Home » Search results for 'king james version' (Page 33)
Search Results for: king james version
Bart D. Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? Useful Quotes for Christians, part 1 of 4
Professor Bart D. Ehrman is one of the most famous non-Christian scholars in the United States. He is overly skeptical of the New Testament and the view of the New Testament as reliable, as, indeed, the Word of God, contains far better historical support then does his agnostic-with-atheist-leanings skepticism (see, e. g., my work on Archaeological Evidence for the New Testament.) However, because Dr. Ehrman is a genuine scholar, even if an anti-Christian and very skeptical one, he makes quite a number of statements in his book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) that are very useful for the Christian who is dealing with non-scholarly non-Christians who believe fantastic nonsense such as that the record of Jesus Christ was copied from pagan religions or that He did not exist (both positions advocated by men such as Dan Barker, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation; see how his argument that the Old Testament is copied from pagan myths fared in my two debates with him “The Old Testament is Mainly Fiction, not Fact” and “Archaeology and Prophecy Validate the Bible as the Word of God.” and the review of the two Dan Barker – Thomas Ross debates and of Old Testament mythicism here, as well as how Mr. Barker fared arguing against the existence of Jesus Christ in his “Was Jesus a Myth?” debate with James White here.) Note the following quotations from Dr. Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? so you can be aware of what all serious scholars, whether Christians or agnostic/atheist, need to acknowledge about the historical Jesus:
On the universal evidence for Jesus’
existence:
existence:
I
should emphatically state the obvious.
Every single source that mentions Jesus up until the eighteenth century
assumed that he actually existed. That
is true no matter what period you choose to examine: the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Middle
Ages, Late Antiquity, and before. It is
true of every source from our earliest periods, the fourth century, the third
century, the second century, and the first century. It is true of every author of every kind,
Christian, Jewish, or pagan. Most
striking, it is true not just of those who came to believe in Jesus but also of
nonbelievers in general and of the opponents of Christianity in particular. . .
. Not even the Jewish and pagan antagonists who attacked Christianity and Jesus
himself entertained the thought that he never existed. This is quite clear from reading the writings
of the Christian apologists, starting with such authors as the . . . writer of
the Letter to Diognetus and the more famous writers Justin Martyr, Tertullian,
and Origen (all from the second and early third centuries), all of whom defend
Jesus against a number of charges, many of them scandalous. But they do not drop one hint that anyone
claimed he did not exist. The same is
clear from the fragments of writings that still survive from the opponents of
the Christians, such as the Jew Trypho, discussed by Justin, or the pagan philosopher
Celsus, cited extensively by Origen. The
idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth
century. One might well call it a modern
myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus.[1]
should emphatically state the obvious.
Every single source that mentions Jesus up until the eighteenth century
assumed that he actually existed. That
is true no matter what period you choose to examine: the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Middle
Ages, Late Antiquity, and before. It is
true of every source from our earliest periods, the fourth century, the third
century, the second century, and the first century. It is true of every author of every kind,
Christian, Jewish, or pagan. Most
striking, it is true not just of those who came to believe in Jesus but also of
nonbelievers in general and of the opponents of Christianity in particular. . .
. Not even the Jewish and pagan antagonists who attacked Christianity and Jesus
himself entertained the thought that he never existed. This is quite clear from reading the writings
of the Christian apologists, starting with such authors as the . . . writer of
the Letter to Diognetus and the more famous writers Justin Martyr, Tertullian,
and Origen (all from the second and early third centuries), all of whom defend
Jesus against a number of charges, many of them scandalous. But they do not drop one hint that anyone
claimed he did not exist. The same is
clear from the fragments of writings that still survive from the opponents of
the Christians, such as the Jew Trypho, discussed by Justin, or the pagan philosopher
Celsus, cited extensively by Origen. The
idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth
century. One might well call it a modern
myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus.[1]
On the unscholarly nature of Jesus mythicism:
[Concerning]
skeptical literature . . . [denying or questioning] whether Jesus existed as a
human being . . . none of this literature is written by scholars trained in New
Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor,
accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges
of North America or Europe (or anywhere else in the world). Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity
who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts
that Jesus existed. . . . The reality is that whatever else you may think about
Jesus, he certainly did exist. . . . [T]he view that Jesus existed is held by
virtually every expert on the planet. . . . [E]very relevant ancient source . .
. assumes that there was such a man . . . It is striking that virtually
everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain [scholarly]
qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical
figure. . . . Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the
matter. As it turns out, I myself do not
either. I am not a Christian, and I have
no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda.
I am an agnostic with atheist leanings . . . I am an agnostic who does
not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. . . . Jesus existed, and
those vocal persons who deny it do so not because they have considered the
evidence with the dispassionate eye of the historian, but because they have
some other agenda that this denial serves.
From a dispassionate point of view, there was a Jesus of Nazareth.[2]
skeptical literature . . . [denying or questioning] whether Jesus existed as a
human being . . . none of this literature is written by scholars trained in New
Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor,
accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges
of North America or Europe (or anywhere else in the world). Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity
who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts
that Jesus existed. . . . The reality is that whatever else you may think about
Jesus, he certainly did exist. . . . [T]he view that Jesus existed is held by
virtually every expert on the planet. . . . [E]very relevant ancient source . .
. assumes that there was such a man . . . It is striking that virtually
everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain [scholarly]
qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical
figure. . . . Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the
matter. As it turns out, I myself do not
either. I am not a Christian, and I have
no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda.
I am an agnostic with atheist leanings . . . I am an agnostic who does
not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. . . . Jesus existed, and
those vocal persons who deny it do so not because they have considered the
evidence with the dispassionate eye of the historian, but because they have
some other agenda that this denial serves.
From a dispassionate point of view, there was a Jesus of Nazareth.[2]
It
is fair to say that mythicists as a group, and as individuals. . . . Arthur
Drews . . . Earl Doherty . . . Robert Price . . . Thomas L. Thompson . . .
Richard Carrier . . . George A Wells . . . D. M. Murdock[,] . . . nom de plume
Acharya S . . . are not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars in the
fields of New Testament, early Christianity, ancient history, and
theology. This is widely recognized, to their
chagrin, by mythicists themselves.[3]
is fair to say that mythicists as a group, and as individuals. . . . Arthur
Drews . . . Earl Doherty . . . Robert Price . . . Thomas L. Thompson . . .
Richard Carrier . . . George A Wells . . . D. M. Murdock[,] . . . nom de plume
Acharya S . . . are not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars in the
fields of New Testament, early Christianity, ancient history, and
theology. This is widely recognized, to their
chagrin, by mythicists themselves.[3]
At a
reputable university, of course, professors cannot teach simply anything. They need to be academically responsible and
reflect the views of scholarship. That
is probably why there are no mythicists—at least to my knowledge—teaching
religious studies at accredited universities or colleges in North America and
Europe . . . their views are not widely seen as academically respectable by
members of the academy. . . . [M]ythicists . . . [are] marginal. . . . [T]he
mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even a toehold, among modern
critical scholars of the Bible.[4]
reputable university, of course, professors cannot teach simply anything. They need to be academically responsible and
reflect the views of scholarship. That
is probably why there are no mythicists—at least to my knowledge—teaching
religious studies at accredited universities or colleges in North America and
Europe . . . their views are not widely seen as academically respectable by
members of the academy. . . . [M]ythicists . . . [are] marginal. . . . [T]he
mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even a toehold, among modern
critical scholars of the Bible.[4]
On the failure of Jesus mythicists to
define myth:
define myth:
Rarely
do mythicists define what they mean by the term myth, a failure that strikes real scholars of religion as both
unfortunate and highly problematic[.][5]
do mythicists define what they mean by the term myth, a failure that strikes real scholars of religion as both
unfortunate and highly problematic[.][5]
On the areas where Jesus mythicism is
widespread:
widespread:
For
decades [Jesus mythicism] was the dominant view in countries such as the Soviet
Union. . . . Vladimir Ilyich Lenin . . . [was] convinced that Jesus was not a
real historical figure. This, in large
measure, led to the popularity of the myth theory in the emerging Soviet Union.[6]
decades [Jesus mythicism] was the dominant view in countries such as the Soviet
Union. . . . Vladimir Ilyich Lenin . . . [was] convinced that Jesus was not a
real historical figure. This, in large
measure, led to the popularity of the myth theory in the emerging Soviet Union.[6]
Jesus mythicism driven by religious bias:
Humanists,
agnostics, atheists, mythicists . . . wrongly and counterproductively . . .
insist . . . that Jesus never existed. Jesus did exist. . . . It is no accident
that virtually all mythicists (in fact, all of them, to my knowledge) are
either atheists or agnostics. The ones I
know anything about are quite virulently, even militantly, atheist. . . .
[M]ythicists all live in a Christian world for which Christianity is the
religion of choice for the vast bulk of the population. . . . And mythicists
are avidly antireligious. . . . What this means is that, ironically, just as
the secular humanists spend so much time at their annual meetings talking about
religion, so too the mythicists who are so intent on showing that the
historical Jesus never existed are not being driven by a historical concern. Their agenda is religious, and they are
complicit in a religious ideology. They are
not doing history; they are doing theology.
agnostics, atheists, mythicists . . . wrongly and counterproductively . . .
insist . . . that Jesus never existed. Jesus did exist. . . . It is no accident
that virtually all mythicists (in fact, all of them, to my knowledge) are
either atheists or agnostics. The ones I
know anything about are quite virulently, even militantly, atheist. . . .
[M]ythicists all live in a Christian world for which Christianity is the
religion of choice for the vast bulk of the population. . . . And mythicists
are avidly antireligious. . . . What this means is that, ironically, just as
the secular humanists spend so much time at their annual meetings talking about
religion, so too the mythicists who are so intent on showing that the
historical Jesus never existed are not being driven by a historical concern. Their agenda is religious, and they are
complicit in a religious ideology. They are
not doing history; they are doing theology.
To be sure, they are doing their
theology in order to oppose traditional religion. But the opposition is driven not by historical
concerns but by religious ones. . . . [A]s a historian[,] when I try to
reconstruct what actually happened in the past[,] I refuse to sacrifice the
past in order to promote the worthy cause of my own social and political
agendas. No one else should,
either. Jesus did exist, whether we like
it or not.[7]
theology in order to oppose traditional religion. But the opposition is driven not by historical
concerns but by religious ones. . . . [A]s a historian[,] when I try to
reconstruct what actually happened in the past[,] I refuse to sacrifice the
past in order to promote the worthy cause of my own social and political
agendas. No one else should,
either. Jesus did exist, whether we like
it or not.[7]
On the burden of proof in Jesus mythicism:
[S]ince
every relevant ancient source . . . assumes that there was such a man, and
since no scholar who has ever written on it, except the handful of mythicists,
has ever had any serious doubts, surely the burden of proof does not fall on
those who take the almost universally accepted position.[8]
every relevant ancient source . . . assumes that there was such a man, and
since no scholar who has ever written on it, except the handful of mythicists,
has ever had any serious doubts, surely the burden of proof does not fall on
those who take the almost universally accepted position.[8]
Ehrman on Dorothy Murdock and her The Christ Conspiracy:
Acharya
S[.] [or] D. M. Murdock published the breathless conspirator’s dream: The
Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story
Ever Sold. . . . This book [argues] . . . that Christianity is rooted in a
myth about the sun-god Jesus, who was [allegedly] invented by a group of Jews
in the second century CE.
S[.] [or] D. M. Murdock published the breathless conspirator’s dream: The
Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story
Ever Sold. . . . This book [argues] . . . that Christianity is rooted in a
myth about the sun-god Jesus, who was [allegedly] invented by a group of Jews
in the second century CE.
Mythicists of this ilk should not be
surprised that their views are not taken seriously by real scholars, that their
books are not reviewed in scholarly journals, mentioned by experts in the
field, or even read by them. The book is
filled with so many factual errors and outlandish assertions that it is hard to
believe that the author is serious. If
she is serious, it is hard to believe that she has ever encountered anything
resembling historical scholarship. Her
“research” appears to have involved reading a number of nonscholarly books that
say the same thing she is about to say and then quoting them. One looks in vain for the citation of a
primary ancient source, and quotations from real experts (Elaine Pagels,
chiefly) are ripped from their context and misconstrued. . . . One cannot help
wondering if this is all a spoof[.] . . . [A]ll of Acharya’s major points are
in fact wrong. Jesus was not invented
[as she claims] in Alexandria, Egypt, in the middle of the second Christian
century. He was known already in the 30s
of the first century, in Jewish circles in Palestine. He was not originally a sun-god (as if that
equals Son-God!) . . . [but] a Jewish prophet and messiah. There are no astrological phenomena associated
with Jesus in any of our earliest traditions.
These traditions are attested in multiple sources that originated at
least a century before Acharya’s alleged astrological creation at the hands of
people who lived in a different part of the world from the historical Jesus[.]
. . . In short, if there is any conspiracy here, it is not on the part of the
ancient Christians who [allegedly] made up Jesus but on the part of modern
authors who make up stories about the ancient Christians and what they believed
about Jesus.[9]
surprised that their views are not taken seriously by real scholars, that their
books are not reviewed in scholarly journals, mentioned by experts in the
field, or even read by them. The book is
filled with so many factual errors and outlandish assertions that it is hard to
believe that the author is serious. If
she is serious, it is hard to believe that she has ever encountered anything
resembling historical scholarship. Her
“research” appears to have involved reading a number of nonscholarly books that
say the same thing she is about to say and then quoting them. One looks in vain for the citation of a
primary ancient source, and quotations from real experts (Elaine Pagels,
chiefly) are ripped from their context and misconstrued. . . . One cannot help
wondering if this is all a spoof[.] . . . [A]ll of Acharya’s major points are
in fact wrong. Jesus was not invented
[as she claims] in Alexandria, Egypt, in the middle of the second Christian
century. He was known already in the 30s
of the first century, in Jewish circles in Palestine. He was not originally a sun-god (as if that
equals Son-God!) . . . [but] a Jewish prophet and messiah. There are no astrological phenomena associated
with Jesus in any of our earliest traditions.
These traditions are attested in multiple sources that originated at
least a century before Acharya’s alleged astrological creation at the hands of
people who lived in a different part of the world from the historical Jesus[.]
. . . In short, if there is any conspiracy here, it is not on the part of the
ancient Christians who [allegedly] made up Jesus but on the part of modern
authors who make up stories about the ancient Christians and what they believed
about Jesus.[9]
On the idea that Jesus was made up from
pagan myths:
pagan myths:
[Mythicists]
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy [in] The
Jesus Mysteries: Was the “Original
Jesus” a Pagan God? . . . [argue that] Jesus was a creation based on the
widespread mythologies of dying and rising gods known throughout the pagan
world. . . .
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy [in] The
Jesus Mysteries: Was the “Original
Jesus” a Pagan God? . . . [argue that] Jesus was a creation based on the
widespread mythologies of dying and rising gods known throughout the pagan
world. . . .
Real historians of antiquity are
scandalized by such assertions—or they would be if they bothered to read Freke
and Gandy’s book. The authors provide no
evidence for their claims concerning the standard mythology of the godmen. They cite no sources from the ancient world
that can be checked. It is not that they
have provided an alternative interpretation of the available evidence. They have not even cited the available
evidence. And for good reason. No such
evidence [for pagan godmen] exists.
scandalized by such assertions—or they would be if they bothered to read Freke
and Gandy’s book. The authors provide no
evidence for their claims concerning the standard mythology of the godmen. They cite no sources from the ancient world
that can be checked. It is not that they
have provided an alternative interpretation of the available evidence. They have not even cited the available
evidence. And for good reason. No such
evidence [for pagan godmen] exists.
What, for example, is the proof that
Osiris was born on December 25 before three shepherds? Or that he was crucified? And that his death brought atonement for
sin? Or that he returned to life on
earth by being raised from the dead? In
fact, no ancient source says any such thing about Osiris (or about the other
gods). . . . Freke and Gandy . . . “prove” it by quoting other writers from the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries who said so.
But these writers too do not cite any historical evidence. This is all based on assertion, believed by
Freke and Gandy simply because they read it somewhere. This is not serious historical scholarship.
It is sensationalist writing driven by a desire to sell books. . . . [W]hat we
know about Jesus—the historical Jesus—does not come from Egypt toward the end of
the first century, in circles heavily influenced by pagan mystery religions,
but from Palestine, among Jews committed to their decidedly antipagan Jewish
religion, from the 30s. . . . [Their] book [is] . . . filled with patently false information and
inconsistencies. . . . The views they assert . . . no scholars hold to them
today.[10]
Osiris was born on December 25 before three shepherds? Or that he was crucified? And that his death brought atonement for
sin? Or that he returned to life on
earth by being raised from the dead? In
fact, no ancient source says any such thing about Osiris (or about the other
gods). . . . Freke and Gandy . . . “prove” it by quoting other writers from the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries who said so.
But these writers too do not cite any historical evidence. This is all based on assertion, believed by
Freke and Gandy simply because they read it somewhere. This is not serious historical scholarship.
It is sensationalist writing driven by a desire to sell books. . . . [W]hat we
know about Jesus—the historical Jesus—does not come from Egypt toward the end of
the first century, in circles heavily influenced by pagan mystery religions,
but from Palestine, among Jews committed to their decidedly antipagan Jewish
religion, from the 30s. . . . [Their] book [is] . . . filled with patently false information and
inconsistencies. . . . The views they assert . . . no scholars hold to them
today.[10]
We
don’t have a single description in any source of any kind of baptism in the
mystery religions. . . . [T]he Greek name Jesus . . . is the Greek name for the
Aramaic Yeshua, Hebrew Joshua. It is
found in the Greek Old Testament, for example, long before the Gospel writers
lived and is a common name in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. .
. . [In relation to the mythicist contention that the] [“]Romans were renowned
for keeping careful records of all their activities, especially their legal
proceedings,” making it surprising that “there is no record of Jesus being
tried by Pontius Pilate or executed” . . . If Romans were careful record keepers,
it is passing strange that we have no records, not only of Jesus, but of nearly
anyone who lived in the first
century. We simply don’t have birth
notices, trial records, death certificates—or other standard kinds of records that
one has today. [Mythicists who make this argument], of course, do not cite a
single example of anyone else’s death warrant from the first century.[11]
don’t have a single description in any source of any kind of baptism in the
mystery religions. . . . [T]he Greek name Jesus . . . is the Greek name for the
Aramaic Yeshua, Hebrew Joshua. It is
found in the Greek Old Testament, for example, long before the Gospel writers
lived and is a common name in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. .
. . [In relation to the mythicist contention that the] [“]Romans were renowned
for keeping careful records of all their activities, especially their legal
proceedings,” making it surprising that “there is no record of Jesus being
tried by Pontius Pilate or executed” . . . If Romans were careful record keepers,
it is passing strange that we have no records, not only of Jesus, but of nearly
anyone who lived in the first
century. We simply don’t have birth
notices, trial records, death certificates—or other standard kinds of records that
one has today. [Mythicists who make this argument], of course, do not cite a
single example of anyone else’s death warrant from the first century.[11]
[1] Bart
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 96.
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 96.
[2] Bart
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 2, 4-7, 37, 71
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 2, 4-7, 37, 71
[3] Bart
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 17-21.
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 17-21.
[4] Bart
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 220, 268.
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 220, 268.
[5] Bart
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 3.
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 3.
[6] Bart
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 3, 17.
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 3, 17.
[7] Bart
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 336-339.
