Stephen Barabas,
cleaving closely to Keswick tradition, well illustrates Keswick’s inaccuracy
and bungling attempts at refutation of alternative positions on
sanctification. Dealing with “wrong ways
of seeking sanctification,” inaccuracy of presentation and theological
imprecision are apparent.[1] The erroneous views he examines are:
cleaving closely to Keswick tradition, well illustrates Keswick’s inaccuracy
and bungling attempts at refutation of alternative positions on
sanctification. Dealing with “wrong ways
of seeking sanctification,” inaccuracy of presentation and theological
imprecision are apparent.[1] The erroneous views he examines are:
1.) [T]he sanctification of the believer
is a matter of course, and that he need not trouble himself about it . . .
sanctification will proceed automatically without our doing anything about it.[2] . . .
is a matter of course, and that he need not trouble himself about it . . .
sanctification will proceed automatically without our doing anything about it.[2] . . .
2.) [M]any people . . . regard
sanctification as merely a matter of gradual growth, not to be stopped or
hindered or accelerated by anything the Christian may do. . . . [D]eliverance
from conscious sinning . . . is just a question of time. . . . it . . . is
necessarily imperceptibly slow and . . . cannot be retarded or hastened by
anything the believer may do.[3] . . .
sanctification as merely a matter of gradual growth, not to be stopped or
hindered or accelerated by anything the Christian may do. . . . [D]eliverance
from conscious sinning . . . is just a question of time. . . . it . . . is
necessarily imperceptibly slow and . . . cannot be retarded or hastened by
anything the believer may do.[3] . . .
3.) [The] theory . . . that it is possible
in this life, either at regeneration or at some subsequent crisis of religious
experience . . . to reach a point in spiritual development where the sin nature
is eradicated and therefore no longer operative. . . . A theory of gradual
eradication is held by others.[4] . . .
in this life, either at regeneration or at some subsequent crisis of religious
experience . . . to reach a point in spiritual development where the sin nature
is eradicated and therefore no longer operative. . . . A theory of gradual
eradication is held by others.[4] . . .
4.) Perhaps the most widely-held view of
sanctification is that it is to be gained through our own personal efforts by
trying to supress the flesh in us.[5] . . .
sanctification is that it is to be gained through our own personal efforts by
trying to supress the flesh in us.[5] . . .
5.) Other Erroneous Methods.[6]
Very few people actually believe
false theories #1 or 2. The
perfectionist theory of sinlessness through instanteous eradication of the sin
principle mentioned in #3 is indeed held by some and is erroneous. In relation to #4, the problem of
self-dependence in sanctification is certainly serious and is a false
idea. If someone actually believes that
sanctification will proceed automatically without the believer doing anything
about it, he will find the refutation of this view helpful. However, since views #1 and 2 are entirely
absent from any standard confession by any evangelical group in church history,
one wonders if positions #1-2 are really a caricature of Biblical truths about
sanctification.
false theories #1 or 2. The
perfectionist theory of sinlessness through instanteous eradication of the sin
principle mentioned in #3 is indeed held by some and is erroneous. In relation to #4, the problem of
self-dependence in sanctification is certainly serious and is a false
idea. If someone actually believes that
sanctification will proceed automatically without the believer doing anything
about it, he will find the refutation of this view helpful. However, since views #1 and 2 are entirely
absent from any standard confession by any evangelical group in church history,
one wonders if positions #1-2 are really a caricature of Biblical truths about
sanctification.
