-288). Keswick leader A. T. Pierson said: “There is one kind of sinless
perfection in which every Keswick teacher believes—the sinless perfection of instantaneously and for ever renouncing
every known sin.” Pierson proves this sort of
perfectionism in the following manner: “There
is no mistake in the attitude of our Lord. He says: ‘Sin no more;’ and He would
not say that if He did not mean it.”
That is, God’s obligation on man and man’s ability to obey are
coextensive, Pierson believes, so if God commands man not to sin, a fallen man
with indwelling sin is able to be perfect; and, furthermore, “Paul preach[ed]
perfect holiness,” meaning the Keswick doctrine of perfectionism. However, other sorts of perfectionism were
not accepted at Keswick, according to Pierson—only their peculiar brand was
acceptable. Other than the distinctive
Keswick perfectionism, “being sinlessly perfect” is not for the “present” (pgs.
8-10, A Spiritual Clinique: Four Bible Readings Given at Keswick in 1907,
Pierson. New York, NY: Gospel Publishing House, 1907. Italics in original). During the “‘turn of the century’ era” from
“1897 to 1909 . . . Dr. Pierson came to Keswick more often than any other
speaker from America . . . and assumed from the first . . . a position of
leadership unique in a speaker from overseas.
Again and again we read of him guiding the proceedings in times of
particular moment.” The editor of the
Keswick Life of Faith periodical
verified that Pierson “dominated the Convention by his spiritual and
intellectual powers, and thousands hung upon his words with an intense
eagerness” (pg. 405, Keswick’s Authentic
Voice, ed. Stevenson).
critique of Keswick theology and attempting to justify Keswick, boldly stated: “‘Keswick’
stands for perfectionism. I have heard
that scores of times, and so have you—and it does” (pg. 283, “The Victorious
Life (I.).” Bibliotheca Sacra (76:303) July 1919, 267-288). Keswick leader A. T. Pierson said: “There is one kind of sinless
perfection in which every Keswick teacher believes—the sinless perfection of instantaneously and for ever renouncing
every known sin.” Pierson proves this sort of
perfectionism in the following manner: “There
is no mistake in the attitude of our Lord. He says: ‘Sin no more;’ and He would
not say that if He did not mean it.”
That is, God’s obligation on man and man’s ability to obey are
coextensive, Pierson believes, so if God commands man not to sin, a fallen man
with indwelling sin is able to be perfect; and, furthermore, “Paul preach[ed]
perfect holiness,” meaning the Keswick doctrine of perfectionism. However, other sorts of perfectionism were
not accepted at Keswick, according to Pierson—only their peculiar brand was
acceptable. Other than the distinctive
Keswick perfectionism, “being sinlessly perfect” is not for the “present” (pgs.
8-10, A Spiritual Clinique: Four Bible Readings Given at Keswick in 1907,
Pierson. New York, NY: Gospel Publishing House, 1907. Italics in original). During the “‘turn of the century’ era” from
“1897 to 1909 . . . Dr. Pierson came to Keswick more often than any other
speaker from America . . . and assumed from the first . . . a position of
leadership unique in a speaker from overseas.
Again and again we read of him guiding the proceedings in times of
particular moment.” The editor of the
Keswick Life of Faith periodical
verified that Pierson “dominated the Convention by his spiritual and
intellectual powers, and thousands hung upon his words with an intense
eagerness” (pg. 405, Keswick’s Authentic
Voice, ed. Stevenson).
While Pierson was generally correct that the
distinctive perfectionism of Hannah W. and Robert P. Smith was dominant at the
early Keswick convention, he was not correct in his affirmation that other
forms of perfectionism were not also acceptable at the Convention. Asa Mahan’s early influence makes it clear
that Oberlin Perfectionism was acceptable from the beginning. Moule was converted to the Keswick theology
at a convention that included both Evan Hopkins and “an ardent Salvation Army
captain,” an advocate of the Army’s standard Wesleyan perfectionism (pg. 42, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and
Future, Price & Randall).
Likewise, the “Japan Evangelistic Band . . . formed at the Convention of
1893 . . . looked to Wesleyan holiness speakers” (pg. 115, Transforming Keswick: The
Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall; cf. pg.
81, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick
Convention, Polluck; the Band was founded by Webb-Peploe’s curate Barclay
Buxton). “Another vital link between
Keswick and the Wesleyan holiness tradition was through Charles Inwood,” who
spoke at twenty-one Keswick conventions and represented Keswick internationally
while receving prophetic impressions through which he predicted the future (pg.
112, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and
Future, Price & Randall). “As a
Wesleyan Methodist himself, Inwood actively sought to influence Keswick
thinking from within the movement . . . Inwood was deeply indebted to the
Wesleyan revivalist tradition” (pg. 50, Ibid). The Methodist perfectionist, continuationist,
and woman preacher Amanda Smith, who preached at Keswick and was then invited
to and preached at Broadlands by invitation of Evan Hopkins and Lord
Mount-Temple in the 1880s, is another example of Methodist perfectionism being
propagated at Keswick (pg. 116, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck; The
Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life: The
Unpublished Personal Writings of Hannah Whitall Smith, ed. Dieter, entry
for December 30; Chapter 20-21, An
Autobiograpy: The Story of the Lord’s
Dealings with Mrs. Amanda Smith, The Colored Evangelist, Containing an Account
of her Life Work of Faith, and her Travels in America, England, Ireland,
Scotland, India, and Africa, as an Independent Missionary, Amanda
Smith. Chicago, IL: Meyer & Brother, 1893; pgs. 71-73, 114, The Life
that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of
the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910). The
ecumenicalism of the Keswick Convention embraced a variety of conflicting
perfectionisms, predominently the type taught by Hannah W. and Robert P. Smith,
but also that of the Oberlin and Wesleyan theologies, in its seeking for a
Higher Life spirituality.
distinctive perfectionism of Hannah W. and Robert P. Smith was dominant at the
early Keswick convention, he was not correct in his affirmation that other
forms of perfectionism were not also acceptable at the Convention. Asa Mahan’s early influence makes it clear
that Oberlin Perfectionism was acceptable from the beginning. Moule was converted to the Keswick theology
at a convention that included both Evan Hopkins and “an ardent Salvation Army
captain,” an advocate of the Army’s standard Wesleyan perfectionism (pg. 42, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and
Future, Price & Randall).
Likewise, the “Japan Evangelistic Band . . . formed at the Convention of
1893 . . . looked to Wesleyan holiness speakers” (pg. 115, Transforming Keswick: The
Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall; cf. pg.
81, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick
Convention, Polluck; the Band was founded by Webb-Peploe’s curate Barclay
Buxton). “Another vital link between
Keswick and the Wesleyan holiness tradition was through Charles Inwood,” who
spoke at twenty-one Keswick conventions and represented Keswick internationally
while receving prophetic impressions through which he predicted the future (pg.
112, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and
Future, Price & Randall). “As a
Wesleyan Methodist himself, Inwood actively sought to influence Keswick
thinking from within the movement . . . Inwood was deeply indebted to the
Wesleyan revivalist tradition” (pg. 50, Ibid). The Methodist perfectionist, continuationist,
and woman preacher Amanda Smith, who preached at Keswick and was then invited
to and preached at Broadlands by invitation of Evan Hopkins and Lord
Mount-Temple in the 1880s, is another example of Methodist perfectionism being
propagated at Keswick (pg. 116, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck; The
Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life: The
Unpublished Personal Writings of Hannah Whitall Smith, ed. Dieter, entry
for December 30; Chapter 20-21, An
Autobiograpy: The Story of the Lord’s
Dealings with Mrs. Amanda Smith, The Colored Evangelist, Containing an Account
of her Life Work of Faith, and her Travels in America, England, Ireland,
Scotland, India, and Africa, as an Independent Missionary, Amanda
Smith. Chicago, IL: Meyer & Brother, 1893; pgs. 71-73, 114, The Life
that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of
the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910). The
ecumenicalism of the Keswick Convention embraced a variety of conflicting
perfectionisms, predominently the type taught by Hannah W. and Robert P. Smith,
but also that of the Oberlin and Wesleyan theologies, in its seeking for a
Higher Life spirituality.