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 336-339.
[8] Bart
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 38-39.
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 38-39.
[9] Bart
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 21-25. Dr. Ehrman continues:
D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The
Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 21-25. Dr. Ehrman continues:
Just to give a sense of the level of scholarship in
this sensationalist tome, I list a few of the howlers one encounters[.] . . .
Acharya claims that:
this sensationalist tome, I list a few of the howlers one encounters[.] . . .
Acharya claims that:
· The second-century church father Justin never quotes or
mentions any of the Gospels (25). [This simply isn’t true: he mentions the Gospels on numerous occasions
. . . and quotes from them, especially from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.]
mentions any of the Gospels (25). [This simply isn’t true: he mentions the Gospels on numerous occasions
. . . and quotes from them, especially from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.]
· The Gospels were forged hundreds of years after the
events they narrate. (26) [In fact, the Gospels were written [in] the first
century . . . and we have physical proof . . . [in a] Gospel manuscript [that]
dates to the early second century. How
could it have been forged centuries after that?
events they narrate. (26) [In fact, the Gospels were written [in] the first
century . . . and we have physical proof . . . [in a] Gospel manuscript [that]
dates to the early second century. How
could it have been forged centuries after that?
· We have no manuscript of the New Testament that dates
prior to the fourth century (26). [This
is just plain wrong: We have numerous
fragmentary manuscripts that date from the second and third centuries.] . . .
prior to the fourth century (26). [This
is just plain wrong: We have numerous
fragmentary manuscripts that date from the second and third centuries.] . . .
· Paul never quotes a saying of Jesus (33). [Acharya has evidently never read the
writings of Paul . . . he does quote sayings of Jesus.]
writings of Paul . . . he does quote sayings of Jesus.]
· The Acts of Pilate, a legendary account of Jesus’s
trial and execution, was once considered canonical. (44). [None of our sparse references to the Acts of
Pilate indicates, or even suggests, any such thing.]
trial and execution, was once considered canonical. (44). [None of our sparse references to the Acts of
Pilate indicates, or even suggests, any such thing.]
· The “true meaning of the word gospel is ‘God’s Spell,’
as in magic, hypnosis and delusion” (45). [No, the word gospel comes to us from the Old English term god spel, which means “good news”—a fairly precise translation of
the Greek word euaggelion. It has nothing to do with magic.
as in magic, hypnosis and delusion” (45). [No, the word gospel comes to us from the Old English term god spel, which means “good news”—a fairly precise translation of
the Greek word euaggelion. It has nothing to do with magic.
· The church father “Irenaeus was a Gnostic” (60). [In fact, he was one of the most virulent
opponents of Gnostics in the early church.]
opponents of Gnostics in the early church.]
Dr. Ehrman lists numbers of other examples of Ms.
Murdock’s utter lack of even a rudimentary understanding of the topic on which
she writes.
Murdock’s utter lack of even a rudimentary understanding of the topic on which
she writes.
[10] Bart D.
Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical
Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 25-27.
Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical
Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 25-27.
[11] Bart D.
Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical
Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 28-29.
Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical
Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012) 28-29.
-TDR
The Testimonies of Josephus to Jesus Christ Vindicated, part 1 of 2
Josephus refers to the Lord Jesus Christ in two passages in his Antiquities. A brief mention of the Savior appears in a context where Josephus narrates the events surrounding the death of James, the brother of Christ:
[Ananus] assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus called Christ [Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ], whose name was James, and some others. When he had accused them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (Antiquities 20.9.1)
This text is recognized as authentic by the “overwhelming majority of scholars” (Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Robert E. Van Voorst, pg. 84). Josephus also refers to the Lord Jesus in a second and more extensive passage:
Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is right to call him a man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Christ. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, but those who had first loved him did not cease doing so. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having prophesied these and myriad other things about him. To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared. (Antiquities 18.3.3)
Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή. ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο. ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρῶτων ἀνδῶν παρʼ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες. ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταυτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.
This latter passage was recognized as authentic for the large majority of church history, but it is questioned today by many, although it has been defended as authentic by both conservative and liberal scholars. There are good reasons to believe that the passage, in its entirety, is authentic. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I reprint below the (out of copyright) argument for authenticity from the most widely printed edition of Josephus today, that translated by William Whiston (The Works of Josephus, Complete and Unabridged, ed. William Whiston, pgs. 815-823):
DISSERTATION 1
THE TESTIMONIES OF JOSEPHUS CONCERNING JESUS CHRIST, JOHN THE BAPTIST AND JAMES THE JUST, VINDICATED
Since we meet with several important testimonies in Josephus, the Jewish historian, concerning John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus of Nazareth, concerning Jesus of Nazareth himself, and concerning James the Just the brother of Jesus of Nazareth; and since the principal testimony, which is that concerning Jesus of Nazareth himself, has of late been greatly questioned by many, and rejected by some of the learned as spurious, it will be fit for me, who have ever declared my firm belief that these testimonies were genuine, to set down fairly some of the original evidence and citations I have met with in the first fifteen centuries concerning them; and then to make proper observations upon that evidence, for the reader’s more complete satisfaction.
But before I produce the citations themselves out of Josephus, give me leave to prepare the reader’s attention, by setting down the sentiments of perhaps the most learned person and the most competent judge, that ever was, as to the authority of Josephus, I mean of Joseph Scaliger, in the Prolegomena to his book De Emendatione; Temporum, p. 17. “Josephus is the most diligent and the greatest lover of truth of all writers; nor are we afraid to affirm of him, that it is more safe to believe him, not only as to the affairs of the Jews, but also as to those that are foreign to them, than all the Greek and Latin writers; and this, because his fidelity and his compass of learning are everywhere conspicuous.”
THE ANCIENT CITATIONS OF THE TESTIMONIES OF JOSEPHUS, FROM HIS OWN TIME TILL THE END OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
About a.d. 110. Tacit. Annal. 15.44.—Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, [as if he himself had set Rome on fire], ascribed it to those people who were hated for their wicked practices, and called by the vulgar Christians: these he punished exquisitely. The author of this name was Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was brought to punishment by Pontius Pilate the procurator.
About a.d. 147. Just. Mart. Dialog cum Tryph. p. 230.—You Jews knew that Jesus was risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, as the prophecies did foretell was to happen.
About a.d. 230. Origen Comment in Matt. p. 234.—This James was of so shining a character among the people, on account of his righteousness, that Flavius Josephus, when, in his twentieth book of the Jewish Antiquities, he had a mind to set down what was the cause, why the people suffered such miseries, till the very holy house was demolished, he said, that these things befell them by the anger of God, on account of what they had dared to do to James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ; and wonderful it is, that while he did not receive Jesus for Christ, he did nevertheless bear witness that James was so righteous a man. He says farther, that the people thought they had suffered these things for the sake of James.
About a.d. 250. Id. Contr. Cels. 1.35–36.—I would say to Celsus, who personates a Jew, that admitted of John the Baptist, and how he baptized Jesus, that one who lived but a little while after John and Jesus, wrote, how that John was a baptizer unto the remission of sins; for Josephus testifies, in the eighteenth book of his Jewish Antiquities, that John was the Baptist; and that he promised purification to those that were baptized. The same Josephus also, although he did not believe in Jesus as Christ, when he was inquiring after the case of the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the demolition of the temple, and ought to have said that their machinations against Jesus were the cause of those miseries coming on the people, because they had slain that Christ who was foretold by the prophets, he, though as it were unwillingly and yet as one not remote from the truth, says, “these miseries befell the Jews by way of revenge for James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus that was called Christ; because they had slain him who was a most righteous person.” Now this James was he whom that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, said he had seen as the Lord’s brother [Gal. 1:19]; which relation implies not so much nearness of blood, or the sameness of education, as it does the agreement of manners and preaching. If therefore he says the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews for the sake of James, with how much greater reason might he have said that it happened for the sake of Jesus? etc.
About a.d. 324. Euseb. Demonstr. Evan. 3.124. Certainly, the attestation of those I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a farther witness; who, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, when he was writing the history of what happened under Pilate, makes mention of our Savior in these words:—“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as had a veneration for truth. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles:—he was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared unto them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had spoken of these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him: whence the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” If therefore we have his historian’s testimony, that he not only brought over to himself the twelve apostles, with the seventy disciples, but many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles also, he must manifestly have had somewhat in him extraordinary, above the rest of mankind; for how otherwise could he draw over so many of the Jews and of the Gentiles, unless he performed admirable and amazing works, and used a method of teaching that was not common? Moreover, the scripture of the Acts of the Apostles (21:20) bears witness, that there were many ten thousands of Jews, who were persuaded that he was the Christ of God, who was foretold by the prophets.
About a.d. 330. Id. Hist. Eccles. 1.11. Now the divine scripture of the Gospels makes mention of John the Baptist as having his head cut off by the younger Herod. Josephus also concurs in his history, and makes mention of Herodias by name, as the wife of his brother, whom Herod had married, upon divorcing his former lawful wife. She was the daughter of Aretas, king of the Petrean Arabians; and which Herodias he had parted from her husband while he was alive; on which account also when he had slain John, he made war with Aretas [Aretas made war with him], because his daughter had been used dishonorably: in which war, when it came to a battle, he says, that all Herod’s army was destroyed; and that he suffered this because of his wicked contrivance against John. Moreover the same Josephus, by acknowledging John to have been a most righteous man, and the Baptist, conspires in his testimony with what is written in the Gospels. He also relates, that Herod lost his kingdom for the sake of the same Herodias, together with whom he was himself condemned to be banished to Vienna, a city of Gaul; and this is his account in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, where he writes this of John verbatim:—Some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God and that very justly, as a punishment for what he did against John that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and one that commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism, for that by this means the washing [with water] would appear acceptable to him, when they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only],—but for the purification of the body, supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly delighted in hearing his words, Herod was afraid that this so great power of persuading men might tend to some sedition or other, for they seemed to be disposed to do everything he should advise them to, so he supposed it better to prevent any attempt for a mutation from him, by cutting him off, than after any such mutation should be brought about, and the public should suffer, to repent [of such negligence]. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.”—When Josephus had said this of John, he makes mention also of our Savior in the same history after this manner:—“Now there was about this time, one Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles also:—he was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him: for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold them and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him: and still the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” And since this writer, sprung from the Hebrews themselves, hath delivered these things above in his own work, concerning John the Baptist and our Savior, what room is there for any farther evasion? etc.
Now James was so wonderful a person, and was so celebrated by all others for righteousness, that the judicious Jews thought this to have been the occasion of that siege of Jerusalem, which came on presently after his martyrdom; and that it befell them for no other reason than that impious fact they were guilty of against him. Josephus therefore did not refuse to attest thereto in writing, by the words following:—“These miseries befell the Jews by way of revenge for James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus that was called Christ, on account that they had slain him who was a most righteous person.”
The same Josephus declares the manner of his death in the twentieth book of the Antiquities, in these words:—“Caesar sent Albinus into Judea to be procurator, when he had heard that Festus was dead. Now Ananus, junior, who, as we said, had been admitted to the high priesthood, was in his temper bold and daring in an extraordinary manner. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are more savage in judgment than any of the other Jews, as we have already signified. Since therefore this was the character of Ananus, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority], because Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembles the sanhedrin of Judges, and brings before them James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and some others [of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them, as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and those who were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done could not be justified,” etc.
About a.d. 360. Ambrose, or Hegesippus de Excid. Urb. Hierosolym. 2.12.—We have discovered that it was the opinion and belief of the Jews, as Josephus affirms (who is an author not to be rejected, when he writes against himself), that Herod lost his army, not by the deceit of men but by the anger of God, and that justly, as an effect of revenge for what he did to John the Baptist, a just man, who had said to him, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.
The Jews themselves also bear witness to Christ, as appears by Josephus, the writer of their history, who says thus:—“That there was at that time a wise man, if (says he) it be lawful to have him called a man, a doer of wonderful works, who appeared to his disciples after the third day from his death alive again, according to the writings of the prophets, who foretold these and innumerable other miraculous events concerning him; from whom began the congregation of Christians, and hath penetrated among all sorts of men: nor does there remain any nation in the Roman world which continues strangers to his religion.” If the Jews do not believe us let them at least believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart and his perfidious intention. However, it was no prejudice to the truth that he was not a believer; but this adds more weight to his testimony, that while he has an unbeliever, and unwilling this should be true, he has not denied it to be so.
About a.d. 400. Hieronym de. Vir. Illustr, in Josepho.—Josephus in the eighteenth book of Antiquities, most expressly acknowledges that Christ was slain by the Pharisees, on account of the greatness of his miracles; and that John the Baptist was truly a prophet; and thatJerusalem was demolished on account of the slaughter of James the apostle. Now, he wrote concerning our Lord after this manner:—“At the same time there was Jesus, a wise man, if yet it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of those who willingly receive the truth. He had many followers both of the Jews and of the Gentiles:—he was believed to be Christ. And when by the envy of our principal men, Pilate had condemned him to the cross, yet notwithstanding, those who had loved him at first persevered, for he appeared to them alive on the third day as the oracles of the prophets had foretold many of these and other wonderful things concerning him; and the sect of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
About a.d. 410. Isidorus Pelusiot, the Scholar of Chrysostom, 4.225.—There was one Josephus, a Jew of the greatest reputation, and one that was zealous of the law; one also that paraphrased the Old Testament with truth, and, acted valiantly for the Jews, and had showed that their settlement was nobler than can be described by words. Now since he made their interest give place to truth, for he would not support the opinion of impious men, I think it necessary to set down his words. What then does he say? “Now there was about that time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles:—he was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them the third day alive again, as the divine prophets had said these, and a vast number of other wonderful things concerning him: and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” Now I cannot but wonder greatly at this great man’s love of truth in many respects, but chiefly where he says, “Jesus was a teacher of men who received the truth with pleasure.”
About a.d. 440. Sozomen. Hist. Eccles. 1.1.—Now Josephus, the son of Matthias, a priest, a man of very great note, both among the Jews and the Romans, may well be a witness of credit as to the truth of Christ’s history; for he scruples to call him a man as being a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of the words of truth. He names him Christ openly; and is not ignorant that he was condemned to the cross, and appeared on the third day alive, and that ten thousand other wonderful things were foretold of him by the divine prophets. He testifies also, that those whom he drew over to him, being many of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews, continued to love him; and that the tribe named from him was not then extinct. Now he seems to me by this his relation almost to proclaim that Christ is God. However, he appears to have been so affected with the strangeness of the thing, as to run, as it were, in a sort of middle way, so as not to put any indignity upon believers on him, but rather to afford his suffrage to them.
About a.d. 510. Cassiodorus Hist. Tripartit. e Sozomeno.—Now Josephus, the son of Matthias, and a priest, a man of great nobility among the Jews, and of great dignity among the Romans, shall be a truth of Christ’s history: for he dares not call him a man, as a doer of famous works, and a teacher of true doctrines: he names him Christ openly; and is not ignorant that he was condemned to the cross, and appeared on the third day alive, and that an infinite number of other wonderful things were foretold of him by the holy prophets. Moreover, he testifies also that there were then alive many whom he had chosen, both Greeks and Jews, and that they continued to love him; and that the sect which was named from him was by no means extinct at that time.
About a.d. 640. Chron. Alex. p. 514.—Now Josephus also relates in his eighteenth book of Antiquities, how John the Baptist, that holy man, was beheaded on account of Herodias, the wife of Philip, the brother of Herod himself; for Herod had divorced his former wife, who was still alive, and had been his lawful wife: she was the daughter of Aretas, king of the Petreans. When therefore Herod had taken Herodias away from her husband, while he was yet alive (on whose account he slew John also), Aretas made war against Herod, because his daughter had been dishonorably treated. In which war he says, that all Herod’s army was destroyed, and that he suffered that calamity because of the wickedness he had been guilty of against John. The same Josephus relates, that Herod lost his kingdom on account of Herodias, and that with her he was banished to Lyons, etc.
P. 526–27.] Now that our Savior taught his preaching three years, is demonstrated both by other necessary reasonings, as also out of the holy Gospels, and out of Josephus’s writings, who was a wise man among the Hebrews, etc.
P. 584, 586.] Josephus relates, in the fifth book of the [Jewish] War, that Jerusalem was taken in the third [second] year of Vespasian, as after forty years since they had dared to put Jesus to death: in which time he says, that James, the brother of our Lord and bishop of Jerusalem, was thrown down [from the temple] and slain of them, by stoning.
About a.d. 740. Anastasius Abbas contr. Jud.—Now Josephus, an author and writer of your own, says of Christ, that he was a just and good man, showed and declared so to be by divine grace, who gave aid to many by signs and miracles.
About a.d. 790. Georgius Syncellus Chron. p. 339.—These miseries befell the Jews by way of revenge for James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus that was called Christ, on the account that they had slain him who was a most righteous person. Now as Ananus, a person of that character, thought he had a proper opportunity, because Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road, so he assembles the sanhedrin of judges, and brings before them James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, and some of his companions, and when he had formed an accusation against them, as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned; but as for those that seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and those that were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the king [Agrippa] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done could not be justified, etc.
About a.d. 850. Johan. Malela Chron. 10.—From that time began the destruction of the Jews, as Josephus, the philosopher of the Jews, hath written; who also said this. That from the time the Jews crucified Christ, who was a good and righteous man (that is, if it be fit to call such a one a man, and not God), the land of Judea was never free from trouble. These things the same Josephus the Jew has related in his writings.
About ad. 860. Photius Cod. 48.—I have read the treatise of Josephus About the Universe, whose title I have elsewhere read to be Of the Substance of the Universe. It is contained in two very small treatises. He treats of the origin of the world in a brief manner. However, he speaks of the divinity of Christ, who is our true God, in a way very like to what we use, declaring that the same name of Christ belongs to him, and writes of his ineffable generation of the Father after such a manner as cannot be blamed; which things may perhaps raise a doubt in some, whether Josephus was the author of the work, though the phraseology does not at all differ from this man’s other works. However, I have found in some papers, that this discourse was not written by Josephus, but by one Caius, a presbyter.
Cod. 238.—Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee and of Perea, the son of Herod the Great, fell in love, as Josephus says, with the wife of his brother Philip, whose name was Herodias, who was the granddaughter of Herod the Great, by his son Aristobulus, whom he had slain. Agrippa was also her brother. Now Herod took her away from her husband, and married her. This is he that slew John the Baptist, that great man, the forerunner [of Christ], being afraid (as Josephus says) lest he should raise a sedition among his people; for they all followed the directions of John, on account of the excellency of his virtue. In his time was the passion of our Savior.
Cod. 33.—I have read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias. He omits the greatest part of what was most necessary to be related; but, as infected with Jewish prejudices, being also himself a Jew by birth, he makes no mention at all of the advent, or of the acts done, or of the miracles wrought, by Christ.
The time uncertain. Macarius in Actis Sanctorum, 5.149. ap. Fabric. Joseph. p. 61.—Josephus, a priest of Jerusalem, and one that wrote with truth the history of the Jewish affairs, bears witness that Christ, the true God, was incarnate, and crucified, and the third day rose again; whose writings are reposited in the public library. Thus he says:—“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles also; this was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first, did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and still the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” Since, therefore, the writer of the Hebrews has engraven this testimony concerning our Lord and Savior in his own books, what defense can there remain for the unbelievers?