If Barabas’s position
#1 is supposed to refute the Scriptural fact that believers will be different, it is a gross
misrepresentation; God works in the believer to will and do (Philippians 2:13)
and the fact of the certainty of the sanctification of the regenerate is a
basis for Biblical exhortation to grow, not a hinderance to it or an
encouragement to neglect growth (Romans 6:13-14). So far from #2 being held by “many” Christians,
the idea that growth cannot be accelerated or hindered or stopped is a very
unusual position. Among the alleged “many” that advocate view #2, Barabas
provides not even one original source, perhaps because no such source exists. One wonders if it has ever been advocated in
print in any work of evangelical Christian literature in history.[7]
#1 is supposed to refute the Scriptural fact that believers will be different, it is a gross
misrepresentation; God works in the believer to will and do (Philippians 2:13)
and the fact of the certainty of the sanctification of the regenerate is a
basis for Biblical exhortation to grow, not a hinderance to it or an
encouragement to neglect growth (Romans 6:13-14). So far from #2 being held by “many” Christians,
the idea that growth cannot be accelerated or hindered or stopped is a very
unusual position. Among the alleged “many” that advocate view #2, Barabas
provides not even one original source, perhaps because no such source exists. One wonders if it has ever been advocated in
print in any work of evangelical Christian literature in history.[7]
Barabas very unfortunately combines the idea
of a second blessing of instantaneous sinlessness in #3 with the position,
represented by a quotation from Warfield, that the Holy Spirit weakens the
remnants of sin in the believer and strengthens the new nature over time. The argument on the pages dealing with #3
make some valid points against the instantaneous perfectionist second blessing
position, but Barabas’s examination of Warfield’s view sets up a straw man and
is very weak. Similarly, while people
can certainly deceive themselves into thinking that they can serve the Lord in
their own strength, and the believer’s indwelling sin constantly seeks to lead
him to live in an independent manner, self-dependence is not “the most
widely-held view of sanctification.”[8] The Keswick presentation by Barabas in #4
contains severe confusion between an unbiblical self-dependent attempt to
sanctify onself apart from the power of God and the Biblical truth that
sanctification does indeed involve God-dependent, faith-filled personal effort,
striving, and struggle. Finally, Barabas’s
presentation of erroneous views of sanctification never deals with actual
commonly held erroneous views of sanctification, from Wesleyan and Methodist to
Oberlin perfectionism, to liturgical and Romanist ex opere operato sorts of sacramentarianism, to Quaker
Quietism. Furthermore, if Barabas’s
positions #1-5 are not intended to caricature and oppose important elements of
the Biblical doctrine of sanctification, from the certainty that believers will
be different to the fact that God actually does inwardly make the believer less
sinful and more holy, then these truths are entirely passed over in utter neglect,
and the Keswick position is set forth as if it were the only alternative to
what is stated in #1-5. Either Barabas’s
presentation of non-Keswick positions on sanctification is grossly deficient
because it ignores its theologically conservative alternatives, or it severely
misrepresents and mischaracterizes those alternative positions. Barabas effectively illustrates that Keswick
presentations of sanctification are not “carefully prepared, weighty
discourses”[9]—a
truth both patently evident and most unfortunate.
of a second blessing of instantaneous sinlessness in #3 with the position,
represented by a quotation from Warfield, that the Holy Spirit weakens the
remnants of sin in the believer and strengthens the new nature over time. The argument on the pages dealing with #3
make some valid points against the instantaneous perfectionist second blessing
position, but Barabas’s examination of Warfield’s view sets up a straw man and
is very weak. Similarly, while people
can certainly deceive themselves into thinking that they can serve the Lord in
their own strength, and the believer’s indwelling sin constantly seeks to lead
him to live in an independent manner, self-dependence is not “the most
widely-held view of sanctification.”[8] The Keswick presentation by Barabas in #4
contains severe confusion between an unbiblical self-dependent attempt to
sanctify onself apart from the power of God and the Biblical truth that
sanctification does indeed involve God-dependent, faith-filled personal effort,
striving, and struggle. Finally, Barabas’s
presentation of erroneous views of sanctification never deals with actual
commonly held erroneous views of sanctification, from Wesleyan and Methodist to
Oberlin perfectionism, to liturgical and Romanist ex opere operato sorts of sacramentarianism, to Quaker
Quietism. Furthermore, if Barabas’s
positions #1-5 are not intended to caricature and oppose important elements of
the Biblical doctrine of sanctification, from the certainty that believers will
be different to the fact that God actually does inwardly make the believer less
sinful and more holy, then these truths are entirely passed over in utter neglect,
and the Keswick position is set forth as if it were the only alternative to
what is stated in #1-5. Either Barabas’s
presentation of non-Keswick positions on sanctification is grossly deficient
because it ignores its theologically conservative alternatives, or it severely
misrepresents and mischaracterizes those alternative positions. Barabas effectively illustrates that Keswick
presentations of sanctification are not “carefully prepared, weighty
discourses”[9]—a
truth both patently evident and most unfortunate.