[3] Pg. 40, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[4] As already noted, Keswick does not (usually) teach
actual sinless perfection. However, by
teaching that continued struggle with sin in the Christian life, and anything
less than “perfect and constant victory over temptation” is “heart-breaking
defeat” (pgs. 95, 76, So Great Salvation,
Barabas), it lends itself to the argument of other and more radical
perfectionisms that anything less than the possibility of perfection (of
whatever kind is advocated by a particular perfectionst theology) in this life
is a ground for despair. Snodgrass
notes:
actual sinless perfection. However, by
teaching that continued struggle with sin in the Christian life, and anything
less than “perfect and constant victory over temptation” is “heart-breaking
defeat” (pgs. 95, 76, So Great Salvation,
Barabas), it lends itself to the argument of other and more radical
perfectionisms that anything less than the possibility of perfection (of
whatever kind is advocated by a particular perfectionst theology) in this life
is a ground for despair. Snodgrass
notes:
[Doctrines
of] perfectionism . . . [and] entire sanctification . . . fee[d] the mind with
the notion of entire freedom from sin; and this is, at once, the essence of the
system, and the reason of its danger. . . . [T]hose who anticipate better
effects [in holier Christian living] from the doctrine of Perfection than from
the common doctrine of Sanctification, reason falsely[.] . . . The question is
asked . . . “Who would expect an army to fight, with energy, under the
impression of inevitable defeat?” And
this, it is taken for granted, is a parallel case to that of the Christian, who
entertains no hope of entire sanctification in the present life. But, is it so? Has he the impression of inevitable defeat,
because he expects the war to be somewhat protracted? Does he lay down his arms, in despair,
because he believes that more than one battle is to be fought? Does he cease from the contest, because he
does not anticipate a perfect triumph, until the “last enemy” shall “be
destroyed,” which “is death”? The truth
is, that, on his own principles, he has an expectation of victory, which is
qualified by no peradventure; he anticipates it, with unwavering faith, and
with joyful hope; it is as certain to him, as the love and faithfulness of God
can make it;—nay, he has the earnest of it, in his present success;—he has
already come off as a conqueror in many a struggle;—he is pursuing his
advantage from one battle-field to another; and he has no doubt, that the time
is near, when all the armies of the aliens shall be put to flight, “And death,
the last of all his foes,/ Lie vanquished at his feet.” So far, therefore, as the certainty of
success is concerned, he has the same reason to persevere and be active, with
those who anticipate a speedier triumph.
of] perfectionism . . . [and] entire sanctification . . . fee[d] the mind with
the notion of entire freedom from sin; and this is, at once, the essence of the
system, and the reason of its danger. . . . [T]hose who anticipate better
effects [in holier Christian living] from the doctrine of Perfection than from
the common doctrine of Sanctification, reason falsely[.] . . . The question is
asked . . . “Who would expect an army to fight, with energy, under the
impression of inevitable defeat?” And
this, it is taken for granted, is a parallel case to that of the Christian, who
entertains no hope of entire sanctification in the present life. But, is it so? Has he the impression of inevitable defeat,
because he expects the war to be somewhat protracted? Does he lay down his arms, in despair,
because he believes that more than one battle is to be fought? Does he cease from the contest, because he
does not anticipate a perfect triumph, until the “last enemy” shall “be
destroyed,” which “is death”? The truth
is, that, on his own principles, he has an expectation of victory, which is
qualified by no peradventure; he anticipates it, with unwavering faith, and
with joyful hope; it is as certain to him, as the love and faithfulness of God
can make it;—nay, he has the earnest of it, in his present success;—he has
already come off as a conqueror in many a struggle;—he is pursuing his
advantage from one battle-field to another; and he has no doubt, that the time
is near, when all the armies of the aliens shall be put to flight, “And death,
the last of all his foes,/ Lie vanquished at his feet.” So far, therefore, as the certainty of
success is concerned, he has the same reason to persevere and be active, with
those who anticipate a speedier triumph.
Again: it is wrong, in
principle, to say, that the hope of success, in order to be an efficient
motive, must terminate upon acquisitions to be made within the limits of the
present life. This is neither consistent
with Scripture, nor in accordance with actual experience. The hope of the apostles and primitive
Christians, was a hope, which “entereth into that within the veil,” and, this
was the reason why it was an “anchor to the soul.” . . . It transported its
subjects beyond the region where sin and sorrow dwell, and brought them into
communion with the inhabitants and felicities of heaven. And this was the true secret of its animating
influence. It derived its energy from
the importance and glory of its object; and this was something entirely above
and beyond any degrees of sanctification to be anticipated here. “Every man,” says an apostle [1 John 3:3],
“that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself.” Such a hope will undoubtedly sanctify those
in whom it dwells; but a similar influence is never ascribed to any hope, the
object of which is to be realized on this side of the grave.