About a.d. 980. Suidas in voce Iēsous.—We have found Josephus, who hath written about the taking of Jerusalem (of whom Eusebius Pamphilii makes frequent mention in his Ecclesiastical History), saying openly in his Memoirs of the Captivity, that Jesus officiated in the temple with the priests. Thus have we found Josephus saying, a man of ancient times, and not very long after the apostles, etc.
About a.d. 1060. Cedrenus Compend. Histor. p. 196.—Josephus does indeed write concerning John the Baptist as follows—Some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that he was punished very justly for what punishment he had inflicted on John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both by righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. But as concerning Christ, the same Josephus says, that about that time there was Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure: for that Christ drew over many even from the Gentiles; whom when Pilate had crucified, those who at first had loved him did not leave off to preach concerning him, for he appeared to them the third day alive again, as the divine prophets had testified, and spoke these and other wonderful things concerning him.
About a.d. 1080. Theophylact. in Joan 13.—The city of the Jews was taken, and the wrath of God was kindled against them; as also Josephus witnesses, that this came upon them on account of the death of Jesus.
About a.d. 1120. Zonaras Annal. 1.267.—Josephus, in the eighteenth book of Antiquities, writes thus concerning our Lord and God Jesus Christ;—Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles:—he was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them the third day alive again, as the divine prophets had said these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
About a.d. 1120. Glycus Annal. p. 234.—Then did Philo, that wise man, and Josephus, flourish. This last was styled The Lover of Truth, because he commended John, who baptized our Lord; and because he bore witness that Christ, in like manner, was a wise man, and the doer of great miracles; and that, when he was crucified, he appeared the third day.
About a.d. 1170. Gotfridus Viterbiensis Chron. p. 366. e Vers. Rufini.—Josephus relates that a very great war arose between Aretas, king of the Arabians, and Herod, on account of the sin which Herod had committed against John. Moreover, the same Josephus writes thus concerning Christ: There was at this time Jesus, a wise man, if at least it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as willingly hear truth. He also drew over to him many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles:—he was Christ. And when Pilate, at the accusation of the principal men of our nation, had decreed that he should be crucified, those that had loved him from the beginning did not forsake him; for he appeared to them the third day alive again, according to what the divinely inspired prophets had foretold, that these and innumerable other miracles should come to pass about him. Moreover, both the name and sect of Christians, who were named from him, continue in being unto this day.
About a.d. 1360. Nicephorus Callistus Hist. Eccles. 1.90–91.—Now this [concerning Herod the tetrarch] is attested to, not only by the book of the holy Gospels, but by Josephus, that lover of truth; who also makes mention of Herodias his brother’s wife, whom Herod had taken away from him while he was alive, and married her; having divorced his former lawful wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, king of the Petrean Arabians. This Herodias he had married, and lived with her; on which account also, when he had slain John, he made war with Aretas, because his daughter had been dishonorably used; in which war he relates that all Herod’s army was destroyed, and that he suffered this on account of the most unjust slaughter of John. He also adds, that John was a most righteous man. Moreover, he makes mention of his baptism, agreeing in all points thereto relating with the Gospel. He also informs us, that Herod lost his kingdom on account of Herodias, with whom also he was condemned to be banished to Vienna, which was their place of exile, and a city bordering upon Gaul, and lying near the utmost bounds of the west.
About a.d. 1450. Hardmannus Schedelius Chron. p. 110.—Josephus the Jew, who was called Flavius, a priest, and the son of Matthias, a priest of that nation, a most celebrated historian, and very skillful in many things; he was certainly a good man, and of an excellent character, who had the highest opinion of Christ.
About a.d. 1480. Platina de Vitis Pontificum’ in Christo.—I shall avoid mentioning what Christ did until the 30th year of his age, when he was baptized by John, the son of Zacharias, because not only the Gospels and Epistles are full of those acts of his, which he did in the most excellent and most holy manner, but the books of such as were quite remote from his way of living, and acting, and ordaining, are also full of the same. Flavius Josephus himself, who wrote twenty books of Jewish antiquities in the Greek tongue, when he had proceeded as far as the government of the emperor, Tiberius, says. There was in those days Jesus, a certain wise man, if at least it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of men, of such especially as willingly hear the truth. On this account he drew over to him many, both of the Jews and Gentiles:—he was Christ. But when Pilate, instigated by the principal men of our nation, had decreed that he should be crucified, yet did not those that had loved him from the beginning forsake him; and besides, he appeared to them the third day after his death alive, as the divinely inspired prophets had foretold, that these and innumerable other miracles should come to pass about him and the famous name of Christians, taken from him, as well as their sect, do still continue in being.
The same Josephus also affirms, That John the Baptist, a true prophet, and on that account one that was had in esteem by all men, was slain by Herod, the son of Herod the Great, a little before the death of Christ, in the castle of Macherus,—not because he was afraid for himself and his kingdom, as the same author says,—but because he had incestuously married Herodias, the sister of Agrippa, and the wife of that excellent person his brother Philip.
About a.d. 1480. Trithemius Abbas de Scriptor. Eccles.—Josephus the Jew, although he continued to be a Jew, did frequently commend the Christians; and in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, wrote down an eminent testimony concerning our Lord Jesus Christ.
Historic Fundamentalism: What is it?
Do you claim to be a Christian
fundamentalist? If, by this term, you
mean that you seek to militantly defend all the truths of the Christian faith,
and militantly stand against and separate from all error, well and good—you will then, if your confession is true, be a servant of Christ in a historic Baptist church. Do you think that such a
line is too strict, for “historic fundamentalism” was a para-church movement
that only recognized a handful of “fundamentals” that were worthy of
separation? If that is truly “historic
fundamentalism,” then you should reject such fundamentalism for the
God-honoring true separatism only possible within a Biblical Baptist church
that is unaffiliated with denominationalism, associationism, and all other
humanly devised denominational structures.
However, was there actually ever a
unified “historic fundamentalism” in the first place? The classic series The Fundamentals, for example, printed an essay by George Sales Bishop, who believed in the dictation of the original manuscripts and in Scripture’s perfect preservation—including the perfect preservation of not the
Hebrew consonants alone, but also the vowels that were originally given by
inspiration—in the Hebrew and Greek Textus
Receptus.[1]
So is “historic fundamentalism” opposed to the Greek critical text—is it King James Only? Why or why not?
So is “historic fundamentalism” opposed to the Greek critical text—is it King James Only? Why or why not?
However, The Fundamentals also reprinted articles
by Edwin J. Orr, who “was unconcerned to defend a literal interpretation of
the early chapters of Genesis, and [who] took the view that an insistence on
biblical inerrancy was actually ‘suicidal.’”[2]
by Edwin J. Orr, who “was unconcerned to defend a literal interpretation of
the early chapters of Genesis, and [who] took the view that an insistence on
biblical inerrancy was actually ‘suicidal.’”[2]
So
who represents “historic fundamentalism”—Bishop or Orr? Does “historic fundamentalism” defend an
inerrant autographa, an inerrant autographa that is perfectly preserved
in the Textus Receptus, or errant
autographs and apographs?
who represents “historic fundamentalism”—Bishop or Orr? Does “historic fundamentalism” defend an
inerrant autographa, an inerrant autographa that is perfectly preserved
in the Textus Receptus, or errant
autographs and apographs?
Indeed,
while cessationists are amply represented in early fundamentalism, the writings
of Jessie Penn-Lewis appear also in The
Fundamentals.[3] So does “historic fundamentalism” follow
Scriptural cessationism and the sole authority of Scripture, or Mrs.Penn-Lewis’s fanaticism, radical demonology, Quakerism, date-setting for Christ’s return, and allegedly “inspired” extra-Biblical writings—one of which
is condensed in The Fundamentals?
while cessationists are amply represented in early fundamentalism, the writings
of Jessie Penn-Lewis appear also in The
Fundamentals.[3] So does “historic fundamentalism” follow
Scriptural cessationism and the sole authority of Scripture, or Mrs.Penn-Lewis’s fanaticism, radical demonology, Quakerism, date-setting for Christ’s return, and allegedly “inspired” extra-Biblical writings—one of which
is condensed in The Fundamentals?
So
which portion of the authors in The
Fundamentals represent “historic fundamentalism”? Is it the “Inner Light” that is allegedly equal to Scripture, as taught by the Quaker Jessie Penn-Lewis? Is it the inerrant original manuscripts
perfectly preserved in the Textus
Receptus as affirmed by George Sayles Bishop? Is it the recognition that verbal, plenary
inspiration is a false and indeed a “suicidal” position, as affirmed by Orr?
which portion of the authors in The
Fundamentals represent “historic fundamentalism”? Is it the “Inner Light” that is allegedly equal to Scripture, as taught by the Quaker Jessie Penn-Lewis? Is it the inerrant original manuscripts
perfectly preserved in the Textus
Receptus as affirmed by George Sayles Bishop? Is it the recognition that verbal, plenary
inspiration is a false and indeed a “suicidal” position, as affirmed by Orr?
Is
it whatever the person speaking about “historic fundamentalism” wants it to be?
it whatever the person speaking about “historic fundamentalism” wants it to be?
A
unified “historic fundamentalism” is a chimera, and even if it had existed, it
would possess no independent authority—the Christian’s sole authority is the
Bible alone, and the Bible teaches that every religious organization on earth in this dispensation, if it wants to have the special presence of Jesus Christ, must be under the authority of one of His churches. Fundamentalist
para-church institutions are not churches.
Do you value the Lord’s church in the way that One does who bought her
with His blood (Ephesians 5:25)? If you do not, but are following some
movement, whether evangelical, fundamental, or by any other name, your
organization does not possess the promises Christ makes to His church
alone. Beware lest Christ say to you,
and to your organization, “cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?” (Luke 13:7).
unified “historic fundamentalism” is a chimera, and even if it had existed, it
would possess no independent authority—the Christian’s sole authority is the
Bible alone, and the Bible teaches that every religious organization on earth in this dispensation, if it wants to have the special presence of Jesus Christ, must be under the authority of one of His churches. Fundamentalist
para-church institutions are not churches.
Do you value the Lord’s church in the way that One does who bought her
with His blood (Ephesians 5:25)? If you do not, but are following some
movement, whether evangelical, fundamental, or by any other name, your
organization does not possess the promises Christ makes to His church
alone. Beware lest Christ say to you,
and to your organization, “cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?” (Luke 13:7).
The Bible teaches that the church is the
pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)—the church, the local, visible,
Baptist congregation, is the place of God’s special presence, His special
protection from Satan and his kingdom, and His promises of perpetuity and
blessing until the return of Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18). No promises of Christ’s special presence or
protection are made to the mythical universal, invisible church, parachurch
institutions, human denominations, or inter-denominational movements such as
evangelicalism.
pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)—the church, the local, visible,
Baptist congregation, is the place of God’s special presence, His special
protection from Satan and his kingdom, and His promises of perpetuity and
blessing until the return of Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18). No promises of Christ’s special presence or
protection are made to the mythical universal, invisible church, parachurch
institutions, human denominations, or inter-denominational movements such as
evangelicalism.
There never was a unified “historic
fundamentalism,” and, even if it had existed, it would have no authority
whatever to determine what are Biblical doctrine and practice for the Lord’s
churches.
fundamentalism,” and, even if it had existed, it would have no authority
whatever to determine what are Biblical doctrine and practice for the Lord’s
churches.
[1]
See the “Inspiration of the Hebrew
Letters and Vowel Points,” pgs. 43-59 of The
Doctrines of Grace and Kindred Themes, George Sayles Bishop (New York,
NY: Gospel Publishing House, 1919; note as well his “Relative Value of the Old
Testament” (pgs. 88-100) and “The Testimony of Scripture To Itself,” pgs.
19-42). The KJV-only, Landmark Baptist
periodical The Plains Baptist Challenger,
a ministry of Tabernacle Baptist Church of Lubbock, TX, on pgs. 3-8 of its
July 1991 edition, reprinted George Sayles Bishop’s defense, based on Matthew
5:18, of the coevality of the vowel points and the consonants. Bishop was a contributor to the epoch-making
volumes The Fundamentals (“The
Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves,” pgs. 80-97, vol. 2, The Fundamentals, eds. R. A. Torrey, A.
C. Dixon, etc., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1970, reprint of the original 1917 ed. of the Bible Institute of Los
Angeles), writing: “We take the ground
that on the original parchment . . . every sentence, word, line, mark, point,
pen-stroke, jot, tittle was put there by God” (pg. 92, The Fundamentals, vol 2.).
See the “Inspiration of the Hebrew
Letters and Vowel Points,” pgs. 43-59 of The
Doctrines of Grace and Kindred Themes, George Sayles Bishop (New York,
NY: Gospel Publishing House, 1919; note as well his “Relative Value of the Old
Testament” (pgs. 88-100) and “The Testimony of Scripture To Itself,” pgs.
19-42). The KJV-only, Landmark Baptist
periodical The Plains Baptist Challenger,
a ministry of Tabernacle Baptist Church of Lubbock, TX, on pgs. 3-8 of its
July 1991 edition, reprinted George Sayles Bishop’s defense, based on Matthew
5:18, of the coevality of the vowel points and the consonants. Bishop was a contributor to the epoch-making
volumes The Fundamentals (“The
Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves,” pgs. 80-97, vol. 2, The Fundamentals, eds. R. A. Torrey, A.
C. Dixon, etc., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1970, reprint of the original 1917 ed. of the Bible Institute of Los
Angeles), writing: “We take the ground
that on the original parchment . . . every sentence, word, line, mark, point,
pen-stroke, jot, tittle was put there by God” (pg. 92, The Fundamentals, vol 2.).
[2]
Pg. 492, Biographical
Dictionary of Evangelicals, “Orr, James,” ed. Timothy Larsen, referencing
Orr’s Revelation and Inspiration
[1910], p. 198. See, e. g., “The Holy Scriptures and Modern Negations,”
“The Early Narratives of Genesis” (Chapters 5 & 11 The Fundamentals, ed. Torrey, vol. 1; Orr wrote other articles also).
Pg. 492, Biographical
Dictionary of Evangelicals, “Orr, James,” ed. Timothy Larsen, referencing
Orr’s Revelation and Inspiration
[1910], p. 198. See, e. g., “The Holy Scriptures and Modern Negations,”
“The Early Narratives of Genesis” (Chapters 5 & 11 The Fundamentals, ed. Torrey, vol. 1; Orr wrote other articles also).
[3]
Pgs. 183-199, Chapter 13, “Satan and
his Kingdom,” The Fundamentals, ed.
Torrey, vol. 4. Her chapter is condensed
from The Warfare with Satan and the Way
of Victory.
Pgs. 183-199, Chapter 13, “Satan and
his Kingdom,” The Fundamentals, ed.
Torrey, vol. 4. Her chapter is condensed
from The Warfare with Satan and the Way
of Victory.
Paul Obliterates Pandering in Galatians: His Antidote to Pandering
The Judaizers at Galatia pandered to the Jews in the region. They wanted to make a “fair show” to their ethnicity and they wished to avoid persecution. Circumcision was a convenient emphasis over the cross of Christ, even though it nullified grace and the work of Christ became no effect unto them. The Jews of Galatia didn’t have the same effect on Paul and he tells why in the next to last verse of the entire epistle (6:17):
From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
Persecution was a threat to professing Christians, so a motivating factor to pander (6:12). Paul, however, wasn’t doing any handwringing over that possibility. Anything that they could have done to Paul, he had already experienced. His body was his biography and an anatomical masterpiece of perseverance. His kryptonite to Jewish intimidation was the scars of his personal suffering for Jesus. There was no pain that Paul had not already experienced. If he was going to fold under pressure, he would have already.
Paul’s marks were actual marks. He could place an index finger on spots all over himself as the evidence of ugly wounds, each with an accompanying story. No one could trouble him.
On the other hand, men can be trouble to other men. You read this all over the Bible. It was a concern of Solomon about young men in the first chapter of Proverbs. Sinners would entice. They would be trouble. Something they were offering in the short term would look better than what God could give. It’s never true, but it merited a serious warning from Solomon. The prospect of missing out on a fun time or not getting to look impressive to the appropriate people seem like enough trouble. Something far worse wouldn’t be trouble for Paul.
The Galatian churches shouldn’t be trouble for Paul either. They should have welcomed some marks to match his. If they were saved, they were, like Paul, crucified to the world. The cross of Christ was how they received justification before God. Their salvation came because of the Savior’s suffering, because of His marks. Paul bore them too. Joining Him outside the camp. Pandering comes with the proposal of a better time in this world and glory received for a fair showing. It’s not about the truth, but what will work on a momentary basis.
Doctrines and practices, once believed and lived in churches for over a thousand years, have disappeared like they never existed in a majority of churches today. They are difficult teachings, unacceptable to this world, although required by the next. Rather than preach and live those teachings, the majority of churches pander like the Judaizers did.
If the Judaizers really cared about circumcision, they would keep the rest of the law too. Circumcision was a convenience though. It would provide the most acceptance at the least possible cost.
For Paul, it was preaching only the cross of Christ. Today, like then, that message isn’t good enough. The Judaizers were ancient advocates of contextualization, making the cross more appetizing to their context with a circumcision sugar-coat. A spoonful of circumcision might make the cross of Christ go down.
Churches today impress a different context, one obsessed with creature comfort. They have a Jesus who might slide down easier with the right mix of worldly and fleshly entertainment or amusement. Not only do you make it through unscathed, mark-free, but with a slightly Christianized version of almost everything the world has and does. That is trouble everywhere in Christianity today.
When even the Apostle Peter pandered to the James gang, as recounted in Galatians 2, Paul, the least of all apostles, confronted him to his face in harsh terms, not uncertain ones. Peter was becoming an accessory, even if he didn’t accept the perversion himself. This is the case of a lot of professing Christian leaders today. They see the damage, but they don’t want to hurt their numbers or coalitions, so they sign-off on the pandering that makes up such a big part of evangelical and fundamentalist churches today.
Abiding in Christ: What Does it Mean? part 8 of 9: Exposition of John 15:6-11
6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
The one who does not, as a summary of his life, abide (aorist tense), or continue faithful to Christ, is cast into hell fire, where he will be continually burned (present tense) for all eternity. The branch without genuine connection to the Lord pictures an unregenerate person with only an outward profession of Christianity. John 15:6 does not picture a loss of reward for a disobedient believer. Other than John 15:6, the verbs “cast forth” (ballo) and “burned” (kaio) are found together only in Revelation 8:8 and 19:20. Neither reference speaks of believers being cast forth or burned. Revelation 19:20 (cf. 20:11-15; 21:8, “the lake which burneth (kaio) with fire and brimstone”), however, demonstrates that the lost will be “cast (ballo) . . . into a lake of fire burning (kaio) with brimstone.” Furthermore, out of 125 instances of the verb “cast forth” (ballo) in the New Testament, believers are never once said to be cast forth by God, but the lost are, over and over again, said to be cast (ballo) into the fires of hell (note Matthew 3:10; 5:13, 25, 29-30; 7:19; 13:42, 48; 18:8-9; Mark 9:42 (cf. vv. 41-48), 45, 47; Luke 3:9; 12:58; 14:35; Revelation 2:22; 12:4, 9, 13; 14:19; 18:21; 19:20; 20:3, 10, 14-15). Thus, the verse indicates that a lack of fruit is evidence of a non-living connection to the vine. The present tense of ballo, in “cast” them into the fire, refers vividly (cf. the present tenses in Matthew 3:10; 7:19; Luke 3:9; Revelation 2:22) to the unconverted being cast into eternal torment. The judgment of the lost in hellfire is associated with a similar plant and fruit-bearing image in John 15 as in Matthew 3:10; 7:19; Luke 3:9. These unregenerate, apostate, “withered” and fruitless branches (cf. Jude 12; Job 8:11-13; James 1:11), of which Judas is the contextual example, are often “cast forth” (also ballo, here aorist, as in Mark 9:45, 47; Revelation 20:15) in a certain sense in this life, through outward apostasy from the church, to which they had been outwardly united (cf. Matthew 13:47), whether voluntarily or through church discipline, but their ultimate rejection and separation from the elect will take place at the day of judgment. At that time the wheat and chaff, the branches truly united to Christ and those only professedly so, will be “gathered” (sunago, cf. Matthew 3:12; 13:30; 25:32; Luke 3:17) to their respective destinies of eternal joy or torment. The branches without union to Christ will glorify God’s justice in their miserable damnation; they will not glorify God here by good works, but they will glorify His justice by their being burned eternally (Ezekiel 15:2-5; Romans 9:22).