Barabas’s
attempt to support Keswick by refuting the classical Biblical doctrine that in
sanctification the believer through mortification and vivification actually
becomes less sinful and more holy in his nature[10]
misrepresents the Biblical view and fails miserably as a refutation.[11] In dealing with Warfield’s confession of the
classical orthodox position that supernatural sanctification involves the
Spirit’s working to “eradicate our sinfulness and not merely to counteract its
effects,”[12]
Barabas argues—without exegeting or citing a single passage of Scripture that
could reasonably be taken as relevant as an argument against progressive
eradication of the strength of the sin principle,[13]
but following Hannah W. Smith,[14]
that “Keswick is plainly right in rejecting the theory of eradication,[15]
whether instantaneous or gradual, as the divine way of sanctification” in favor
of the position that “holiness . . . is a maintained
condition, never a state.”[16] That is, in Keswick theology, as in the
teaching of the Keswick precursor Conventions,[17]
the believer is not personally and actually the slightest bit more holy after
decades of what may be improperly termed progressive sanctification, but is
hardly sanctification that is progressing, than he was the moment he was
regenerated. Barabas very regretably
tries to deal at the same time with the false “second blessing” concept that at
an instant during this life one can have his sin nature entirely eliminated and
the Scriptural position of Warfield that only at the moment of a Christian’s
death the sin nature is entirely eliminated, while the Holy Spirit’s mortifying
and renewing work actually gradually weakens and eradicates the remnants of sin
in the believer and strengthens his new nature.
To combine these two views as if they were truly closely related leads
Barabas to a serious misrepresentation of Warfield’s position and a very
off-base attempt at a refutation of it on the assumption that it is somehow the
close relative of the idea that one enters into sinless perfection through a
second blessing.
attempt to support Keswick by refuting the classical Biblical doctrine that in
sanctification the believer through mortification and vivification actually
becomes less sinful and more holy in his nature[10]
misrepresents the Biblical view and fails miserably as a refutation.[11] In dealing with Warfield’s confession of the
classical orthodox position that supernatural sanctification involves the
Spirit’s working to “eradicate our sinfulness and not merely to counteract its
effects,”[12]
Barabas argues—without exegeting or citing a single passage of Scripture that
could reasonably be taken as relevant as an argument against progressive
eradication of the strength of the sin principle,[13]
but following Hannah W. Smith,[14]
that “Keswick is plainly right in rejecting the theory of eradication,[15]
whether instantaneous or gradual, as the divine way of sanctification” in favor
of the position that “holiness . . . is a maintained
condition, never a state.”[16] That is, in Keswick theology, as in the
teaching of the Keswick precursor Conventions,[17]
the believer is not personally and actually the slightest bit more holy after
decades of what may be improperly termed progressive sanctification, but is
hardly sanctification that is progressing, than he was the moment he was
regenerated. Barabas very regretably
tries to deal at the same time with the false “second blessing” concept that at
an instant during this life one can have his sin nature entirely eliminated and
the Scriptural position of Warfield that only at the moment of a Christian’s
death the sin nature is entirely eliminated, while the Holy Spirit’s mortifying
and renewing work actually gradually weakens and eradicates the remnants of sin
in the believer and strengthens his new nature.
To combine these two views as if they were truly closely related leads
Barabas to a serious misrepresentation of Warfield’s position and a very
off-base attempt at a refutation of it on the assumption that it is somehow the
close relative of the idea that one enters into sinless perfection through a
second blessing.
See here for this entire study.
[1] Pgs.
68-84, So Great Salvation.
68-84, So Great Salvation.