principle, to say, that the hope of success, in order to be an efficient
motive, must terminate upon acquisitions to be made within the limits of the
present life. This is neither consistent
with Scripture, nor in accordance with actual experience. The hope of the apostles and primitive
Christians, was a hope, which “entereth into that within the veil,” and, this
was the reason why it was an “anchor to the soul.” . . . It transported its
subjects beyond the region where sin and sorrow dwell, and brought them into
communion with the inhabitants and felicities of heaven. And this was the true secret of its animating
influence. It derived its energy from
the importance and glory of its object; and this was something entirely above
and beyond any degrees of sanctification to be anticipated here. “Every man,” says an apostle [1 John 3:3],
“that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself.” Such a hope will undoubtedly sanctify those
in whom it dwells; but a similar influence is never ascribed to any hope, the
object of which is to be realized on this side of the grave.
Moreover:
it is incorrect to assume, that the Christian derives his strongest impulses
for holy living, from direct meditations upon his prospect of success. No doubt, he has “respect unto the recompense
of the reward,” both here and hereafter; and yet, his experience will bear me
out in saying, that his heart is never assailed by more irresistible motives to
active and entire consecration to God, than when his mind is most fully
occupied by other considerations than those which relate immediately to
himself. . . . [A greater motive than being] taken up with reflections on the
degree of proficiency at which he [is] expecting to arrive . . . [is] “the love
of Christ constraineth us” [2 Corinthians 5:14]! Here [is] the main-spring of [Christian]
activity . . . with his face towards Calvary, with his eye on the cross, and
with his mind intent upon the compassion and condescension of a suffering
Saviour, he [is] carried beyond himself, and [is] borne away, by the impulse of
a mightier and more generous motive. So
it is in all the higher achievements of the Christian life. It is not by sitting down to meditate upon
the prospect of our perfect sanctification that we gather the strongest motives
to the pursuit of holiness. Our best
seasons, both of feeling and action, are those, in which we think least of
ourselves, and most, of the love of God, of the compassion of Christ, of the
claims of gratitude and duty, and of the beauty and excellency of holiness
itself. We are not servants, who work
merely for wages, but we are bound to our employment, by love and gratitude to
the master, as well as by the happiness we find in the service itself. . . . And
in these considerations, are contained our highest inducements, to persevere in
his service, and live to his glory. “For
none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself; for whether we live,
we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we
live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.” [Romans 14:7-8] (pgs. 95-101, The Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification,
Snodgrass).
it is incorrect to assume, that the Christian derives his strongest impulses
for holy living, from direct meditations upon his prospect of success. No doubt, he has “respect unto the recompense
of the reward,” both here and hereafter; and yet, his experience will bear me
out in saying, that his heart is never assailed by more irresistible motives to
active and entire consecration to God, than when his mind is most fully
occupied by other considerations than those which relate immediately to
himself. . . . [A greater motive than being] taken up with reflections on the
degree of proficiency at which he [is] expecting to arrive . . . [is] “the love
of Christ constraineth us” [2 Corinthians 5:14]! Here [is] the main-spring of [Christian]
activity . . . with his face towards Calvary, with his eye on the cross, and
with his mind intent upon the compassion and condescension of a suffering
Saviour, he [is] carried beyond himself, and [is] borne away, by the impulse of
a mightier and more generous motive. So
it is in all the higher achievements of the Christian life. It is not by sitting down to meditate upon
the prospect of our perfect sanctification that we gather the strongest motives
to the pursuit of holiness. Our best
seasons, both of feeling and action, are those, in which we think least of
ourselves, and most, of the love of God, of the compassion of Christ, of the
claims of gratitude and duty, and of the beauty and excellency of holiness
itself. We are not servants, who work
merely for wages, but we are bound to our employment, by love and gratitude to
the master, as well as by the happiness we find in the service itself. . . . And
in these considerations, are contained our highest inducements, to persevere in
his service, and live to his glory. “For
none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself; for whether we live,
we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we
live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.” [Romans 14:7-8] (pgs. 95-101, The Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification,
Snodgrass).