Christ in this verse says “if a man” abide not, rather than “if ye abide not,” for, Judas having been separated from them, the remaining disciples were all genuine believers.
7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
This verse helps provide an understanding of the character of abiding in Christ; it is related to Christ’s words abiding in one. Christ’s own receive His words (John 17:8). Here again the aorist verb tenses represent the characteristic of a whole life. The promise, “ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done,” shows that the Lord will answer the prayers of His children, as their prayers are directed by His Word. Consider as well that while all believers have Christ’s words abiding in them, there can be different degrees of this abiding. All believers have received the Word, as Christ prayed for them (John 17:8), but they continue in it to different degrees, resulting in different degrees of fruitfulness.
8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
They already were His disciples, having become such at the moment of their conversion, but their bearing much fruit would evidence this. Fruit bearing is not an uncertain event; by bearing fruit, they “shall” certainly be His disciples in the future, as they certainly were at that time. The Father is certain to receive such glory from them, because the ones He has chosen unto life He has also chosen unto fruitfulness, v. 16. All believers bring forth fruit, and “every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire” (Matthew 3:10). This is the consistent teaching of the entire Bible (Matthew 3:8, 10; 7:16-20; 12:33; 13:8, 26, 21:19, 34, 41, 43; Mark 4:7-8, 29; 11:14; 12:2; Luke 3:8-9; 6:43-44; 8:8; 13:6-7, 9; 20:10; John 4:36; 12:24; 15:2, 4-5, 8, 16; Romans 6:21-22; Galatians 5:22 (contrast 5:19-21); Ephesians 5:9; Philippians 1:11; Hebrews 12:11; 13:15; James 3:17-18). For this purpose of fruit-bearing the Father prunes His saints, v. 2. Since they were good trees, with living connection to Christ, they would bear good fruit as evidence thereof (Luke 6:43-45). Those who are “disciples indeed” will abide, persevere, or continue in His Word, John 8:31.
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
They were to abide or continue faithful, continue to love Christ, for “if any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha” (1 Corinthians 16:22). That the aorist of meno in this pericope represents a characteristic of what is true in general and at all times, rather than the simple action of a particular point in time, is evidenced in this verse. The Father’s love for His Son is certainly something true always, not something restricted to a particular moment, but it receives an aorist in this verse, as does Christ’s love for His elect, which is likewise unrestricted temporally; so we would expect the same sort of aorist for “continue/abide” here in relation to the action of the disciples.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
Genuine converts will keep Christ’s commandments, and thus evidence their continuing love for Christ, just as He continues to love them, John 14:21, 23. Christ’s obedience manifested His love for the Father (cf. 14:31) and His Father’s love for Him as the sinless Messiah and Mediator, and His eternal Son. The Savior showed He loved the Father by persevering or abiding obedience; so do the saints show their love. Saints abide in Christ (v. 4), in His love (v. 9), and keep His commandments (v. 10). Although these propositions are not strict equivalents, as the tense differentiations in vv. 9-10 between the keeping of the commandments and abiding in Christ’s love, and the differentiation between the tenses for Christ’s abiding in the Father’s love and keeping His commandments demonstrate, they all go together. They are a package deal (cf. 1 John 3:24).
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
This symbol of the vine was revealed by the Lord so that His joy might remain, continue, or abide in His saints, and they might have full joy. Both things are certain for the saint as a characteristic of life, for the aorist verbs are of the same sort as those earlier in the passage (cf. John 17:13; 16:24). Their abiding obedience and fellowship with their Lord would take place through the Comforter Christ would send upon leaving them, and as the Spirit would abide in them, He would bring them joy (Acts 13:52; Galatians 5:22).
See the complete study on meno or “abiding,” which includes the passages not only in the KJV but also in the Greek NT (not present in this series of blog posts), by clicking here.
Church Autonomy, Pastoral Authority, Closed Communion, and the Gospel: The Means Becoming the End
I believe scripture teaches church autonomy, pastoral authority, and closed communion — all three. I think I’m strong on all three, because scripture teaches all three. If you lose the gospel, none of the three matter any more though.
Church autonomy, pastoral authority, and closed communion are about protecting and propagating the truth. They are a means to an end. The end isn’t church autonomy, pastoral authority, and closed communion. Those are tools in the toolbox, so to speak. They are tools by which the truth and a sub category of that, the gospel, can be protected and propagated. If the truth and the gospel aren’t protected and propagated, then those three don’t matter any more. You don’t even have a church without the truth and the gospel.
As I say that, my first questions for you aren’t, what do you believe about the nature of the church, church autonomy, pastoral authority, and closed communion? I’m asking you first what you believe about the gospel, because you don’t even have a church without the gospel. I’m saying that I believe some churches are more concerned about their own autonomy and pastors, their authority, then they are the gospel itself.
The three and perhaps a few others — whether you use the King James and what’s the nature of the church — in practice seem to take preeminence over the gospel among some professing Baptists, including unaffiliated Baptist churches. I’m asking you to think about it.
I’m glad our church is autonomous. It is again because the Bible teaches autonomy. Autonomy allows the Bible as our authority. We are not subject the compromise and corruption of hierarchical authority. The certain means of purity God gave to individual churches can have their full effect on the preservation of the truth and the gospel. God designed for the truth to be kept by a church. You get it outside of individual church authority and the means are diminished for protecting the truth.
I’m glad for pastoral authority. The point of pastoral authority isn’t to make it easier for a pastor to corrupt the truth and the gospel. Pastoral authority is not a divine right of kings. It has a purpose and is effective for that purpose. The pastor feeds, leads, and protects. He feeds the gospel and the truth. He leads in the gospel and the truth. He protects the sheep from diversion from the truth and corruption of the gospel. It’s not about not being questioned.
I’m glad for closed communion. If communion was supposed to be close or open, I’d go with that. If you practice closed, but you allow truth to be perverted and the gospel altered, then you’ve missed the point of closed. Closed allows for separation. Separation is intended for purity. Purity is purity in the belief and practice of the truth, including the gospel. If you are not protecting your church from a false gospel, but you do protect your church from close and open communion, then you are missing the point of being closed.
I know people who are close in their communion, whose church is far more pure than those who are closed communion. I know those with closed communion with false worship. Communion with God is more important than communion with other church members. If you are not aligned with God in worship, the qualities of your worship are ungodly, then you’ve got a bigger problem the wrong practice of communion. I know those with closed communion, who allow in those who preach another gospel. They won’t allow someone outside of their church to join them in communion, but they have communion with someone who preaches a false gospel. In as simple terms as possible, that’s messed up.
Church autonomy, pastoral authority, and closed communion are the truth. However, I would rather fellowship with someone who emphasizes the truth, all of it, except for those three, than the one who treats those three like they are more important than the truth and the gospel.
Let me close this with a car metaphor. Your acceptance of false worship and a false gospel is like having a blown engine. Your acceptance of close or open communion is like having some dents on the body or fenders, maybe a crack on the windshield. With the latter, at least you can still drive the car. The former you can’t and you won’t.
Bock and Wallace, Reliability of the New Testament
Dallas Theological Seminary with Darrell Bock has what they call a table podcast, which looks like a decorated room with a table and a couple of microphones to do a video podcast. I like the format and would like to do something like it myself — stay tuned because in the next year, I think we might do this. There’s carpet in the room and it looks like Wallace has socks on. That’s fun. You can see him rubbing his feet in the carpet.
I didn’t watch the whole podcast. I watched starting at 16:28 until the end. The format is that Bock is an interviewer and he looks like he is winging it in an intelligent way, as well as Wallace in his answers. I think they are fairly standard and common questions that these two must address all the time as professors in the New Testament department of a seminary. This is not technical. It’s obviously done for lay people to provide what might be considered some basics. There are some pastors that don’t know this basic material, so they should at least watch and at least understand the answers. You could learn something. I learned at least three things from watching, and I’ll let you know.
I’m posting this and commenting on it because it really is a standard presentation in defense of the critical text. A lot of “King James Only” (textus receptus supporters actually) comes into the program. Bock and Wallace are defending the reliability of the New Testament, which for them is a testimony for the critical text against criticisms from the left or the right of them over the same concerns about reliability. The left would say that there is some doubt about the reliability because of the huge number of variants between manuscripts. The right would say that this level of certainty isn’t what believers should expect. I think they do a very good job of answering the left, but a bad job of answering the right.
What I’m writing here about their podcast is motivated by the negative, but I want to start with some positives, not because I think I need to do that to be fair. I mean it when I’m positive. I’m actually positive, not using the sandwich method of criticism. I want to thank them. Bock and Wallace are arguing for the reliability of the New Testament. They are arguing from a naturalistic point of view, but even arguing with naturalism, depending on so-called science, the New Testament stands up to criticism. I’m happy about that.
Bock and Wallace don’t want people ejecting from the New Testament for textual reasons. That’s good. Hurray for them! Bravo! They want people believing the Bible. I think they mean it. I’m happy that Wallace is taking pictures of every Greek manuscript and putting it online. It provides a service. I’m glad someone is funding that. It is a gigantic, monumental task, that someone should do. It’s the Bible! It’s God’s Word! We should know what we have in the way of manuscript evidence. When people challenge us on these means, which they do all the time where I live in our evangelism, we can point to something that debunks their lies, and they are lies.
The condition of the New Testament from a purely naturalistic viewpoint is very good. Wallace is physically proving that by putting up all the textual evidence. It hasn’t been corrupted like the Moslems and atheists and others, who just want to discredit the authority of scripture, would say. They are lying.
Within the talk between Bock and Wallace on reliability of the New Testament, they testify to faith in Christ as well. At one point late in the interview, while talking about a short ending of Mark, Wallace says:
I think his intention is to get the readers to put themselves in the sandals of the disciples, and now what am I gonna do with Jesus? If I want to accept him in his glory the way Peter did in his confession of Jesus as the Christ, I must also accept him in his suffering, and I must carry my cross daily and follow him.
That’s what Mark I think is doing is, “You’re persecuted Christians. You’ve gotta own this and not just read this and casually be a Christian. If you’re gonna be a follower of Jesus, you really better follow him, and that includes suffering.”
I was happy to read that testimony. They were not rejecting the truth about Jesus Christ. Bock says,
We’ve got the declaration of the resurrection. We’ve got the empty tomb. We’ve got those elements. Now I call this the “you make the call” part of the New Testament, and that’s how Mark’s ending. What are you gonna do with this? You’ve got an empty tomb. You’ve got witnesses to an empty tomb. You’ve got a declaration that Jesus is raised from the dead. What are you gonna do with this?
I’m happy they are saying these things. This is not liberalism. This is exalting Jesus.
I said I learned three things. One, Wallace quotes an updated edition of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, admitting the following.
“I don’t disagree with Dr. Metzger. There is no cardinal doctrine that is jeopardized by any of these variants.” And that’s on page 252 of the paperback version of Misquoting Jesus.
That was news to me, and helpful. The other was this statistic from Wallace.
There’s about two-and-a-half million pages of Greek New Testament manuscripts, which means if we have only photographed 20 percent, it’s great job security for me.
Three, Wallace said this.
Now when you actually think about these variants, the other thing I would say is people who make this claim have not compared it to Greco-Roman literature. We have maybe half a dozen manuscripts for the average classical author, and let’s say we had as many as 15 manuscripts for the average classical Greek author that still exist.
You stack those up, and they’d be about four feet high. If you stack up the New Testament manuscripts, the Greek ones as well as early translations which all count as manuscripts in Latin and Coptic and Syriac and Georgian and Gothic and Ethiopic and all that, it’ll be about a mile and a quarter high, four feet versus a mile and a quarter.
OK, so now I come to the negative. When it comes to the reliability of the New Testament, Bock and Wallace, as is so often the case, argue in a naturalistic way. They don’t begin with theological presuppositions, which we should expect from conservative apologists of scripture, who are defending the reliability of the New Testament. Our expectations for the New Testament find their trajectory in the promises of the New Testament. What we should expect of the New Testament comes from the New Testament. Bock and Wallace settle for something less that what believers should expect. They don’t even mention this.
Bock and Wallace argue against the teaching of the New Testament when it comes to what Christians should expect. Why should anyone expect word for word perfection? They don’t deal with that. They leave it alone. Why? Is it really that assumed? The extent of their theological argument, biblical theology, is maybe four points.
To start, Bock and Wallace don’t really say in this portion of their conversation what or who they’re arguing against. I guess it’s supposed to be obvious. They are burdened by something that motivates them to answer. They should have a burden, because the basis of the criticism of their position is legitimate.
The four points are not necessarily in this order, but, one, the critical text doesn’t diminish teaching on the deity of Christ. Two, all the doctrines are preserved in the critical text, not in every individual passage of scripture, but all of them are in the critical text of the New Testament. Three, the absence of “chunk portions” in the critical text, namely Mark 16 and John 8, is defensible theologically and textually. Four, you’ve got more text than is in the Bible between all the manuscripts, so you aren’t missing anything overall that you need, because it’s all in there somewhere. These four points are supposed to alleviate angst, provide calm, and really just be good enough for someone. Question though: is this what we are to expect when we read what we are to expect? Absolutely not.
The textual problems are good enough for Wallace and Bock to deny a doctrine or preservation. Is this a liberal position. Usually this isn’t associated with liberalism, but liberalism comes when doctrines of scripture are rejected for naturalistic reasons. The miracles of Jesus, He did them, but since someone hasn’t seen them, they are rejected. This is conforming the preservation of scripture, and also the degree of reliability, reliability of every word, to just reliability of “doctrines.” This changes the nature of scriptural teaching on reliability. It is against historic doctrine of the church. Their defense is inadequate.
Scripture has a doctrine of preservation. Our views of canonicity are guided by a trajectory that proceeds from expectation from biblical teaching, not naturalism. What we consider scripture comes from scripture. What we believe on preservation should also come from scripture, and Bock and Wallace just ignore that in this interview.
Men expect a perfect text, which is why they defend the textus receptus. At one point, you can hear at least a little concern from Bock, when he says,
[I]t’s a question that does hang over this conversation, and that is the view of the fact that this has been a part of the passing on of Scripture for as long as it has. That actually applies to lots of texts, but this one is probably one of the more prominent ones to which that question gets pursued.
Notice he says, “a part of the passing on of Scripture.” This motivates a continuation of this kind of presentation from them. Believers, true churches, continued to pass this along as scripture. Moderns now reject this. Their grounds are naturalistic, not theological. Scripture doesn’t teach a loss and then restoration of scripture, based on naturalistic grounds. They need to go there, but as is so often the case, they don’t.
Steven Anderson Is a False Teacher Who Believes and Preaches a False Gospel
For various reasons, Steven Anderson has risen to national prominence over the last five or ten years from his home in Tempe, Arizona. I understand his popularity. He is very good at self-promotion and in these postmodern times, Anderson speaks with absolute certainty. I am certain too, that Anderson is a false teacher who believes and preaches a false gospel. He does not preach a biblical, true, or historical gospel.
Steven Anderson purports to be the pastor of the Faithful Word Baptist Church. I give zero credence or recognition to that as a church. It is not faithful word. It isn’t faithful, nor is it based upon the Word of God. It is built upon a false gospel. It can’t be truly Baptist or a church, because historic Baptists have preached repentance as necessary for salvation and since the church is built upon the gospel, it can’t be a church either. I feel sorry for him and his adherents.
Whatever Anderson might be known for, his holocaust denial, the pre-wrath rapture doctrine, his King James Bible position, those cower in the face of the false gospel he preaches and he encourages others to preach. He calls this preaching, soulwinning, which is also false. Anderson also operates the repentance blacklist online, where he lists men he knows are preaching repentance as necessary for salvation, as part of the message of the gospel. Anderson preaches against repentance for salvation; therefore, he leads people to hell, making them twice the children of hell they once were. Let Steven Anderson be accursed.
I’m dealing with Steven Anderson here and now, because of his growing influence in the country. I hear about him now all the time. Many receive offers by email from the film business associated with him, Framing the World. The films made by Paul Wittenberger have also advanced his false teaching everywhere. There is a unique mix to his teaching that is attractive and possesses enough truth, that looks legitimate, so it works as a counterfeit. He understands the power of film and especially for today’s audience, which grew up on television and movies.
Anderson teaches that repentance is a work and is only for people after they are already saved. He uses many of the same bad arguments that false teacher, Jack Hyles, did, and he uses Hyles extensively on his repentance blacklist website. There were a lot of Hyles fans while Hyles was alive. People who liked Hyles could also like Anderson. The Hyles movement was huge in its day and still exists in many different factions. The old Hyles supporters might embrace Anderson, because he takes many of the same positions that Hyles did before he died.
The false gospel of Anderson has been called different names through the years, since Jack Hyles perfected it — easy believism, easy prayerism, or 1-2-3-pray-with-me. Once someone has prayed the prayer, Anderson counts the person as saved, and then, even if the person never shows fruit of salvation, says he has eternal security — once saved, always saved. He is pushing the same methodology all over the country, continuing to scorch the earth for anyone who wishes to preach a true gospel.
The hermeneutic for Anderson’s false gospel could be called, exegesis for morons. He is depending on a certain amount of simpleness and superficiality and gullibility in his listeners to swallow his garbage. When you open up his repentance blacklist website, it greets you with two minutes of a sermon, what he might consider to be his prize argument, his most devastating point in very succinct fashion, starting and really buttressing his teaching on Jonah 3:10:
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Anderson says that God saw their works, and their works were that they turned from their evil way. He says that turning from your evil way is works, and people are saved without works. That’s major for him.
If you were just even slightly curious, you could push back against Anderson’s argument there, and ask, if that’s so bad, then why is God happy about it? What? Why is God happy that the Ninevites turned from their evil way if God doesn’t find that acceptable? God repented of the evil that he said he would do unto them, when they turned from their evil way. Shouldn’t God have been angry over their self righteousness? If they were really working to be saved, as Anderson is saying, then why would God have averted His destruction of them?