[2] Pgs.
69-70, So Great Salvation.
69-70, So Great Salvation.
[3] Pgs.
70-71, So Great Salvation.
70-71, So Great Salvation.
[4] Pgs.
71-73, So Great Salvation.
71-73, So Great Salvation.
[5] Pgs.
74-83, So Great Salvation.
74-83, So Great Salvation.
[6] Pgs.
83-84, So Great Salvation.
83-84, So Great Salvation.
[7] While
Barabas does not cite even one advocate of this allegedly common position on
sanctification, he does reference J. Elder Cumming, Through the Eternal Spirit (Stirling, Stirling Tract Enterprise,
1937), pgs. 112-114 (pgs. 152ff. in the 1896 ed.). Unfortunately, Cumming, in his Keswick
classic, likewise provides not a shred of documentation for this allegedly
common view.
Barabas does not cite even one advocate of this allegedly common position on
sanctification, he does reference J. Elder Cumming, Through the Eternal Spirit (Stirling, Stirling Tract Enterprise,
1937), pgs. 112-114 (pgs. 152ff. in the 1896 ed.). Unfortunately, Cumming, in his Keswick
classic, likewise provides not a shred of documentation for this allegedly
common view.
[8] Pg.
74, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
74, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[9] Pg.
51, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
51, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[10] The classical orthodox affirmation that indwelling
sinfulness is progressively eradicated and the regenerate man progressively
strengthened, so that believers really and personally become more holy, rather
than indwelling sin merely being counteracted in them, as in the Keswick
theology, is evident in documents such as the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith:
sinfulness is progressively eradicated and the regenerate man progressively
strengthened, so that believers really and personally become more holy, rather
than indwelling sin merely being counteracted in them, as in the Keswick
theology, is evident in documents such as the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith:
1. They who are united to Christ, effectually
called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new Spirit created in them,
through the virtue of Christ’s death, and resurrection; are also (Acts 20:32;
Romans 6:5, 6) farther sanctified, really, and personally, through the same
virtue, (John 17:17; Ephesians 3:16, 17, 18, 19; 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 22, 23)
by his word and Spirit dwelling in them; (Romans 6:14) the dominion of the
whole body of sin is destroyed, (Galatians 5:24) and the several lusts thereof,
are more and more weakened, and mortified; and they more and more quickened,
and (Colossians 1:11) strengthened in all saving graces, to the (2 Corinthians
7:1; Hebrews 12:14) practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall
see the Lord.
called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new Spirit created in them,
through the virtue of Christ’s death, and resurrection; are also (Acts 20:32;
Romans 6:5, 6) farther sanctified, really, and personally, through the same
virtue, (John 17:17; Ephesians 3:16, 17, 18, 19; 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 22, 23)
by his word and Spirit dwelling in them; (Romans 6:14) the dominion of the
whole body of sin is destroyed, (Galatians 5:24) and the several lusts thereof,
are more and more weakened, and mortified; and they more and more quickened,
and (Colossians 1:11) strengthened in all saving graces, to the (2 Corinthians
7:1; Hebrews 12:14) practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall
see the Lord.
2. This
Sanctification is (1 Thessalonians 5:23) throughout, in the whole man, yet
imperfect (Romans 7:18, 23) in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence
ariseth a (Galatians 5:17; 1 Peter 2:11) continual, and irreconcilable war; the
Flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the Flesh.
Sanctification is (1 Thessalonians 5:23) throughout, in the whole man, yet
imperfect (Romans 7:18, 23) in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence
ariseth a (Galatians 5:17; 1 Peter 2:11) continual, and irreconcilable war; the
Flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the Flesh.
3. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much
(Romans 7:23) prevail; yet through the continual supply of strength from the
sanctifying Spirit of Christ the
(Romans 6:14) regenerate part doth over-come; and so the Saints grow in Grace,
perfecting holiness in the fear of God, (Ephesians 4:15, 16; 2 Corinthians
3:18; 7:1.) pressing after an heavenly life, in Evangelical Obedience to all
the commands which Christ as Head and King, in his Word hath
prescribed to them. (Article 13, “On Sanctification”)
(Romans 7:23) prevail; yet through the continual supply of strength from the
sanctifying Spirit of Christ the
(Romans 6:14) regenerate part doth over-come; and so the Saints grow in Grace,
perfecting holiness in the fear of God, (Ephesians 4:15, 16; 2 Corinthians
3:18; 7:1.) pressing after an heavenly life, in Evangelical Obedience to all
the commands which Christ as Head and King, in his Word hath
prescribed to them. (Article 13, “On Sanctification”)
[11] Barabas’s discussion and attempted refutation is on
pgs. 71-84 of So Great Salvation.
pgs. 71-84 of So Great Salvation.
[12] Barabas cites Warfield, Perfectionism Vol. 2, pgs. 579-583.
He does, commendably, at least quote Warfield’s position correctly, even
if much of his argument against Warfield is based upon misunderstanding. The statements quoted by Barabas from
Warfield represent part of the truth on sanctification, although Warfield’s
theology has other problems. Since
historic Baptist and non-Calvinist theology is taught in Scripture, the
Presbyterian Calvinist Warfield certainly had areas where he deserved
criticism, from his paedobaptism, to his advocacy of TULIP soteriology, to his
opposition to young-earth creationism, to his acceptance of unbelieving textual
criticism as opposed to a faith-based acceptance of the Textus Receptus, and so on.
He does, commendably, at least quote Warfield’s position correctly, even
if much of his argument against Warfield is based upon misunderstanding. The statements quoted by Barabas from
Warfield represent part of the truth on sanctification, although Warfield’s
theology has other problems. Since
historic Baptist and non-Calvinist theology is taught in Scripture, the
Presbyterian Calvinist Warfield certainly had areas where he deserved
criticism, from his paedobaptism, to his advocacy of TULIP soteriology, to his
opposition to young-earth creationism, to his acceptance of unbelieving textual
criticism as opposed to a faith-based acceptance of the Textus Receptus, and so on.
[13] The only texts Barabas cites in his argument are 1
Corinthians 9:27; 2 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 1:8 & John 15:5. None of them are especially relevant as a
refutation of Warfield’s position and the classical orthodox doctrine of
progressive sanctification.
Corinthians 9:27; 2 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 1:8 & John 15:5. None of them are especially relevant as a
refutation of Warfield’s position and the classical orthodox doctrine of
progressive sanctification.
[14] While Scripture does not support Barabas, Hannah W. Smith
does; she wrote: “I am inclined to think
[there] is in reality no change in me” in sanctification, “but only my being
‘filled with the Spirit’” in “the Baptism of the Holy Ghost” (Letter to Sally,
August 1867, reproduced in the entry for March 19 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter). Mrs. Smith was confirmed in this Quaker false
doctrine through “an old book” she received from “a Friend” that taught that
“Christ is in the believer instead of all created habits of grace,” so that
neither “meekness, or wisdom, or any other virtue” is in the believer “from any
habits formed” by him, “or store of these things laid up within” (Letter to
Abby, May 28, 1867, reproduced in the entry for March 18 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life,
Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter). The
believer, she thought, is never made the slightest bit more holy, never
actually being “filled with any goodness . . . nor with any righteousness . . .
but simply with Jesus”—indeed, he does not even have a real new nature, but
“the new nature in us” is nothing “more than Christ in us.” (Letter to a
Friend, March 28, 1867 & Journal, 1867, reproduced in the entries for March
10 & 27 of Ibid). Conseequently, Romans 6:6 does not mean that
the body of sin is truly progressively destroyed, but instead the “indwelling
presence of Christ” merely “renders inert” the body of sin, leaving the
believer totally unchanged (pg. 149, The
Record of a Happy Life: Being Memorials
of Franklin Whitall Smith, Hannah W. Smith.