[5] Pg. 101, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[6] Lyman Atwater notes:
Some of our most dangerous sins are sins of
ignorance. Nay, the very ignorance of
moral and Christian duty is itself often most culpable, and incurs the divine
condemnation, even the woe upon those who call good evil and evil good; who put
light for darkness and darkness for light [Isaiah 5:20]. It is the very essence of sin to be
deceitful, to disguise itself, to hate the light, and refuse to come to the
light which would unveil it—and is not this declared by the Light of the world
to be eminently its condemnation?
What! Do men become innocent by
blinding themselves to their guilt, and sinless by ignoring their sin? Paul “verily thought that he ought to do many
things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth” [Acts 26:9]. Can a man be innocent and perfect in
persecuting the Church, whatever his ignorance or sincerity therein? Out [with] such casuistry, no matter how
plausible and acceptable it may be to a worldly and backslidden church, or
those who think they are something when they are nothing, or who “say they are
perfect,” by whatever names sanctioned! (pg. 407, “The Higher Life and
Christian Perfection,” Lyman H. Atwater.
The Presbyterian Quarterly and
Princeton Review (July 1877) 389-419)
ignorance. Nay, the very ignorance of
moral and Christian duty is itself often most culpable, and incurs the divine
condemnation, even the woe upon those who call good evil and evil good; who put
light for darkness and darkness for light [Isaiah 5:20]. It is the very essence of sin to be
deceitful, to disguise itself, to hate the light, and refuse to come to the
light which would unveil it—and is not this declared by the Light of the world
to be eminently its condemnation?
What! Do men become innocent by
blinding themselves to their guilt, and sinless by ignoring their sin? Paul “verily thought that he ought to do many
things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth” [Acts 26:9]. Can a man be innocent and perfect in
persecuting the Church, whatever his ignorance or sincerity therein? Out [with] such casuistry, no matter how
plausible and acceptable it may be to a worldly and backslidden church, or
those who think they are something when they are nothing, or who “say they are
perfect,” by whatever names sanctioned! (pg. 407, “The Higher Life and
Christian Perfection,” Lyman H. Atwater.
The Presbyterian Quarterly and
Princeton Review (July 1877) 389-419)
[7] B.
B. Warfield incisively notes concerning this sort of teaching:
B. Warfield incisively notes concerning this sort of teaching:
Nothing can be more important
than that the conception of perfection be maintained at its height. If there is
an eternal and immutable distinction between right and wrong . . . then [g]oodness
must be everywhere and in all beings essentially the same. The fundamental
principles of right moral action, must be the same to God and to his creatures;
and there must be one rule of duty—one standard by which to test character—to
angels and to men. . . . True perfection is one and the same thing in all
beings[.] The habit of conceiving of perfection as admitting of many
imperfections—moral imperfections,
glossed as infirmities, errors and inadvertences—not only lowers the standard
of perfection and with it the height of our aspirations, but corrupts our
hearts, dulls our discrimination of right and wrong, and betrays us into
satisfaction with attainments which are very far from satisfactory. There is no
more corrupting practice than the habit of calling right wrong and wrong right.
That is the essence of antinomianism, if we choose to speak in the language of
the schools. To give it its least offensive description, it is acquiescence in
sin. And this is the real arraignment of all perfectionist theories[.] They
lull men to sleep with a sense of attainments not really made; cut the nerve of
effort in the midst of the race; and tempt men to accept imperfection as
perfection—which is no less than to say evil is good. (pgs. 457-458, Studies in Perfectionism, Part Two, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol.
8, B. B. Warfield)
than that the conception of perfection be maintained at its height. If there is
an eternal and immutable distinction between right and wrong . . . then [g]oodness
must be everywhere and in all beings essentially the same. The fundamental
principles of right moral action, must be the same to God and to his creatures;
and there must be one rule of duty—one standard by which to test character—to
angels and to men. . . . True perfection is one and the same thing in all
beings[.] The habit of conceiving of perfection as admitting of many
imperfections—moral imperfections,
glossed as infirmities, errors and inadvertences—not only lowers the standard
of perfection and with it the height of our aspirations, but corrupts our
hearts, dulls our discrimination of right and wrong, and betrays us into
satisfaction with attainments which are very far from satisfactory. There is no
more corrupting practice than the habit of calling right wrong and wrong right.
That is the essence of antinomianism, if we choose to speak in the language of
the schools. To give it its least offensive description, it is acquiescence in
sin. And this is the real arraignment of all perfectionist theories[.] They
lull men to sleep with a sense of attainments not really made; cut the nerve of
effort in the midst of the race; and tempt men to accept imperfection as
perfection—which is no less than to say evil is good. (pgs. 457-458, Studies in Perfectionism, Part Two, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol.