Anderson doesn’t explore this any further in his little presentation. He just pulls out this small disjointed observation to piece together with other verses to pound into people his false gospel that tries to rid the message of repentance. He wants that. He doesn’t want people repenting. If you follow him out further, no one needs to ever repent to be saved. It just doesn’t work if you care at all about what the Bible says.Steven Anderson says, as if his salvation teaching is some elevated position with the exclusion of repentance, that he sees it as faith alone and not works. I say faith alone too, if it is in fact faith. True faith would include repentance, which is not a work. Faith means something, or, believe means something. It is not mere acquiescence to facts, for instance. It is more than just “trust” too, although trust is included. As well, it must be faith in Christ, belief in Christ (Jn 20:30-31). Christ is the Messiah, He is King, He is Lord, the Lord of Psalm 2. Anderson removes that from the identity of Jesus so that Jesus is not Lord, and he replaces it with the strawman, “making Jesus Lord,” as if he’s quoting someone who thinks that, so that believing in Lordship is a work. Jesus is Lord, but believing in Jesus Christ, must be Christ. Anderson has a different Jesus, because He removes the Lordship (Messiahship) of Jesus so someone can have Jesus as Savior without His being Lord. He will find a lot of sympathy unfortunately in that major omission and perversion among those who claim to be independent Baptist. What I’m saying is that Anderson doesn’t really actually preach belief in Jesus, because his Jesus is another Jesus and his belief isn’t belief.
This post is not intended to deal with everything bad about what Anderson preaches on repentance. There is plenty on that. It’s really to be clear about who this man is and what he teaches. He is wrong and he should not be heeded or followed. Run away from him as fast as possible.
Keswick’s Unintelligibility: in Keswick’s Errors–an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 16 of 17
Keswick
unbiblically depreciates the importance of sanctification as a process, as
progressive growth. This fact is evident
in direct statements such as that, for Keswick, “[s]anctification is primarily
and fundamentally . . . no[t] a process”[1]
and that the “conventional threefold division” which considers sanctification
as positional, progressive,[2]
and ultimate is not characteristic of Keswick in the way the crisis, gift,
process division is.[3]
This neglect of progressive sanctification also evidences itself in that
Barabas spends only half a page on this aspect of the doctrine. While he spends forty pages describing sanctification
as a crisis and a gift, progressive sanctification gets 1.25% the treatment
that the other aspects receive in Keswick.
Indeed, considering the entire scope of Barabas’s discussion of “God’s
Provision For Sin” and “Consecration,” where the Keswick doctrine of
sanctification as crisis, gift, and process is explicated and contrasted with
the views he deems erroneous, the discussion of progressive sanctification
receives attention only 0.75% of the time.[4] This vast underemphasis stands in stark
contrast to the tremendous amount of Biblical material dealing with progress in
sanctification.
unbiblically depreciates the importance of sanctification as a process, as
progressive growth. This fact is evident
in direct statements such as that, for Keswick, “[s]anctification is primarily
and fundamentally . . . no[t] a process”[1]
and that the “conventional threefold division” which considers sanctification
as positional, progressive,[2]
and ultimate is not characteristic of Keswick in the way the crisis, gift,
process division is.[3]
This neglect of progressive sanctification also evidences itself in that
Barabas spends only half a page on this aspect of the doctrine. While he spends forty pages describing sanctification
as a crisis and a gift, progressive sanctification gets 1.25% the treatment
that the other aspects receive in Keswick.
Indeed, considering the entire scope of Barabas’s discussion of “God’s
Provision For Sin” and “Consecration,” where the Keswick doctrine of
sanctification as crisis, gift, and process is explicated and contrasted with
the views he deems erroneous, the discussion of progressive sanctification
receives attention only 0.75% of the time.[4] This vast underemphasis stands in stark
contrast to the tremendous amount of Biblical material dealing with progress in
sanctification.
What Barabas
writes in his half page on progressive sanctification is, however, sound; although
it is not properly prominent, nonetheless Keswick is said to accept the
classical doctrine that “experimental sanctification is the day-by-day
transformation of the believer into the image of Christ, and is progressive in
nature. Beginning at regeneration, it
continues all through life, but is never complete.”[5] Barabas indicates his dependence in his
discussion of progressive sanctification upon the exposition of The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life
by Evan Hopkins.[6]
Hopkins learned the Higher Life theology from William Boardman and Mr. and Mrs.
Pearsall Smith[7]
and was brought to adopt Keswick theology after looking at the placid face of
one who had received it,[8]
having sat at the feet of the Smiths and Mr. Boardman from the time of the
first spiritualist-hosted Broadlands Conference onwards[9]
even to the last one.[10] In fact, Hopkins “was for years the
acknowledged leader of the Keswick teaching” and “the theologian of the
movement. . . . He spoke at the first Keswick Convention, and appeared at
Keswick as a leader for thirty-nine years without a break. No one was regarded with greater respect
there than he.”[11] While
Hopkins was deeply influenced by the heretics surrounding him at Keswick and
Broadlands, what he states in the section of his book on which Barabas depends[12]
is as Scriptural[13]
as what Barabas derives from him.
Hopkins even admirably affirms, quoting another writer, that in
sanctification “the whole aspect of human nature is transformed.”[14] Barabas claims Keswick acknowledges that the
process aspect of sanctification includes “a soul that is continually
increasing in the knowledge of God, and abounding in fruits of righteousness .
. . [and] continued progress in the development of Christ-like character.”[15]
Such an affirmation is certainly Biblical.
writes in his half page on progressive sanctification is, however, sound; although
it is not properly prominent, nonetheless Keswick is said to accept the
classical doctrine that “experimental sanctification is the day-by-day
transformation of the believer into the image of Christ, and is progressive in
nature. Beginning at regeneration, it
continues all through life, but is never complete.”[5] Barabas indicates his dependence in his
discussion of progressive sanctification upon the exposition of The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life
by Evan Hopkins.[6]
Hopkins learned the Higher Life theology from William Boardman and Mr. and Mrs.
Pearsall Smith[7]
and was brought to adopt Keswick theology after looking at the placid face of
one who had received it,[8]
having sat at the feet of the Smiths and Mr. Boardman from the time of the
first spiritualist-hosted Broadlands Conference onwards[9]
even to the last one.[10] In fact, Hopkins “was for years the
acknowledged leader of the Keswick teaching” and “the theologian of the
movement. . . . He spoke at the first Keswick Convention, and appeared at
Keswick as a leader for thirty-nine years without a break. No one was regarded with greater respect
there than he.”[11] While
Hopkins was deeply influenced by the heretics surrounding him at Keswick and
Broadlands, what he states in the section of his book on which Barabas depends[12]
is as Scriptural[13]
as what Barabas derives from him.
Hopkins even admirably affirms, quoting another writer, that in
sanctification “the whole aspect of human nature is transformed.”[14] Barabas claims Keswick acknowledges that the
process aspect of sanctification includes “a soul that is continually
increasing in the knowledge of God, and abounding in fruits of righteousness .
. . [and] continued progress in the development of Christ-like character.”[15]
Such an affirmation is certainly Biblical.
What is unusual
about such affirmations by the Keswick advocate is that they sound remarkably
like the statement by Warfield that the “Holy Spirit . . . cures our sinning
precisely by curing our sinful nature; He makes the tree good that the fruit
may be good,”[16]
yet Barabas inveighs against Warfield’s doctrine as an unscriptural position
that Keswick opposes. If there is no
real difference between the doctrine of Keswick and that of Warfield, Barabas’s
attack on Warfield is, at this point, inexplicable and unjustifiable; if there
is a difference, Barabas does not make its character clear at all. It would have been of great value to see
Barabas attempt to reconcile the classical model of sanctification as
positional, progressive, and ultimate and the “more characteristic” division of
sanctification by Keswick as process, crisis, and gift. Had he successfully done so, one could not
claim that such a reconciliation is impossible.
Unfortunately, Barabas simply asserts that Keswick accepts, although it
deemphasizes, the classic model alongside of its usual and characteristic
process, crisis, and gift model, without the slightest explanation of how the
two apparently strongly divergent positions can both be true. The palpable contradictions between the two
models are ignored, probably because the “Convention is not interested in
academic discussions of theology or ethics, or even adding to the store of
Bible knowledge of those who attend”[17]
and “Keswick furnishes us with . . . no carefully prepared, weighty discourses
of a theological nature.”[18]
Since the classic position that sanctification involves the progressive
transformation of the believer into the image of Christ appears to directly
contradict the Keswick position that God the Holy Ghost does not make the
Christian himself more inwardly holy and less sinful, Keswick’s affirmations
that “purity [is] never a state,”[19]
and that “holiness does not consist in a state of purity”[20]
seem utterly irreconcilable with the classic doctrine of progressive
sanctification it claims to uphold.[21]
Keswick’s affirmations of both its
characteristic crisis, gift, and process model and the classic doctrine of progressive
sanctification appear unintelligible.
about such affirmations by the Keswick advocate is that they sound remarkably
like the statement by Warfield that the “Holy Spirit . . . cures our sinning
precisely by curing our sinful nature; He makes the tree good that the fruit
may be good,”[16]
yet Barabas inveighs against Warfield’s doctrine as an unscriptural position
that Keswick opposes. If there is no
real difference between the doctrine of Keswick and that of Warfield, Barabas’s
attack on Warfield is, at this point, inexplicable and unjustifiable; if there
is a difference, Barabas does not make its character clear at all. It would have been of great value to see
Barabas attempt to reconcile the classical model of sanctification as
positional, progressive, and ultimate and the “more characteristic” division of
sanctification by Keswick as process, crisis, and gift. Had he successfully done so, one could not
claim that such a reconciliation is impossible.
Unfortunately, Barabas simply asserts that Keswick accepts, although it
deemphasizes, the classic model alongside of its usual and characteristic
process, crisis, and gift model, without the slightest explanation of how the
two apparently strongly divergent positions can both be true. The palpable contradictions between the two
models are ignored, probably because the “Convention is not interested in
academic discussions of theology or ethics, or even adding to the store of
Bible knowledge of those who attend”[17]
and “Keswick furnishes us with . . . no carefully prepared, weighty discourses
of a theological nature.”[18]
Since the classic position that sanctification involves the progressive
transformation of the believer into the image of Christ appears to directly
contradict the Keswick position that God the Holy Ghost does not make the
Christian himself more inwardly holy and less sinful, Keswick’s affirmations
that “purity [is] never a state,”[19]
and that “holiness does not consist in a state of purity”[20]
seem utterly irreconcilable with the classic doctrine of progressive
sanctification it claims to uphold.[21]
Keswick’s affirmations of both its
characteristic crisis, gift, and process model and the classic doctrine of progressive
sanctification appear unintelligible.
See here for this entire study.
[1] Pg. 88, So
Great Salvation, Barabas.
Great Salvation, Barabas.
[2] Barabas’s substitution of “experimental” for
“progressive” in the division of sanctification into positional, progressive,
and ultimate on pgs. 84-85 is noteworthy.
The term “experimental” does not carry within it necessarily the idea of
progress and growth.
“progressive” in the division of sanctification into positional, progressive,
and ultimate on pgs. 84-85 is noteworthy.
The term “experimental” does not carry within it necessarily the idea of
progress and growth.
[3] Pgs. 84-85, So
Great Salvation, Barabas.
Great Salvation, Barabas.
[4] Pgs. 61-127, So Great Salvation, Barabas, 66
pages. 0.5/66=0.75%.
pages. 0.5/66=0.75%.
[5] Pg. 85, So
Great Salvation, Barabas.
Great Salvation, Barabas.
[6] Pg. 85, So
Great Salvation, Barabas.
Great Salvation, Barabas.
[7] Thus, Hopkins read “Dr. W. E. Boardman’s volume on The Higher Christian Life . . . [and] a
series of papers by the American, Robert Pearsall Smith, on the subject of
Holiness,” and then went to a meeting where he heard R. P. Smith preach. Hearing Smith, Hopkins affirmed: “I felt that he had received an overflowing
blessing, far beyond anything that I knew”—and by means of Robert Smith’s
self-testifying of overflowing Christian joy—although, in truth, Robert P.
Smith was a miserable unconverted wretch who was promulgating sexual thrills as
Spirit baptism at the time—Hopkins came to adopt the Higher Life doctrine of
Boardman and Smith that was then promulgated at the Keswick Convention. The key passage that led Hopkins to the Higher
Life was Mr. Smith’s misinterpretation of 2 Corinthians 9:8, which was, Mr.
Smith averred, an affirmation that Christ “would do all, and would live in [the Christian] His Own Holy Life—the only
Holy Life possible to us,” not, as an examination of the context and
grammatical-historical interpretation would affirm, an affirmation that God
would provide physically for His people who give generously to the needy. Mr. Smith’s view of 2 Corinthians 9:8 became
“Mr. Hopkins[’s] . . . locus classicus,
his Gospel within the Gospel, the sure ground where he had cast his anchor,” so
that “[m]any a time, in the Conventions of the years that followed, Mr. Hopkins
would read this text” and lead many others to the bright discovery of the
Higher Life which was taught by it, when ripped from its context and interpreted
allegorically (pgs. 52-55, Evan Harry
Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander
Smellie). In 1875 Hopkins took over the
work of Robert P. Smith’s magazine, The
Christian Pathway to Power, after Smith’s public disgrace as a result of
being caught in a woman’s bedroom teaching the erotic baptism. Hopkins continued to edit the magazine until
1913, renaming the magazine The Life of
Faith in 1883 (pgs. 73-74, Ibid). Even forty years later in 1913, Hopkins
testified at the Keswick Convention to the centrality of the teaching he had
received from Robert P. Smith in 1873 (cf. pgs. 24-25, 38-39, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and
Future, Price & Randall).
series of papers by the American, Robert Pearsall Smith, on the subject of
Holiness,” and then went to a meeting where he heard R. P. Smith preach. Hearing Smith, Hopkins affirmed: “I felt that he had received an overflowing
blessing, far beyond anything that I knew”—and by means of Robert Smith’s
self-testifying of overflowing Christian joy—although, in truth, Robert P.
Smith was a miserable unconverted wretch who was promulgating sexual thrills as
Spirit baptism at the time—Hopkins came to adopt the Higher Life doctrine of
Boardman and Smith that was then promulgated at the Keswick Convention. The key passage that led Hopkins to the Higher
Life was Mr. Smith’s misinterpretation of 2 Corinthians 9:8, which was, Mr.
Smith averred, an affirmation that Christ “would do all, and would live in [the Christian] His Own Holy Life—the only
Holy Life possible to us,” not, as an examination of the context and
grammatical-historical interpretation would affirm, an affirmation that God
would provide physically for His people who give generously to the needy. Mr. Smith’s view of 2 Corinthians 9:8 became
“Mr. Hopkins[’s] . . . locus classicus,
his Gospel within the Gospel, the sure ground where he had cast his anchor,” so
that “[m]any a time, in the Conventions of the years that followed, Mr. Hopkins
would read this text” and lead many others to the bright discovery of the
Higher Life which was taught by it, when ripped from its context and interpreted
allegorically (pgs. 52-55, Evan Harry
Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander
Smellie). In 1875 Hopkins took over the
work of Robert P. Smith’s magazine, The
Christian Pathway to Power, after Smith’s public disgrace as a result of
being caught in a woman’s bedroom teaching the erotic baptism. Hopkins continued to edit the magazine until
1913, renaming the magazine The Life of
Faith in 1883 (pgs. 73-74, Ibid). Even forty years later in 1913, Hopkins
testified at the Keswick Convention to the centrality of the teaching he had
received from Robert P. Smith in 1873 (cf. pgs. 24-25, 38-39, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and
Future, Price & Randall).
[8] Pg. 176, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Many at Broadlands, it seems, had special-looking faces that, at least
in a culture strongly under the influence of Romanticism, validated the truth
of the Higher Life theology, and formed part of the indissoluble link between
Higher Life spirituality and the continuationistic Faith Cure—that is, the
Higher Life for the soul and for the body.
“So many faces quite changed their character in those days” of the 1874
Conference (pg. 128, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple). The transformation was comparable to the
miraculous “shining of [the] face . . . of Moses” (pg. 131, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscenses of the Broadlands
Conventions, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910). At Broadlands “Hannah Smith was radiant,” (pgs.
132-134, Memorials), for “her face
gained a soft, Madonna-like beauty . . . her . . . sparking glance . . . [and]
pure face spoke for her. . . . She looked as if she knew the [spiritual]
secret. Fair and pure and glad, a piece
of nature fresh and racy, and simple, and full of vitality” (pgs. 49-50, 160,
222, The
Life that is Life Indeed).
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Many at Broadlands, it seems, had special-looking faces that, at least
in a culture strongly under the influence of Romanticism, validated the truth
of the Higher Life theology, and formed part of the indissoluble link between
Higher Life spirituality and the continuationistic Faith Cure—that is, the
Higher Life for the soul and for the body.
“So many faces quite changed their character in those days” of the 1874
Conference (pg. 128, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple). The transformation was comparable to the
miraculous “shining of [the] face . . . of Moses” (pg. 131, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscenses of the Broadlands
Conventions, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910). At Broadlands “Hannah Smith was radiant,” (pgs.
132-134, Memorials), for “her face
gained a soft, Madonna-like beauty . . . her . . . sparking glance . . . [and]
pure face spoke for her. . . . She looked as if she knew the [spiritual]
secret. Fair and pure and glad, a piece
of nature fresh and racy, and simple, and full of vitality” (pgs. 49-50, 160,
222, The
Life that is Life Indeed).
Even many an “inspired face” was present at Broadlands
(pgs. 132-134, Memorials & pg.
59, The Life that is Life Indeed). It was not in Hannah Smith alone that the
“inner light” shone in the “inspiration that came from her shining face” (pgs.
121-123, The Life that is Life Indeed). The
“face” of the universalist “George MacDonald . . . [was] very beautiful . . .
very like the pictures of our Lord” (pg. 57, The Life that is Life Indeed), such pictures apparently being good,
not sinful and idolatrous (cf. Exodus 20:4-6).
Indeed, “looks that were Christ’s . . . on human faces” were found at
Broadlands, where “a desire for the heavenly light . . . sh[one] on [many an]
uplifted face,” in line with truth learned from “Swedenborg” (pg. 82, Ibid).
Such glowing faces were similar to the faces of the cute baby-like
cherubs that allegedly helped God make Adam out of dust, as seen in a painting
of Michelangelo—“how their faces shine” as they usurp the uniquely Divine work
of creation! Like such mythic cherubs,
the perfectionist “Amanda Smith” possessed a “glowing face” as she petitioned
the moon and the stars to tell God that she was a sinner and ask Him to forgive
her (pgs. 73-74, 130, The Life that is
Life Indeed). The hell-rejecting
theological liberal F. D. Maurice was a paradigmatic example of the fact that
the “faces of some of God’s children
shine” (pg. 199, Ibid. Italics in original.). Ian Keith Falkoner had an “angel face.” Theodore Monod possessed such a “glowing
countenance” that one “felt” he was in the presence of a holy man, for “his
face was transfigured” and “holy fervor and deep reverence were expressed in
face and . . . revealed, in a way no words could do . . . the blessedness of
communion with God.” His face revealed
communion with God in the way that no words could do, not even the words of Scripture,
according to the Higher Life system taught at Broadlands. Canon Carter of Truro had a “sweet, pure face
with morning peace upon it.” The
“radiant . . . lovely face[s]” of the “queens of beauty of [their] time” were
present at Broadlands; indeed, “the whole company” went “streaming through the
garden with radiant faces” at the Conferences (pgs. 76, 85, 102, 130, 176, 221, Ibid).
(pgs. 132-134, Memorials & pg.
59, The Life that is Life Indeed). It was not in Hannah Smith alone that the
“inner light” shone in the “inspiration that came from her shining face” (pgs.
121-123, The Life that is Life Indeed). The
“face” of the universalist “George MacDonald . . . [was] very beautiful . . .
very like the pictures of our Lord” (pg. 57, The Life that is Life Indeed), such pictures apparently being good,
not sinful and idolatrous (cf. Exodus 20:4-6).