Boston, MA: Willard Tract
Repository, 1873).
does; she wrote: “I am inclined to think
[there] is in reality no change in me” in sanctification, “but only my being
‘filled with the Spirit’” in “the Baptism of the Holy Ghost” (Letter to Sally,
August 1867, reproduced in the entry for March 19 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter). Mrs. Smith was confirmed in this Quaker false
doctrine through “an old book” she received from “a Friend” that taught that
“Christ is in the believer instead of all created habits of grace,” so that
neither “meekness, or wisdom, or any other virtue” is in the believer “from any
habits formed” by him, “or store of these things laid up within” (Letter to
Abby, May 28, 1867, reproduced in the entry for March 18 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life,
Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter). The
believer, she thought, is never made the slightest bit more holy, never
actually being “filled with any goodness . . . nor with any righteousness . . .
but simply with Jesus”—indeed, he does not even have a real new nature, but
“the new nature in us” is nothing “more than Christ in us.” (Letter to a
Friend, March 28, 1867 & Journal, 1867, reproduced in the entries for March
10 & 27 of Ibid). Conseequently, Romans 6:6 does not mean that
the body of sin is truly progressively destroyed, but instead the “indwelling
presence of Christ” merely “renders inert” the body of sin, leaving the
believer totally unchanged (pg. 149, The
Record of a Happy Life: Being Memorials
of Franklin Whitall Smith, Hannah W. Smith.
Boston, MA: Willard Tract
Repository, 1873).
[15] Keswick is actually plainly wrong in rejecting the
orthodox Christian doctrine of progressive eradication. As John Murray explained:
orthodox Christian doctrine of progressive eradication. As John Murray explained:
Keswick insists upon
counteraction as opposed to suppression and eradication. . . . If we are to use
any of the terms mentioned above with reference to the grace of God as it is
brought to bear upon the corrupt nature . . . eradication . . . is the only
proper one. It is by progressive renewal
of heart and mind that we are progressively sanctified. And that is just saying that it is by
progressive eradication of inward corruption that we are progressively
conformed to the image of Christ; a progressive conformation which comes to
expression in the life of conscious understanding, feeling, and will. It is only as we are sanctified within that
we can be [truly] sanctified in what is more overt and voluntary. B. B. Warfield comes in for criticism at
Barabas’ hands in this connection. But
the criticism exposes the fallacy and even inconsistency of the Keswick
position. What Warfield said was that
the Holy Spirit ‘cures our sinning precisely by curing our sinful nature; He
makes the tree good that the fruit may be good’ (p. 71). This Barabas regards as ‘unscriptural and dangerous’
(p. 72). But on any scriptural view of
human nature and of sanctification how could progressive conformation to divine
holiness be by any other process than by that of cleansing the heart of its
inherent corruption? And this is nothing
if it is not eradication of that corruption, an eradication, of course, which
will not be complete until sanctification is complete. Besides, Warfield means in principle what is
formally expressed [though, unfortunately, never shown to be consistent with
the dominant Keswick paradigm, nor ever developed] by Barabas himself when he
speaks of ‘a gradual transformation by the Holy Spirit who works within’ (p.
85). And Warfield would be the first to
say of this process that it can ‘never be complete in this life’ (id.).
Barabas’ averment to the effect that on Warfield’s position ‘it should
be practically, if not entirely, impossible to sin’ (p. 73) toward the end of
the believer’s life evinces again a failure to assess the gravity and liability
of any remaining corruption, a gravity of which Warfield took full account.
