Home » Uncategorized » Keswick’s Incoherent Surrender Doctrine: in Keswick’s Errors–an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 14 of 17
The content of this post is now available at the link viewable by clicking here. It combines all the parts of this series of blog posts in one file. Please view the material at that link. This part covers from the words: “The Keswick doctrine, adopted from the preaching of Hannah W. Smith at Broadlands, that “the divine Potter . . . cannot shape the human vessel … Keswick opposition to absolute perfectionism is contradictory and incoherent.”
Interesting! Question : I've heard of people saying stuff like "So-and-so is unspiritual as from his life it appears he believes in commitment – not surrender." These statements bother me as they seem to lack Scriptural basis. Do you see a keswick influence here? Thanks.
"Keswick affirms that one must absolutely surrender before sanctification can truly begin; that through an act of total surrender and of faith in Christ for deliverance, one enters into a state wherein he is free from all known sin;"
If only it were true! If complete freedom from the sin nature/principle in the flesh were available, most, if not all the Christians I know would gladly partake. Could you imagine the glory of walking thru a day with NO temptation, NO failed obligation, NO opportunity missed! But it will never be in this life – "but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."
But I like the conclusion to this chapter of the obvious truth of life – "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
My pastor always tells us to look to Moses. Moses was a mighty man of God, yet ye was also a very flawed man who was nowhere near perfection. If Moses wasn't such an example to us, then why does the Bible talk about being baptized into Moses? One would tend to think that if someone is baptized in Moses's name, he must have been a man to follow! 1 Corinthians 10:2
Many IFBS (and others) have no detailed understanding of Biblical sanctification at all. Without knowing what content is being represented by "committment" and "surrender," it is hard to make any kind of definitive statement. Keswick influence is, however, certainly widespread, to the detriment of the spiritual life of many.
It is interesting that the word "surrender" does not appear in the KJV, while forms of "commit" appear in 171 verses, so it does not look like a good idea to think "surrender" is superior to "committment," although, again, it all depends on the content signified by the words.
I do think that the incoherent surrender doctrine of Keswick is very widespread and that it hinders genuine sanctification by confusing people.
I'm sick to my stomach. I see this infiltrating IB circles, being pushed by Pastors who should know better and wrecking lives of members. (gentle suggestion) Couldnt you try to make the point that this is making huge problems even among those who've never heard the word Keswick. I mean – my brother after a faundamental education spent years as an IFB youth pastor occasionally tking his youth to "help out" at a keswick conference center. then he moves into a senior pastor position 500 miles away where he teaches people whove never heard of keswick that repentance as turning from sin is 'works salvation'. According to him repentance is the intent to turn from sin. Can you comment? I'm discouraged. Can you spare some time?
BTW, Bro Camp, you are correct that Keswick analysis of Romans 7 ignore Paul's actual conclusion in 7:25b. They either make 7:25a the conclusion or 7:24 the conclusion, and ignore the actual conclusion in 7:25b.
TDR—
Interesting! Question : I've heard of people saying stuff like "So-and-so is unspiritual as from his life it appears he believes in commitment – not surrender." These statements bother me as they seem to lack Scriptural basis. Do you see a keswick influence here? Thanks.
Mark Rogers
"Keswick affirms that one must absolutely surrender before sanctification can truly begin; that through an act of total surrender and of faith in Christ for deliverance, one enters into a state wherein he is free from all known sin;"
If only it were true! If complete freedom from the sin nature/principle in the flesh were available, most, if not all the Christians I know would gladly partake. Could you imagine the glory of walking thru a day with NO temptation, NO failed obligation, NO opportunity missed! But it will never be in this life – "but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."
But I like the conclusion to this chapter of the obvious truth of life – "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
My pastor always tells us to look to Moses. Moses was a mighty man of God, yet ye was also a very flawed man who was nowhere near perfection. If Moses wasn't such an example to us, then why does the Bible talk about being baptized into Moses? One would tend to think that if someone is baptized in Moses's name, he must have been a man to follow! 1 Corinthians 10:2
Mark,
Thomas isn't in town. He's on a trip overseas, so he isn't answering comments. Thanks though.
Anonymous,
Your pastor tells you to look to Moses? This comment seems like a joke. No one is baptized in Moses' name.
Dear Mark,
Many IFBS (and others) have no detailed understanding of Biblical sanctification at all. Without knowing what content is being represented by "committment" and "surrender," it is hard to make any kind of definitive statement. Keswick influence is, however, certainly widespread, to the detriment of the spiritual life of many.
It is interesting that the word "surrender" does not appear in the KJV, while forms of "commit" appear in 171 verses, so it does not look like a good idea to think "surrender" is superior to "committment," although, again, it all depends on the content signified by the words.
I do think that the incoherent surrender doctrine of Keswick is very widespread and that it hinders genuine sanctification by confusing people.
Thanks.
So it might be Keswick, but not necessarily…..
Have you written on the Keswick view of repentance? Do they believe it's something other than turning from sin?
Thank you kindly.
Mark
Anonymous,
Your pastor tells you to look to Moses? This comment seems like a joke. No one is baptized in Moses' name.
Why would this comment be a joke?
1 Co 10:2
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
Dear Mark,
Thanks for the question. See here:
http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2016/10/keswicks-corrupt-gospel-in-keswicks.html
for the Keswick corruption of repentance.
I'm sick to my stomach. I see this infiltrating IB circles, being pushed by Pastors who should know better and wrecking lives of members. (gentle suggestion) Couldnt you try to make the point that this is making huge problems even among those who've never heard the word Keswick. I mean – my brother after a faundamental education spent years as an IFB youth pastor occasionally tking his youth to "help out" at a keswick conference center. then he moves into a senior pastor position 500 miles away where he teaches people whove never heard of keswick that repentance as turning from sin is 'works salvation'. According to him repentance is the intent to turn from sin. Can you comment? I'm discouraged. Can you spare some time?
Mark
1 Thess 1:9-10; Rev 2:22; Eze 33, repentance is turning from sin/sins. See here:
http://faithsaves.net/repentance/
also.
BTW, Bro Camp, you are correct that Keswick analysis of Romans 7 ignore Paul's actual conclusion in 7:25b. They either make 7:25a the conclusion or 7:24 the conclusion, and ignore the actual conclusion in 7:25b.