Indeed, “looks that were Christ’s . . . on human faces” were found at
Broadlands, where “a desire for the heavenly light . . . sh[one] on [many an]
uplifted face,” in line with truth learned from “Swedenborg” (pg. 82, Ibid).
Such glowing faces were similar to the faces of the cute baby-like
cherubs that allegedly helped God make Adam out of dust, as seen in a painting
of Michelangelo—“how their faces shine” as they usurp the uniquely Divine work
of creation! Like such mythic cherubs,
the perfectionist “Amanda Smith” possessed a “glowing face” as she petitioned
the moon and the stars to tell God that she was a sinner and ask Him to forgive
her (pgs. 73-74, 130, The Life that is
Life Indeed). The hell-rejecting
theological liberal F. D. Maurice was a paradigmatic example of the fact that
the “faces of some of God’s children
shine” (pg. 199, Ibid. Italics in original.). Ian Keith Falkoner had an “angel face.” Theodore Monod possessed such a “glowing
countenance” that one “felt” he was in the presence of a holy man, for “his
face was transfigured” and “holy fervor and deep reverence were expressed in
face and . . . revealed, in a way no words could do . . . the blessedness of
communion with God.” His face revealed
communion with God in the way that no words could do, not even the words of Scripture,
according to the Higher Life system taught at Broadlands. Canon Carter of Truro had a “sweet, pure face
with morning peace upon it.” The
“radiant . . . lovely face[s]” of the “queens of beauty of [their] time” were
present at Broadlands; indeed, “the whole company” went “streaming through the
garden with radiant faces” at the Conferences (pgs. 76, 85, 102, 130, 176, 221, Ibid).
Mr. Mount-Temple gained, through the truths proclaimed
at Broadlands, a “sacred illumination of face, too sacred to speak of . . .
[which] was noticed . . . and tenderly recorded . . . [a] blessed face . . .
placid and often illuminated with wonderful flickerings of light from beyond”
pgs. 132-134, Memorials). After all, at especially spiritual times “a
radiant, joyous, wondering glow often lights up the face of [those] who have
soared beyond the shadow of our night” (pg. 170, Ibid), even as “such brightness [had] appeared in [the] angelic
face” of the Catholic monk “St. Cuthbert” (pgs. 7-8, The Life that
is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the
Broadlands Conventions). Thus, the
generality of the “goodly company” at Broadlands “were beautiful, and what an
attraction there always is in beauty! . . . [P]hysical beauty is . . . a source
of real bliss, and . . . it takes the impress of the spiritual . . . Beauty
always attracts us; we enjoy it, wish for it . . . beauty is truly an
expression of character” (pgs. 35-36, Ibid). Consequently, the shining faces at Broadlands
proved the truth of the Higher Life, since “[s]uch faces are truly . . .
windows, through which we see the soul” (pg. 46, Ibid). Such validation of Higher Life teaching by
shiny faces and other similarly utterly unauthoritative and extra-Scriptural
chimeras passed through Broadlands to the Keswick movement.
at Broadlands, a “sacred illumination of face, too sacred to speak of . . .
[which] was noticed . . . and tenderly recorded . . . [a] blessed face . . .
placid and often illuminated with wonderful flickerings of light from beyond”
pgs. 132-134, Memorials). After all, at especially spiritual times “a
radiant, joyous, wondering glow often lights up the face of [those] who have
soared beyond the shadow of our night” (pg. 170, Ibid), even as “such brightness [had] appeared in [the] angelic
face” of the Catholic monk “St. Cuthbert” (pgs. 7-8, The Life that
is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the
Broadlands Conventions). Thus, the
generality of the “goodly company” at Broadlands “were beautiful, and what an
attraction there always is in beauty! . . . [P]hysical beauty is . . . a source
of real bliss, and . . . it takes the impress of the spiritual . . . Beauty
always attracts us; we enjoy it, wish for it . . . beauty is truly an
expression of character” (pgs. 35-36, Ibid). Consequently, the shining faces at Broadlands
proved the truth of the Higher Life, since “[s]uch faces are truly . . .
windows, through which we see the soul” (pg. 46, Ibid). Such validation of Higher Life teaching by
shiny faces and other similarly utterly unauthoritative and extra-Scriptural
chimeras passed through Broadlands to the Keswick movement.
[9] Both the Smiths and Boardman were Higher Life teachers
at Broadlands, as well as at the Oxford and other Higher Life gatherings; cf. pg.
20, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick
Convention, Polluck; pg. 20, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Note the lists of names of those who met at Broadlands, where Evan
Hopkins, Webb-Peploe, and other early Keswick leaders are listed along with the
Pearsall Smiths, on pgs. 118, 148, of Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple.
at Broadlands, as well as at the Oxford and other Higher Life gatherings; cf. pg.
20, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick
Convention, Polluck; pg. 20, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Note the lists of names of those who met at Broadlands, where Evan
Hopkins, Webb-Peploe, and other early Keswick leaders are listed along with the
Pearsall Smiths, on pgs. 118, 148, of Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple.
[10] Pg.
202, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences,
Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Thus, Hopkins regularly was present and
preached often at at the Broadlands Conferences, as he was present and preached
at the Keswick Conventions.
202, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences,
Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Thus, Hopkins regularly was present and
preached often at at the Broadlands Conferences, as he was present and preached
at the Keswick Conventions.
[11] Pgs. 158-159, So
Great Salvation, Barabas. Polluck
affirms that Hopkins, after skipping the first Keswick Convention, attended the
next forty-one, not thirty-nine as Barabas stated, without a break (pg. 39, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick
Convention, Polluck). Hopkins
learned the Higher Life doctrine “after listening to Robert Pearsall Smith on
the subject of Holiness,” and an address by Hopkins “was the means of winning
T. D. Harford-Battersby,” co-founder of the Keswick Convention with the Quaker
Robert Wilson, “over to the Higher Life movement” (pgs. 158-159, So Great Salvation; cf. pgs. 75ff., Evan Harry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander Smellie).
Great Salvation, Barabas. Polluck
affirms that Hopkins, after skipping the first Keswick Convention, attended the
next forty-one, not thirty-nine as Barabas stated, without a break (pg. 39, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick
Convention, Polluck). Hopkins
learned the Higher Life doctrine “after listening to Robert Pearsall Smith on
the subject of Holiness,” and an address by Hopkins “was the means of winning
T. D. Harford-Battersby,” co-founder of the Keswick Convention with the Quaker
Robert Wilson, “over to the Higher Life movement” (pgs. 158-159, So Great Salvation; cf. pgs. 75ff., Evan Harry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander Smellie).
[12] Pgs. 99-102, The
Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life, Hopkins.
Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life, Hopkins.
[13] Unfortunately, other things Hopkins taught were not a
little less Scriptural; for example, his preaching at the Oxford Convention
that one must “begin” in the Higher Life by rejecting the active obedience of
Christ in redemption (pg. 93, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874), is, one hopes, simply loose
language.
little less Scriptural; for example, his preaching at the Oxford Convention
that one must “begin” in the Higher Life by rejecting the active obedience of
Christ in redemption (pg. 93, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874), is, one hopes, simply loose
language.
[14] Pg. 101, The Law of
Liberty in the Spiritual Life, Hopkins.
Liberty in the Spiritual Life, Hopkins.
[15] Pg.
123, So Great Salvation, Barabas. While Barabas does not have a specific
section on sanctification as a process other than half of pg. 85, scattered
statements about process are occasionally found within his comparatively
massive discussions of sanctification as gift and as crisis.
123, So Great Salvation, Barabas. While Barabas does not have a specific
section on sanctification as a process other than half of pg. 85, scattered
statements about process are occasionally found within his comparatively
massive discussions of sanctification as gift and as crisis.
[16] Pg. 71, So Great Salvation, Barabas, quoting Warfield, Perfectionism
Vol. 2, pgs. 579-583.
Vol. 2, pgs. 579-583.
[17] Pg. 108, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[18] Pg. 51, So
Great Salvation, Barabas.
Great Salvation, Barabas.
[19] Pg. 47, So
Great Salvation, Barabas.
Great Salvation, Barabas.
[20] Pg. 49, So
Great Salvation, Barabas. The page
adds the qualifier “apart from Christ,” but its point in context is not simply
to assert the obvious fact that Christ is the Author of all spiritual strength,
life, and growth. Rather, it denies the
progressive inward renewal of the believer and the progressive death of the
principle of indwelling sin to affirm that nothing happens within the Christian
besides counteraction.
Great Salvation, Barabas. The page
adds the qualifier “apart from Christ,” but its point in context is not simply
to assert the obvious fact that Christ is the Author of all spiritual strength,
life, and growth. Rather, it denies the
progressive inward renewal of the believer and the progressive death of the
principle of indwelling sin to affirm that nothing happens within the Christian
besides counteraction.
[21] Barabas does not clearly set forth the insufficient view
that progress in sanctification is merely an increased appropriation of Christ,
while the person himself remains unchanged—indeed, his quotation of Hopkins appears
to deny this view—but other Higher Life writers have done so. Warfield refutes this position while
discussing the doctrine of the German Lutheran Higher Life leader Theodore Jellinghaus
(who affirmed
typical Lutheran heresies, such as baptismal regeneration and opposition to
eternal security, among other very serious errors on the way of
salvation). Jellinghaus had learned of
the Higher Life from Robert Pearsall Smith and his associates. Keswick’s leading to the rise of German
Pentecostalism brought Jellinghaus to renounce the Higher Life as he saw its
fruits more clearly. Warfield records:
that progress in sanctification is merely an increased appropriation of Christ,
while the person himself remains unchanged—indeed, his quotation of Hopkins appears
to deny this view—but other Higher Life writers have done so. Warfield refutes this position while
discussing the doctrine of the German Lutheran Higher Life leader Theodore Jellinghaus
(who affirmed
typical Lutheran heresies, such as baptismal regeneration and opposition to
eternal security, among other very serious errors on the way of
salvation). Jellinghaus had learned of
the Higher Life from Robert Pearsall Smith and his associates. Keswick’s leading to the rise of German
Pentecostalism brought Jellinghaus to renounce the Higher Life as he saw its
fruits more clearly. Warfield records:
[The Higher Life doctrine of Jellinghaus is that] [a]s
we received forgiveness of sins at once on our first believing, so do we
receive our full deliverance from the power of sin at once on this our second
believing. But, along with this, emphasis is thrown on the continuousness of
both the cause and the effect. Jesus saves us now—if I believe now; and
the believer is to live in a continuous believing and consequent continuous
salvation. This is, of course, the well known “moment by moment” doctrine of
the Higher Life teachers. The main purpose of this teaching is to prevent us
from supposing that the source of our holiness is in ourselves. But it has the
additional effect of denying with great emphasis that the seat of our
holiness—any of it, at any time—is in ourselves. It thus makes our holiness in
all its extent purely a holiness of acts, never of nature. What we obtain by
faith is Christ—as a Preserver from sinful acts. By continuous faith we obtain
Him continuously—as Preserver from sinful acts; and only from those particular
sinful acts with which we are for the moment threatened. We do not at any time
obtain Him as Savior from all possible sins, but only as Savior from the
particular sinful acts for protection from which we, from time to time, need
Him. Thus we are never made “holy” in any substantial sense, so that we are
ourselves holy beings. And also accordingly we are never made “holy” in any
conclusive sense, so that, being holy in ourselves, naturally we continue holy.
This is the way Jellinghaus expresses himself . . . [w]e are, says Jellinghaus,
like a poor relation living in a rich man’s house as a dependent, and receiving
all he needs day by day from his benefactor, but never being made rich himself.
we received forgiveness of sins at once on our first believing, so do we
receive our full deliverance from the power of sin at once on this our second
believing. But, along with this, emphasis is thrown on the continuousness of
both the cause and the effect. Jesus saves us now—if I believe now; and
the believer is to live in a continuous believing and consequent continuous
salvation. This is, of course, the well known “moment by moment” doctrine of
the Higher Life teachers. The main purpose of this teaching is to prevent us
from supposing that the source of our holiness is in ourselves. But it has the
additional effect of denying with great emphasis that the seat of our
holiness—any of it, at any time—is in ourselves. It thus makes our holiness in
all its extent purely a holiness of acts, never of nature. What we obtain by
faith is Christ—as a Preserver from sinful acts. By continuous faith we obtain
Him continuously—as Preserver from sinful acts; and only from those particular
sinful acts with which we are for the moment threatened. We do not at any time
obtain Him as Savior from all possible sins, but only as Savior from the
particular sinful acts for protection from which we, from time to time, need
Him. Thus we are never made “holy” in any substantial sense, so that we are
ourselves holy beings. And also accordingly we are never made “holy” in any
conclusive sense, so that, being holy in ourselves, naturally we continue holy.
This is the way Jellinghaus expresses himself . . . [w]e are, says Jellinghaus,
like a poor relation living in a rich man’s house as a dependent, and receiving
all he needs day by day from his benefactor, but never being made rich himself.
The purpose in view here is to emphasize our
constant dependence on Christ. But this is done so unskillfully as to end in
denying the possibility of our sanctification. We never are ourselves made
holy; only our acts are provided for. We ask nothing and we get nothing beyond
the meeting of our daily needs in sustaining our struggles on earth. As for ourselves,
we remain unholy, apparently forever. . . . There is a confusion here between
the source and the seat of [sanctification]. . . . [Jellinghaus writes,] “The
Christian can be pure only as a member of Christ our Head, as a branch of the
vine. In himself every Christian is a branch of sinful humanity and is prone to
sin. Only through implantation into Christ’s death and resurrection can he be
and remain holy. Separated from Christ and His purifying blood (blood signifies
the life of Christ given in death and resurrection), he is sinful and has sin.”
. . . If this be true then salvation is impossible. We are never saved. We only
seem to be saved, because Christ works through us the works of a saved soul.
That is not the way John conceived it, or Christ. Naturally most painful
results follow from such representations. For example, our aspirations are
lowered. We are never to wish or seek to be holy ourselves, but are to be
content with being enabled to meet in our unholiness the temptations of the
day. We lose the elevating power of a high ideal. And we are to be satisfied
with never being “well-pleasing to God.” . . . What the Scriptures teach is
that we shall be more and more transformed into Christ’s image until at last,
when we see Him as He is, we shall be like Him, and therefore in ourselves—as
He has made us—well-pleasing to God.
constant dependence on Christ. But this is done so unskillfully as to end in
denying the possibility of our sanctification. We never are ourselves made
holy; only our acts are provided for. We ask nothing and we get nothing beyond
the meeting of our daily needs in sustaining our struggles on earth. As for ourselves,
we remain unholy, apparently forever. . . . There is a confusion here between
the source and the seat of [sanctification]. . . . [Jellinghaus writes,] “The
Christian can be pure only as a member of Christ our Head, as a branch of the
vine. In himself every Christian is a branch of sinful humanity and is prone to
sin. Only through implantation into Christ’s death and resurrection can he be
and remain holy. Separated from Christ and His purifying blood (blood signifies
the life of Christ given in death and resurrection), he is sinful and has sin.”
. . . If this be true then salvation is impossible. We are never saved. We only
seem to be saved, because Christ works through us the works of a saved soul.
That is not the way John conceived it, or Christ. Naturally most painful
results follow from such representations. For example, our aspirations are
lowered. We are never to wish or seek to be holy ourselves, but are to be
content with being enabled to meet in our unholiness the temptations of the
day. We lose the elevating power of a high ideal. And we are to be satisfied
with never being “well-pleasing to God.” . . . What the Scriptures teach is
that we shall be more and more transformed into Christ’s image until at last,
when we see Him as He is, we shall be like Him, and therefore in ourselves—as
He has made us—well-pleasing to God.
There is expressly included in this doctrine a
provision for a progressive sanctification, along the ordinary lines of the
teaching of the Higher Life Movement in this matter. We have seen Jellinghaus
in passages just quoted limiting the ability of the Christian to enter “immediately”
into the victorious power and peace-bringing leading of Christ, by such phrases
as “according to the measure of his knowledge,” and “for the needs of which he
is presently conscious.” The Christian is freed from all the sinning which at
the stage of Christian knowledge to which he has attained he knows to be
sinning; and as his knowledge grows so his objective sanctification increases.
It is apparently also repeatedly suggested that it depends entirely on the
Christian’s own action whether or not he retains his hold on Christ and so
continues in his sanctifying walk. Undoubtedly this is in accordance with
Jellinghaus’ fundamental conception of the relation of the Christian to Christ
and the way of salvation. He continually suggests that our standing in Christ
depends absolutely on ourselves. Those that believe in Christ, he tells us for
example, “have in Him forgiveness and righteousness, and also shall retain it so
long as they abide in Christ.” It is, he continues, like a king granting
public amnesty in terms like these: He who appears within a year at a
particular place, lays down his weapons, and swears fealty—to him then shall be
handed an already prepared diploma of pardon, and he will remain pardoned so
long as he maintains his loyalty. . . . Our continued justification depends therefore
absolutely on our continued faith, and the implication is that this is left
wholly in our hands. Justification cannot therefore be made to cover our future
sins—the sin, for example, of failing faith. . . . What
Jellinghaus is really laboring for here is to make room in some way for
“falling from grace.” He is possessed with the fear that if he does not limit
the scope of justification, at least with respect to the grosser future sins,
he will give license to sin, which in the end means merely that he has more
confidence in man’s efforts than in God’s grace. What he has succeeded in doing
is only to destroy all possibility of assurance of salvation. Men are cast back
on their own works, whether of faith or of conduct, for their hope of ultimate
salvation. God’s justification is valid only if they maintain their faith and
commit no sins of malice aforethought, or of conscious indifference, or
unlovingness. (pgs. 386-390, Warfield, Perfectionism
Vol. 1, Warfield, “The German Higher Life Movement in its Chief Exponent.”)
provision for a progressive sanctification, along the ordinary lines of the
teaching of the Higher Life Movement in this matter. We have seen Jellinghaus
in passages just quoted limiting the ability of the Christian to enter “immediately”
into the victorious power and peace-bringing leading of Christ, by such phrases
as “according to the measure of his knowledge,” and “for the needs of which he
is presently conscious.” The Christian is freed from all the sinning which at
the stage of Christian knowledge to which he has attained he knows to be
sinning; and as his knowledge grows so his objective sanctification increases.
It is apparently also repeatedly suggested that it depends entirely on the
Christian’s own action whether or not he retains his hold on Christ and so
continues in his sanctifying walk. Undoubtedly this is in accordance with
Jellinghaus’ fundamental conception of the relation of the Christian to Christ
and the way of salvation. He continually suggests that our standing in Christ
depends absolutely on ourselves. Those that believe in Christ, he tells us for
example, “have in Him forgiveness and righteousness, and also shall retain it so
long as they abide in Christ.” It is, he continues, like a king granting
public amnesty in terms like these: He who appears within a year at a
particular place, lays down his weapons, and swears fealty—to him then shall be
handed an already prepared diploma of pardon, and he will remain pardoned so
long as he maintains his loyalty. . . . Our continued justification depends therefore
absolutely on our continued faith, and the implication is that this is left
wholly in our hands. Justification cannot therefore be made to cover our future
sins—the sin, for example, of failing faith. . . . What
Jellinghaus is really laboring for here is to make room in some way for
“falling from grace.” He is possessed with the fear that if he does not limit
the scope of justification, at least with respect to the grosser future sins,
he will give license to sin, which in the end means merely that he has more
confidence in man’s efforts than in God’s grace. What he has succeeded in doing
is only to destroy all possibility of assurance of salvation. Men are cast back
on their own works, whether of faith or of conduct, for their hope of ultimate
salvation. God’s justification is valid only if they maintain their faith and
commit no sins of malice aforethought, or of conscious indifference, or
unlovingness. (pgs. 386-390, Warfield, Perfectionism
Vol. 1, Warfield, “The German Higher Life Movement in its Chief Exponent.”)