(pgs. 283-284, Collected Writings of John
Murray, review of So Great Salvation,
Barabas)
counteraction as opposed to suppression and eradication. . . . If we are to use
any of the terms mentioned above with reference to the grace of God as it is
brought to bear upon the corrupt nature . . . eradication . . . is the only
proper one. It is by progressive renewal
of heart and mind that we are progressively sanctified. And that is just saying that it is by
progressive eradication of inward corruption that we are progressively
conformed to the image of Christ; a progressive conformation which comes to
expression in the life of conscious understanding, feeling, and will. It is only as we are sanctified within that
we can be [truly] sanctified in what is more overt and voluntary. B. B. Warfield comes in for criticism at
Barabas’ hands in this connection. But
the criticism exposes the fallacy and even inconsistency of the Keswick
position. What Warfield said was that
the Holy Spirit ‘cures our sinning precisely by curing our sinful nature; He
makes the tree good that the fruit may be good’ (p. 71). This Barabas regards as ‘unscriptural and dangerous’
(p. 72). But on any scriptural view of
human nature and of sanctification how could progressive conformation to divine
holiness be by any other process than by that of cleansing the heart of its
inherent corruption? And this is nothing
if it is not eradication of that corruption, an eradication, of course, which
will not be complete until sanctification is complete. Besides, Warfield means in principle what is
formally expressed [though, unfortunately, never shown to be consistent with
the dominant Keswick paradigm, nor ever developed] by Barabas himself when he
speaks of ‘a gradual transformation by the Holy Spirit who works within’ (p.
85). And Warfield would be the first to
say of this process that it can ‘never be complete in this life’ (id.).
Barabas’ averment to the effect that on Warfield’s position ‘it should
be practically, if not entirely, impossible to sin’ (p. 73) toward the end of
the believer’s life evinces again a failure to assess the gravity and liability
of any remaining corruption, a gravity of which Warfield took full account.
(pgs. 283-284, Collected Writings of John
Murray, review of So Great Salvation,
Barabas)
[16] Pgs. 72-73, So
Great Salvation, Barabas. Compare
the view of Evan Hopkins, who taught that Keswick “has rejected the doctrine of
eradication . . . and has insisted on the wiser doctrine, and the happier
experience, of counteraction,” on the misrepresentation and false assumption,
comparable to that of Barabas, that the classic Baptist and Protestant doctrine
of the progressive eradication of indwelling sin meant that “the soul . . .
w[as] secure now from contamination and incapable of defilement . . . [this is]
the doctrine of eradication” (pg. 82, Evan
Harry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander
Smellie). Hopkins, having misunderstood
the classical doctrine, concludes instead:
“There is no eradication of sin . . . but there may be the continual counteraction of sin in our heart and
history . . . a ‘condition of purity’ maintained in the man by Another” (pgs.
92-93, Ibid. Italics in original.).
Great Salvation, Barabas. Compare
the view of Evan Hopkins, who taught that Keswick “has rejected the doctrine of
eradication . . . and has insisted on the wiser doctrine, and the happier
experience, of counteraction,” on the misrepresentation and false assumption,
comparable to that of Barabas, that the classic Baptist and Protestant doctrine
of the progressive eradication of indwelling sin meant that “the soul . . .
w[as] secure now from contamination and incapable of defilement . . . [this is]
the doctrine of eradication” (pg. 82, Evan
Harry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander
Smellie). Hopkins, having misunderstood
the classical doctrine, concludes instead:
“There is no eradication of sin . . . but there may be the continual counteraction of sin in our heart and
history . . . a ‘condition of purity’ maintained in the man by Another” (pgs.
92-93, Ibid. Italics in original.).
[17] For example, the Oxford Convention taught:
The
natural tendency of Peter was to sink [when walking on the water]. Jesus counteracted this, and Peter walked on
the water until he took his eye off from Jesus and looked at the waves. Our tendency by nature is to sin, but faith
in Jesus meets this tendency to evil [and] . . . brings into operation the law
of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which sets us free from the law of sin
and death. (pg. 53, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874)
natural tendency of Peter was to sink [when walking on the water]. Jesus counteracted this, and Peter walked on
the water until he took his eye off from Jesus and looked at the waves. Our tendency by nature is to sin, but faith
in Jesus meets this tendency to evil [and] . . . brings into operation the law
of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which sets us free from the law of sin
and death. (pg. 53, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874)
For
Keswick and its antecedents there is no actual growth in the believer’s inward
holiness—indwelling sin is not eradicated, only counteracted.
Keswick and its antecedents there is no actual growth in the believer’s inward
holiness—indwelling sin is not eradicated, only counteracted.
Recent Comments