8, B. B. Warfield)
[8] As Hannah W. Smith taught at
Broadlands: “God’s commands are not
grievous, but they would be if He commanded what we could not do” (pg. 128, The Life that
is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the
Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). Because of the Divine Seed, “We
have in our hearts the germ that can receive” (pg. 185, Ibid); no monergistic and supernatural regeneration of the totally
spiritually dead sinner is necessary.
Broadlands: “God’s commands are not
grievous, but they would be if He commanded what we could not do” (pg. 128, The Life that
is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the
Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). Because of the Divine Seed, “We
have in our hearts the germ that can receive” (pg. 185, Ibid); no monergistic and supernatural regeneration of the totally
spiritually dead sinner is necessary.
[9] The doctrine that fallen man’s obligation to obey is
limited to his ability to do so is refuted in the chapter in this book “Is
Fallen Man’s Obligation to Obey God Limited to His Ability to Do So?”
limited to his ability to do so is refuted in the chapter in this book “Is
Fallen Man’s Obligation to Obey God Limited to His Ability to Do So?”
[10] Pg. 30, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[11] Pg. 63, 188, So
Great Salvation, Barabas. Indeed,
that “What He expects of us He gives us the power to do, both in sanctification
and service” is stated to be “the message of Keswick” (pg. 155; cf. pg. 88).
Great Salvation, Barabas. Indeed,
that “What He expects of us He gives us the power to do, both in sanctification
and service” is stated to be “the message of Keswick” (pg. 155; cf. pg. 88).
[12] Keswick opposes consistent perfectionism, at least most
of the time—however, sometimes more consistent strains break out. For instance, Robert P. Smith permitted “an
aged minister by his side to assert roundly that he had lived for thirty-five
years as purely as Jesus” (pg. 325, The Works of Benjamin
B. Warfield: Perfectionism, Part One, Vol. 7, Benjamin B. Warfield. [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software,
2008]).
of the time—however, sometimes more consistent strains break out. For instance, Robert P. Smith permitted “an
aged minister by his side to assert roundly that he had lived for thirty-five
years as purely as Jesus” (pg. 325, The Works of Benjamin
B. Warfield: Perfectionism, Part One, Vol. 7, Benjamin B. Warfield. [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software,
2008]).
[13] This dilemma faces all perfectionist positions that
attempt to deal in any degree of seriousness with the Scriptural data. Note also that inability to sin because of a
will permanently and immutably inclined to holiness is not a little of the
bliss of the saint’s heavenly holiness, as it is a glorious characteristic of
the Divine holiness (Deuteronomy 32:4; Romans 9:14; 1 John 3:2-3).
attempt to deal in any degree of seriousness with the Scriptural data. Note also that inability to sin because of a
will permanently and immutably inclined to holiness is not a little of the
bliss of the saint’s heavenly holiness, as it is a glorious characteristic of
the Divine holiness (Deuteronomy 32:4; Romans 9:14; 1 John 3:2-3).
[14] Furthermore, once such a state of sinless perfection had
been entered, grace would no longer be necessary to sustain the believer in his
holiness; as God is perfectly holy and unable to sin, so the Christian would be
inherently perfectly holy and unable to sin.
been entered, grace would no longer be necessary to sustain the believer in his
holiness; as God is perfectly holy and unable to sin, so the Christian would be
inherently perfectly holy and unable to sin.
[15] Pg. 40, So Great
Salvation, Barabas. Barabas must
ignore the many affirmations of perfectionism by Keswick’s greatest leaders to
label the charge of perfectionism a mere “accusation.” He would have been more faithful to actual
historical facts had he stated: “[O]pponents of Keswick have accused it [of
being] perfectionist, and they were right,” or “The facts clearly demonstrate
that Keswick stands for perfectionism.”
Salvation, Barabas. Barabas must
ignore the many affirmations of perfectionism by Keswick’s greatest leaders to
label the charge of perfectionism a mere “accusation.” He would have been more faithful to actual
historical facts had he stated: “[O]pponents of Keswick have accused it [of
being] perfectionist, and they were right,” or “The facts clearly demonstrate
that Keswick stands for perfectionism.”
Recent Comments