Keswick’s Passivity: in Keswick’s Errors–an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 15 of 17
Furthermore,
when Keswick affirms, following the Pearsall Smiths and the Broadlands
Conference,[1]
that the believer’s sole responsibility in sanctification is to lie “quietly”
in the Potter’s hands, to “give up belief in . . . struggl[ing] or striv[ing]”[2] and
cease from “struggle and painful effort . . . earnest resolutions and
self-denial,”[3] it
teaches an unbiblical Quietism,[4]
exemplified in the Victorious Life motto, “Let go and let God.”[5] Barabas alleges that “Keswick is very careful
to point out that its doctrine of sanctification by faith is not Quietism,”
quoting “Bishop Handley Moule”[6]
to support this alleged opposition to Quietism by Keswick. However, Barabas either overlooks or
misrepresents[7]
the fact that Moule himself, who Barabas affirms was the greatest scholar ever
to adopt the Keswick theology,[8]
wrote that the believer’s part in the Keswick model of sanctification is “a blessed and wakeful Quietism,” so
that “Quietism . . . express[es] one side of [the] truth” in sanctification.[9] The explicit endorsement of a form of
Quietism by Keswick leaders was simply a continuation of the teaching of Lord
Mount Temple[10]
and Hannah W. Smith, reproduced at the Broadlands, Oxford, and Brighton
conferences, where “Quietism . . . was taught . . . in the sense of [the poem],
‘Sweet to lie passive in His hands/And know no will but His.’”[11] In sanctification, the believer is “simply to
. . . lie passive.”[12] Passivity is of the highest importance: “[I]n the disciple’s life, the . . .
first quality of a true instrument is passivity.
An active instrument would defeat its
own purpose . . . and then it not only becomes useless, but it works damage and
disaster. . . . [I]n the Word of God, we meet so frequently the symbols of
passive service.”[13]
Hannah and Robert Smith sought to bring others into a life of carefree
and quietistic happiness, since the Higher Life was “an easy life of rest and ease
. . . without effort,” indeed, “the only easy life.”[14] Unfortunately, when Moule and other Keswick
writers followed the Smiths and warned of “letting the self-life intrude itself
into the work of God,”[15]
they were not warning only of the danger of fallen, sinful volitions in man, or
of making one’s own self rather than the glory of God one’s goal. Rather, they were teaching the quietistic
doctrine that the human personality itself needed, in unbiblical ways, to be
passive, as Hannah W. Smith taught when she opposed the “self-life” in favor of
the Quietism of Quakerism and Roman Catholic mysticism, or when Lord
Mount-Temple and others exhorted at Broadlands, “Let us give up the self-life”
for the Higher Life flowing from the Divine Seed within.[16] Not sin—including the sin of selfishness—but
“self,” the active human personality, was the problem for Keswick. For Mrs. Smith and Keswick, the command of
Scripture to “reckon ye also yourselves to be
dead indeed unto sin” meant “[w]e must reckon ourselves to be dead to self,”[17]
for the active human personality itself was an evil to be set aside.
Thus, Bishop Moule, the man Keswick recognizes as its most scholarly
advocate, consciously and deliberately labeled the Keswick theology (which he
loved and defended) a form of Quietism, a fact supported by other Keswick
writers such as Andrew Murray and Jessie Penn-Lewis.[18] Contrary to the revisionist history set forth
by Barabas, the plain historical facts indicate that “the Quietists and other
Catholic mystics [were] widely accepted as part of the true holiness movement.”[19]
Thus, classic statements of the Keswick theology by its proponents affirm: “The Keswick message . . . [is] ‘quietism.’”[20] According to Keswick, by a cessation from
effort, the believer can pass from the state where the “Lord [is] unused” to one where he can “use the Lord”[21]
to become sanctified. The secret of
victory and sanctification by faith alone was that “we had nothing to do but
remain quiet, and the Lord would do everything for us.”[22] Keswick, following Hannah W. and Robert P.
Smith and the Broadlands Conferences,[23]
affirms that one is to “hand over the fleshly deeds of the body to the Spirit
for mortification . . . Romans 8:13 . . . [and] stand in faith[.] . . . It is
the Holy Spirit’s responsibility to do the rest. Sanctification is thus the
result, not of attempts at suppression of the flesh, but of faith in the
finished work of Calvary.”[24] In contrast to Keswick, the Bible says that
the believer is himself to actively “mortify the deeds of the body . . . through
the Spirit” (Romans 8:13; Colossians 3:5), not refuse to mortify them but hand
them over to the Spirit. Keswick teaches
that the Christian is not to try to suppress the flesh, but Scripture commands
him not merely to suppress his ethically sinful flesh, but to go far beyond
that, and put it to death. The Biblical relationship between
faith and effort in sanctification, which has already been explicated,[25]
is dramatically different from the Quietism inherent within the Keswick
theology. Scripture denies passivity and
Quietism in sanctification, and thus denies Keswick theology.[26]
when Keswick affirms, following the Pearsall Smiths and the Broadlands
Conference,[1]
that the believer’s sole responsibility in sanctification is to lie “quietly”
in the Potter’s hands, to “give up belief in . . . struggl[ing] or striv[ing]”[2] and
cease from “struggle and painful effort . . . earnest resolutions and
self-denial,”[3] it
teaches an unbiblical Quietism,[4]
exemplified in the Victorious Life motto, “Let go and let God.”[5] Barabas alleges that “Keswick is very careful
to point out that its doctrine of sanctification by faith is not Quietism,”
quoting “Bishop Handley Moule”[6]
to support this alleged opposition to Quietism by Keswick. However, Barabas either overlooks or
misrepresents[7]
the fact that Moule himself, who Barabas affirms was the greatest scholar ever
to adopt the Keswick theology,[8]
wrote that the believer’s part in the Keswick model of sanctification is “a blessed and wakeful Quietism,” so
that “Quietism . . . express[es] one side of [the] truth” in sanctification.[9] The explicit endorsement of a form of
Quietism by Keswick leaders was simply a continuation of the teaching of Lord
Mount Temple[10]
and Hannah W. Smith, reproduced at the Broadlands, Oxford, and Brighton
conferences, where “Quietism . . . was taught . . . in the sense of [the poem],
‘Sweet to lie passive in His hands/And know no will but His.’”[11] In sanctification, the believer is “simply to
. . . lie passive.”[12] Passivity is of the highest importance: “[I]n the disciple’s life, the . . .
first quality of a true instrument is passivity.
An active instrument would defeat its
own purpose . . . and then it not only becomes useless, but it works damage and
disaster. . . . [I]n the Word of God, we meet so frequently the symbols of
passive service.”[13]
Hannah and Robert Smith sought to bring others into a life of carefree
and quietistic happiness, since the Higher Life was “an easy life of rest and ease
. . . without effort,” indeed, “the only easy life.”[14] Unfortunately, when Moule and other Keswick
writers followed the Smiths and warned of “letting the self-life intrude itself
into the work of God,”[15]
they were not warning only of the danger of fallen, sinful volitions in man, or
of making one’s own self rather than the glory of God one’s goal. Rather, they were teaching the quietistic
doctrine that the human personality itself needed, in unbiblical ways, to be
passive, as Hannah W. Smith taught when she opposed the “self-life” in favor of
the Quietism of Quakerism and Roman Catholic mysticism, or when Lord
Mount-Temple and others exhorted at Broadlands, “Let us give up the self-life”
for the Higher Life flowing from the Divine Seed within.[16] Not sin—including the sin of selfishness—but
“self,” the active human personality, was the problem for Keswick. For Mrs. Smith and Keswick, the command of
Scripture to “reckon ye also yourselves to be
dead indeed unto sin” meant “[w]e must reckon ourselves to be dead to self,”[17]
for the active human personality itself was an evil to be set aside.
Thus, Bishop Moule, the man Keswick recognizes as its most scholarly
advocate, consciously and deliberately labeled the Keswick theology (which he
loved and defended) a form of Quietism, a fact supported by other Keswick
writers such as Andrew Murray and Jessie Penn-Lewis.[18] Contrary to the revisionist history set forth
by Barabas, the plain historical facts indicate that “the Quietists and other
Catholic mystics [were] widely accepted as part of the true holiness movement.”[19]
Thus, classic statements of the Keswick theology by its proponents affirm: “The Keswick message . . . [is] ‘quietism.’”[20] According to Keswick, by a cessation from
effort, the believer can pass from the state where the “Lord [is] unused” to one where he can “use the Lord”[21]
to become sanctified. The secret of
victory and sanctification by faith alone was that “we had nothing to do but
remain quiet, and the Lord would do everything for us.”[22] Keswick, following Hannah W. and Robert P.
Smith and the Broadlands Conferences,[23]
affirms that one is to “hand over the fleshly deeds of the body to the Spirit
for mortification . . . Romans 8:13 . . . [and] stand in faith[.] . . . It is
the Holy Spirit’s responsibility to do the rest. Sanctification is thus the
result, not of attempts at suppression of the flesh, but of faith in the
finished work of Calvary.”[24] In contrast to Keswick, the Bible says that
the believer is himself to actively “mortify the deeds of the body . . . through
the Spirit” (Romans 8:13; Colossians 3:5), not refuse to mortify them but hand
them over to the Spirit. Keswick teaches
that the Christian is not to try to suppress the flesh, but Scripture commands
him not merely to suppress his ethically sinful flesh, but to go far beyond
that, and put it to death. The Biblical relationship between
faith and effort in sanctification, which has already been explicated,[25]
is dramatically different from the Quietism inherent within the Keswick
theology. Scripture denies passivity and
Quietism in sanctification, and thus denies Keswick theology.[26]
See here for this entire study.
[1] E. g., Robert P. Smith set forth what became the standard
Keswick Quietism on pg. 220ff. Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Hannah W. Smith preached at Broadlands:
“We have the Divine life; we must see to it that we let it live, that we
let no other life live” (pg. 182, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences,
Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910). That is, our own human life must cease, and
we must allow the Divine Seed, the Christ-life, to live instead of us.
Keswick Quietism on pg. 220ff. Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Hannah W. Smith preached at Broadlands:
“We have the Divine life; we must see to it that we let it live, that we
let no other life live” (pg. 182, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences,
Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910). That is, our own human life must cease, and
we must allow the Divine Seed, the Christ-life, to live instead of us.
[2] Pg. 88, So
Great Salvation, Barabas.
Great Salvation, Barabas.
[3] Pg. 90, So
Great Salvation, Barabas.
Great Salvation, Barabas.
[4] While Keswick is quietistic, its Quietism is often
milder than many of the historical manifestations of Quietism, and thus, while
its Quietism hinders the believer’s sanctification, it is not as theologically
aberrant as, say, the Quietism of the medieval Romanist mysticism that
influenced it. Keswick happily, though
inconsistently, denies that sanctification involves “the destruction of the
Christian’s personality” (pg. 134, So
Great Salvation, Barabas) while still affirming that, rather than the
world, the flesh, and the devil, “the greatest danger . . .
the individual has to dread is the inordinate activity of the soul with its
powers of mind and will” (pg. 335, The
Spirit of Christ, Andrew Murray; also cited in chapter 8, Soul & Spirit, Jessie Penn-Lewis).
milder than many of the historical manifestations of Quietism, and thus, while
its Quietism hinders the believer’s sanctification, it is not as theologically
aberrant as, say, the Quietism of the medieval Romanist mysticism that
influenced it. Keswick happily, though
inconsistently, denies that sanctification involves “the destruction of the
Christian’s personality” (pg. 134, So
Great Salvation, Barabas) while still affirming that, rather than the
world, the flesh, and the devil, “the greatest danger . . .
the individual has to dread is the inordinate activity of the soul with its
powers of mind and will” (pg. 335, The
Spirit of Christ, Andrew Murray; also cited in chapter 8, Soul & Spirit, Jessie Penn-Lewis).
[5] This phrase was popularized by Victorious Life leader
Charles Trumbull in his tract, “What is Your Kind of Christianity?” and
examined by B. B. Warfield in “The Victorious Life,” Chapter 5 of Perfectionism, Vol. 2 (see pg. 588). Compare, in Trumbull’s book Victory in Christ, the title to chapter
5: “Victory without Trying” (Elec. acc.
http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com).
Charles Trumbull in his tract, “What is Your Kind of Christianity?” and
examined by B. B. Warfield in “The Victorious Life,” Chapter 5 of Perfectionism, Vol. 2 (see pg. 588). Compare, in Trumbull’s book Victory in Christ, the title to chapter
5: “Victory without Trying” (Elec. acc.
http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com).
However, to his credit, “at Keswick . . . [William
Graham] Scroggie,” who “[i]n 1950 . . . was called ‘indisputably the foremost
living Keswick teacher’ . . . had opposed the idea of ‘Let go–and let God’ and
had said that victory came through ‘fighting and striving to make true in
experience what is true for us positionally.’”
Unfortunately, “Scroggie did not deny the possibility of contemporary
speaking in tongues,” and, “[s]peaking at one Keswick Convention on the subject
of the Apostles’ Creed, he argued that given the conflicts of the 1920s over
theological modernism (with fundamentalists calling for evangelicals to leave
the existing denominations), it was preferable to use the Apostles’ Creed as a
widely accepted basis of faith than for small groups to construct their own
bases of belief and split from the wider [universal] church” (“Scroggie,
William Graham,” Biographical Dictionary
of Evangelicals, pgs. 593-594).
Furthermore, “Scroggie . . . did accept that the gift of tongues might
still be available to Christians” (pg. 71, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall). While Scroggie sought to reform the dominant
Keswick Quietism, he maintained its unbiblical continuationism or anti-cessationism
and its ecumenicalism.
Graham] Scroggie,” who “[i]n 1950 . . . was called ‘indisputably the foremost
living Keswick teacher’ . . . had opposed the idea of ‘Let go–and let God’ and
had said that victory came through ‘fighting and striving to make true in
experience what is true for us positionally.’”
Unfortunately, “Scroggie did not deny the possibility of contemporary
speaking in tongues,” and, “[s]peaking at one Keswick Convention on the subject
of the Apostles’ Creed, he argued that given the conflicts of the 1920s over
theological modernism (with fundamentalists calling for evangelicals to leave
the existing denominations), it was preferable to use the Apostles’ Creed as a
widely accepted basis of faith than for small groups to construct their own
bases of belief and split from the wider [universal] church” (“Scroggie,
William Graham,” Biographical Dictionary
of Evangelicals, pgs. 593-594).
Furthermore, “Scroggie . . . did accept that the gift of tongues might
still be available to Christians” (pg. 71, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall). While Scroggie sought to reform the dominant
Keswick Quietism, he maintained its unbiblical continuationism or anti-cessationism
and its ecumenicalism.
[6] Pg. 97, So
Great Salvation, Barabas. Packer, commenting on Barabas’s denial that
Keswick is quietistic, notes:
Great Salvation, Barabas. Packer, commenting on Barabas’s denial that
Keswick is quietistic, notes:
[Barabas’s denial is based]
on the ground that intense activity in using the means of grace is necessary to
keep up one’s consecration and to maintain faith. But such activity, as is explicitly stated in
the passage from Bishop Moule which he quotes, is merely preparatory: “the temptation
of the hour will be met less by direct efforts of the will than by indirect”—i.
e., by handing the matter over to the Spirit and ceasing to act in it oneself.
This is the quietism of Keswick teaching. (pg. 161, “‘Keswick’ and the
Reformed Doctrine of Sanctification,” J. I. Packer. The Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. 27 (1955) 153-167).
on the ground that intense activity in using the means of grace is necessary to
keep up one’s consecration and to maintain faith. But such activity, as is explicitly stated in
the passage from Bishop Moule which he quotes, is merely preparatory: “the temptation
of the hour will be met less by direct efforts of the will than by indirect”—i.
e., by handing the matter over to the Spirit and ceasing to act in it oneself.
This is the quietism of Keswick teaching. (pg. 161, “‘Keswick’ and the
Reformed Doctrine of Sanctification,” J. I. Packer. The Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. 27 (1955) 153-167).
[7] It is possible that Barabas borrowed his misuse of Moule
from W. H. Griffith Thomas, who quoted Moule to respond to Warfield’s criticism
of Keswick Quietism on pgs. 278-279, “The Victorious Life (I.),” Bibliotheca Sacra 76:303 (July 1919), 267-288.
Griffith Thomas was Barabas’s predecessor in ignorance of or in failing
to state that, decades before Thomas wrote, Moule himself specifically
affirmed, in print, the Quietism of his beloved Keswick doctrine of sanctification. Perhaps, if ignorance of or bypassing of
inconvenient facts worked well enough for Griffith Thomas, it could work well
enough for Barabas also.
from W. H. Griffith Thomas, who quoted Moule to respond to Warfield’s criticism
of Keswick Quietism on pgs. 278-279, “The Victorious Life (I.),” Bibliotheca Sacra 76:303 (July 1919), 267-288.
Griffith Thomas was Barabas’s predecessor in ignorance of or in failing
to state that, decades before Thomas wrote, Moule himself specifically
affirmed, in print, the Quietism of his beloved Keswick doctrine of sanctification. Perhaps, if ignorance of or bypassing of
inconvenient facts worked well enough for Griffith Thomas, it could work well
enough for Barabas also.
[8] “The adherence of Dr. Moule to the Keswick platform was
a great accession of strength . . . there is no doubt that Dr. Moule was [Keswick’s]
greatest . . . scholar” (pg. 175, So
Great Salvation, Barabas). Moule
adopted the Keswick theology through the influence of Evan Hopkins (pgs. 106,
148, Evan Harry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander Smellie). Nevertheless, even Bishop Moule did not write
any works for the world of scholarship, a fact put in the most favorable light
by his biographers:
a great accession of strength . . . there is no doubt that Dr. Moule was [Keswick’s]
greatest . . . scholar” (pg. 175, So
Great Salvation, Barabas). Moule
adopted the Keswick theology through the influence of Evan Hopkins (pgs. 106,
148, Evan Harry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander Smellie). Nevertheless, even Bishop Moule did not write
any works for the world of scholarship, a fact put in the most favorable light
by his biographers:
Those who knew Dr. Moule’s
powers often longed that he would give to the Church some great work, which
would appeal to the world of pure scholarship and advanced studies; but . . .
he deliberately consecrated all his powers to meet the needs of the general
body of Christian people . . . it is not surprising that Dr. Moule should have
felt that he could best serve his day and generation by using his all-too-scanty
leisure upon such writings as were in the line of his pulpit and platform
ministrations. (pg. 173, Handley Carr
Glyn Moule, Bishop of Durham: A
Biography, John B. Harford & Frederick C. Macdonald)
powers often longed that he would give to the Church some great work, which
would appeal to the world of pure scholarship and advanced studies; but . . .
he deliberately consecrated all his powers to meet the needs of the general
body of Christian people . . . it is not surprising that Dr. Moule should have
felt that he could best serve his day and generation by using his all-too-scanty
leisure upon such writings as were in the line of his pulpit and platform
ministrations. (pg. 173, Handley Carr
Glyn Moule, Bishop of Durham: A
Biography, John B. Harford & Frederick C. Macdonald)
Thus, Moule did not write
any exposition or defense of the Keswick theology for the world of scholarship,
just as nobody else has done, despite what will soon be a century and a half of
the worldwide promulgation of the Keswick theology. Perhaps such an exposition has never been
written because Keswick doctrine is unscholarly and cannot be defended at an
advanced level.
any exposition or defense of the Keswick theology for the world of scholarship,
just as nobody else has done, despite what will soon be a century and a half of
the worldwide promulgation of the Keswick theology. Perhaps such an exposition has never been
written because Keswick doctrine is unscholarly and cannot be defended at an
advanced level.
[9] Pg. 197, Veni
Creator: Thoughts on the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit of Promise, by
H. C. G. Moule. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1890; cf. repr. ed.,
Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977.
Creator: Thoughts on the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit of Promise, by
H. C. G. Moule. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1890; cf. repr. ed.,
Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977.
[10] E.
g., pg. 124, Memorials [of William Francis
Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890.
g., pg. 124, Memorials [of William Francis
Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890.
[11] Pgs. 421-422, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
The pages affirm that “Quietism it may have been also in [another]
sense,” so that Quietism was the explicit teaching of the foundational meetings
that originated the Keswick theology in at least two senses. This Higher Life Quietism is explicitly tied
to that of the “most renowned of the quietists, Madame Guyon . . . one can only
wish that more went half as far as she did, in the passion for saving the
sinful” (pgs. 421-422), which she somehow was capable of doing, although she
believed a false gospel. The only
qualification stated to the commendation of Guyon’s Quietism is that she
“may”—it is only a possibility, not a certainty—have “gone somewhat further
than was right”—what is certain is that “one can only wish that more went half
as far as she did.”
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
The pages affirm that “Quietism it may have been also in [another]
sense,” so that Quietism was the explicit teaching of the foundational meetings
that originated the Keswick theology in at least two senses. This Higher Life Quietism is explicitly tied
to that of the “most renowned of the quietists, Madame Guyon . . . one can only
wish that more went half as far as she did, in the passion for saving the
sinful” (pgs. 421-422), which she somehow was capable of doing, although she
believed a false gospel. The only
qualification stated to the commendation of Guyon’s Quietism is that she
“may”—it is only a possibility, not a certainty—have “gone somewhat further
than was right”—what is certain is that “one can only wish that more went half
as far as she did.”
[12] Pg. 295, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Cf. pg. 299.
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Cf. pg. 299.
[13] Pgs.
68-69, Forward Movements of the Last Half
Century, Arthur T. Pierson. New
York, NY: London: Funk & Wagnalls,
1900. Italics in original. Pierson goes on to illustration the Higher
Life passivity by comparing his doctrine of the Christian’s role in
sanctification with impersonal, unthinking objects: the “machine . . . plane . . . knife . . .
axe . . . bow . . . rod . . . staff . . . saw . . . hammer . . . sword . . .
spear . . . threshing instrument . . . flail . . . vessel.” The idea that the believer is in willful,
deliberate cooperation with God by grace is definitively and deliberately
excluded, and solely impersonal symbols are employed. The Biblical metaphors that show a
Christian’s active willing and doing are all passed by—the Christian is not the
servant who obeys, the sheep that follows the Shepherd, the watchman who is
vigilant, the warrior who fights, or the athlete who wrestles, boxes, and
runs. He is only the “plane” or the
“machine” that runs when an electric current flows through it.
68-69, Forward Movements of the Last Half
Century, Arthur T. Pierson. New
York, NY: London: Funk & Wagnalls,
1900. Italics in original. Pierson goes on to illustration the Higher
Life passivity by comparing his doctrine of the Christian’s role in
sanctification with impersonal, unthinking objects: the “machine . . . plane . . . knife . . .
axe . . . bow . . . rod . . . staff . . . saw . . . hammer . . . sword . . .
spear . . . threshing instrument . . . flail . . . vessel.” The idea that the believer is in willful,
deliberate cooperation with God by grace is definitively and deliberately
excluded, and solely impersonal symbols are employed. The Biblical metaphors that show a
Christian’s active willing and doing are all passed by—the Christian is not the
servant who obeys, the sheep that follows the Shepherd, the watchman who is
vigilant, the warrior who fights, or the athlete who wrestles, boxes, and
runs. He is only the “plane” or the
“machine” that runs when an electric current flows through it.
[14] See pgs. 58, 84, 86, 211, 313-314, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875; also pgs. 276, 292, etc., Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness,
Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874.
Chicago: Revell, 1874.
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875; also pgs. 276, 292, etc., Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness,
Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874.
Chicago: Revell, 1874.
[15] Pg. 172, So
Great Salvation, Barabas.
Great Salvation, Barabas.
[16] Pgs.
184-185, The Life that is Life
Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands
Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
184-185, The Life that is Life
Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands
Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
[17] Pg.
234, The God of All Comfort, Hannah
W. Smith. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1906; pgs. 231-232, Living in the Sunshine, Hannah W.
Smith. London: Fleming H. Revell, 1906. Hannah W. Smith’s transformation of Scripture’s
“dead to sin” into “dead to self” reappears in subsequent Keswick writers: “If I reckon myself to be indeed dead in
Christ, I am separated from self” (pg. 97, Holy
in Christ: Thoughts on the Calling of God’s Children to Be Holy as He Is Holy,
Andrew Murray. New York: Anson D. F.
Randolph & Company, 1887). “[Y]ou
reckon yourselves as alive from the dead, dead to self” (pg. 208, The Spiritual Life, Andrew Murray [Chicago:
Tupper & Robertson, 1896]; “It is an unfeigned delight to find that the
teaching of the Inner Life is becoming so widespread . . . the reckoning
oneself dead to self . . . and the Rest of Faith, Life across the Jordan in the
Land of Promise, these are familiar and deeply prized truths” (pg. 38, Forward Movements of the Last Half Century,
Arthur T. Pierson [New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900], quoting F. B.
Meyer in The Ram’s Horn.).
234, The God of All Comfort, Hannah
W. Smith. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1906; pgs. 231-232, Living in the Sunshine, Hannah W.
Smith. London: Fleming H. Revell, 1906. Hannah W. Smith’s transformation of Scripture’s
“dead to sin” into “dead to self” reappears in subsequent Keswick writers: “If I reckon myself to be indeed dead in
Christ, I am separated from self” (pg. 97, Holy
in Christ: Thoughts on the Calling of God’s Children to Be Holy as He Is Holy,
Andrew Murray. New York: Anson D. F.
Randolph & Company, 1887). “[Y]ou
reckon yourselves as alive from the dead, dead to self” (pg. 208, The Spiritual Life, Andrew Murray [Chicago:
Tupper & Robertson, 1896]; “It is an unfeigned delight to find that the
teaching of the Inner Life is becoming so widespread . . . the reckoning
oneself dead to self . . . and the Rest of Faith, Life across the Jordan in the
Land of Promise, these are familiar and deeply prized truths” (pg. 38, Forward Movements of the Last Half Century,
Arthur T. Pierson [New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900], quoting F. B.
Meyer in The Ram’s Horn.).
[18] Barabas himself (pgs. 138-139, So Great Salvation) quotes Murray’s quietistic affirmation (from
pgs. 65-73, The Full Blessing of
Pentecost, by Andrew Murray. New
York, NY: Revell, 1908) that, for the
Christian, “My life must be expelled; then the Spirit of Jesus will flow
in.” This teaching, Barabas concludes,
illustrates that “our own life must be utterly cast aside, to make full room
for the life of God.” For the influence
of the Romanist mystical Quietist Madame Guyon on Jessie Penn-Lewis, see the
section “Keswick Theology and Continuationism or Anti-Cessationism” below in
the chapter entitled “Evan Roberts and Jessie-Penn Lewis.”
pgs. 65-73, The Full Blessing of
Pentecost, by Andrew Murray. New
York, NY: Revell, 1908) that, for the
Christian, “My life must be expelled; then the Spirit of Jesus will flow
in.” This teaching, Barabas concludes,
illustrates that “our own life must be utterly cast aside, to make full room
for the life of God.” For the influence
of the Romanist mystical Quietist Madame Guyon on Jessie Penn-Lewis, see the
section “Keswick Theology and Continuationism or Anti-Cessationism” below in
the chapter entitled “Evan Roberts and Jessie-Penn Lewis.”
[19] Pg. 64, Aspects
of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Synan.
of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Synan.
[20] Pg. 181, The
Keswick Convention: Its Message, Its Method, and its Men, ed. Charles
Harford. In another chapter explaining
“some characteristics of the message,” of Keswick, the book affirmed: “[P]eople might call it Quietism. Call it
what they would, it was very real and very beautiful to see” (pg. 99).
Keswick Convention: Its Message, Its Method, and its Men, ed. Charles
Harford. In another chapter explaining
“some characteristics of the message,” of Keswick, the book affirmed: “[P]eople might call it Quietism. Call it
what they would, it was very real and very beautiful to see” (pg. 99).
[21] Pg. 174, So Great
Salvation, Barabas. The plain
Biblical truth is that God uses the believer—the phraseology of the believer
using God is unscriptural and repulsive, and too much like the thought of the
later Word of Faith heresy.
Nevertheless, at least among certain (though, happily, not all)
prominent Keswick writers, following the theological trajectory of the Keswick
precursor Conventions, the believer deciding to “use the Lord” or “use Christ”
or “use God” to become sanctified was a regular part of the terminology of
sanctification. For example, W. H.
Griffith Thomas, trying to clear up what he alleged were misrepresentations of
the Keswick theology by B. B. Warfield, and trying to put the most orthodox and
moderate view he could on the Keswick doctrine, quoted as paradigmatic Moule’s
preaching at Keswick and stating four different times that “we can use . . .
Christ” for our sanctification, and another Keswick convention minister stating
that “Keswick . . . is the idea of Christ . . . used fully” (see pgs. 279, 287,
455, 456, 458, “The Victorious Life (I.),” & “The Victorious Life (II.), W.
H. Griffith Thomas, Bibliotheca Sacra
July & October 1919, 267-288 & 455-467). Later Keswick writers, such as Watchman Nee’s
successor Witness Lee, could speak of “qualified” people who “can properly use
the Holy Spirit” (pg. 137, Guidelines for
the Lord’s Table Meeting and the Pursuit of Life, Witness Lee. Anaheim, CA:
Living Stream Ministry, 2005). Warfield
incisively notes:
Salvation, Barabas. The plain
Biblical truth is that God uses the believer—the phraseology of the believer
using God is unscriptural and repulsive, and too much like the thought of the
later Word of Faith heresy.
Nevertheless, at least among certain (though, happily, not all)
prominent Keswick writers, following the theological trajectory of the Keswick
precursor Conventions, the believer deciding to “use the Lord” or “use Christ”
or “use God” to become sanctified was a regular part of the terminology of
sanctification. For example, W. H.
Griffith Thomas, trying to clear up what he alleged were misrepresentations of
the Keswick theology by B. B. Warfield, and trying to put the most orthodox and
moderate view he could on the Keswick doctrine, quoted as paradigmatic Moule’s
preaching at Keswick and stating four different times that “we can use . . .
Christ” for our sanctification, and another Keswick convention minister stating
that “Keswick . . . is the idea of Christ . . . used fully” (see pgs. 279, 287,
455, 456, 458, “The Victorious Life (I.),” & “The Victorious Life (II.), W.
H. Griffith Thomas, Bibliotheca Sacra
July & October 1919, 267-288 & 455-467). Later Keswick writers, such as Watchman Nee’s
successor Witness Lee, could speak of “qualified” people who “can properly use
the Holy Spirit” (pg. 137, Guidelines for
the Lord’s Table Meeting and the Pursuit of Life, Witness Lee. Anaheim, CA:
Living Stream Ministry, 2005). Warfield
incisively notes:
It would probably be no exaggeration to say that no
heresy could be more gross than that heresy which conceives the operations of
God the Holy Spirit under the forms of the action of an impersonal, natural
force. . . . [This] deals with God the Holy Spirit, the source of all grace, in
utter neglect of his personality, as if he were a natural force, operating, not
when and where and how he pleases, but uniformly and regularly wherever his
activities are released. . . . The conception is not essentially different from
that of storing electricity, say, in a Leyden jar, whence it can be drawn upon
for use. How dreadful the conception is may be intimated by simply speaking of
it with frankness under its true forms of expression: it is equivalent to
saying that saving grace, God the Holy Spirit, is kept on tap, and released at
[one’s] will to do the work required of it. . . . [Men] contain in them the
Holy Spirit as a salvation-working power which operates whenever and wherever
it, we can scarcely say he, is applied. . . . And this obviously involves, in
the third place, the subjection of the Holy Spirit in his gracious operations
to the control of men. . . . The initiative is placed in [men] . . . and the
Holy Spirit is placed at their disposal. He goes where they convey him; he
works when they release him for work; his operations wait on their permission;
and apart from their direction and control he can work no salvation. It ought
to be unnecessary to say that this is a degrading conception of the modes of
activity of the Holy Spirit. Its affinities are not with religion in any worthy
sense of that word, which implies personal relations with a personal God, but
with magic. At bottom, it conceives of the divine operations as at the disposal
of man, who uses God for his own ends; and utterly forgets that rather God must
be conceived as using man for his ends. (pgs. 82-84, The Plan of Salvation: Five Lectures, B. B. Warfield. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1915)
heresy could be more gross than that heresy which conceives the operations of
God the Holy Spirit under the forms of the action of an impersonal, natural
force. . . . [This] deals with God the Holy Spirit, the source of all grace, in
utter neglect of his personality, as if he were a natural force, operating, not
when and where and how he pleases, but uniformly and regularly wherever his
activities are released. . . . The conception is not essentially different from
that of storing electricity, say, in a Leyden jar, whence it can be drawn upon
for use. How dreadful the conception is may be intimated by simply speaking of
it with frankness under its true forms of expression: it is equivalent to
saying that saving grace, God the Holy Spirit, is kept on tap, and released at
[one’s] will to do the work required of it. . . . [Men] contain in them the
Holy Spirit as a salvation-working power which operates whenever and wherever
it, we can scarcely say he, is applied. . . . And this obviously involves, in
the third place, the subjection of the Holy Spirit in his gracious operations
to the control of men. . . . The initiative is placed in [men] . . . and the
Holy Spirit is placed at their disposal. He goes where they convey him; he
works when they release him for work; his operations wait on their permission;
and apart from their direction and control he can work no salvation. It ought
to be unnecessary to say that this is a degrading conception of the modes of
activity of the Holy Spirit. Its affinities are not with religion in any worthy
sense of that word, which implies personal relations with a personal God, but
with magic. At bottom, it conceives of the divine operations as at the disposal
of man, who uses God for his own ends; and utterly forgets that rather God must
be conceived as using man for his ends. (pgs. 82-84, The Plan of Salvation: Five Lectures, B. B. Warfield. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1915)
[22] Pg. 173, 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 the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton,
May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith,
1875.
[23] E. g., Hannah W. Smith taught “the plan of handing over your
temptations to Him to conquer” instead of resisting them in His strength
(Letter to her cousin Carrie, February 26, 1867, reproduced in the entry for
February 20 of The Christian’s Secret of
a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
Robert P. Smith proclaimed, based on a misinterpretation of Galatians
2:20, that the believer’s part is not to actively mortify sin: “[O]ur work is simply to hand everything over
to Him. . . . Suffer Christ to live out His own glorious life in you hour by
hour . . . [you will be] more . . . free from effort each day” (pg. 220, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874.
Chicago: Revell, 1874).
temptations to Him to conquer” instead of resisting them in His strength
(Letter to her cousin Carrie, February 26, 1867, reproduced in the entry for
February 20 of The Christian’s Secret of
a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
Robert P. Smith proclaimed, based on a misinterpretation of Galatians
2:20, that the believer’s part is not to actively mortify sin: “[O]ur work is simply to hand everything over
to Him. . . . Suffer Christ to live out His own glorious life in you hour by
hour . . . [you will be] more . . . free from effort each day” (pg. 220, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874.
Chicago: Revell, 1874).
[24] Pgs. 106-107, So
Great Salvation, Barabas. Note the
false dichotomy Barabas makes between faith in the finished work of Christ and
active effort to mortify the flesh; in Biblical sanctification the two are the
most intimate friends, not the irreconcilable opposites Barabas makes them.
Great Salvation, Barabas. Note the
false dichotomy Barabas makes between faith in the finished work of Christ and
active effort to mortify the flesh; in Biblical sanctification the two are the
most intimate friends, not the irreconcilable opposites Barabas makes them.
[25] See the chapters “The Just Shall Live by Faith” and “Does
Colossians 2:6-7 Teach Sanctification by Faith Alone?” above.
Colossians 2:6-7 Teach Sanctification by Faith Alone?” above.
[26] Packer notes:
Passivity means conscious
inaction—in this case, inner inaction. A
call to passivity—conscientious, consecrated passivity—has sometimes been read
into certain biblical texts, but it cannot be read out of any of them. Thus, for instance, to “yield” or “present”
oneself to God (Romans 6:13; 12:1), or as it is sometimes put, to “surrender”
or “give ourselves up” to him, is not passivity. Paul’s meaning is not that having handed
ourselves over to our Master, we should then lapse into inaction, waiting for
Christ to move us instead of moving ourselves, but rather that we should report
for duty, saying as Paul himself said on the Damascus road, “What shall I do,
Lord? . . .” (Acts 22:10) and setting no limits to what Christ by his Spirit
through his Word may direct us to do.
This is activity! Again, being
“led by the Spirit of God” (Romans 8:14; Galatians 5:18) is not passivity. Paul’s meaning is not that we should do
nothing till celestial promptings pop into our minds, but that we should
resolutely labor by prayer and effort to obey the law of Christ and mortify sin
(see Galatians 5:13-6:19; and Romans 8:5-13, to which v. 14 looks back). This too is activity!
inaction—in this case, inner inaction. A
call to passivity—conscientious, consecrated passivity—has sometimes been read
into certain biblical texts, but it cannot be read out of any of them. Thus, for instance, to “yield” or “present”
oneself to God (Romans 6:13; 12:1), or as it is sometimes put, to “surrender”
or “give ourselves up” to him, is not passivity. Paul’s meaning is not that having handed
ourselves over to our Master, we should then lapse into inaction, waiting for
Christ to move us instead of moving ourselves, but rather that we should report
for duty, saying as Paul himself said on the Damascus road, “What shall I do,
Lord? . . .” (Acts 22:10) and setting no limits to what Christ by his Spirit
through his Word may direct us to do.
This is activity! Again, being
“led by the Spirit of God” (Romans 8:14; Galatians 5:18) is not passivity. Paul’s meaning is not that we should do
nothing till celestial promptings pop into our minds, but that we should
resolutely labor by prayer and effort to obey the law of Christ and mortify sin
(see Galatians 5:13-6:19; and Romans 8:5-13, to which v. 14 looks back). This too is activity!
Surely we need not go
further. The point is plain. Passivity, which quietists think liberates
the Spirit, actually resists and quenches him.
Souls that cultivate passivity do not thrive, but waste away. The Christian’s motto should not be “Let go
and let God” but “Trust God and get going!” . . . [P]assivity [is] . . .
unbiblical . . . and hostile to Christian maturity. (pg. 128, Keep In Step With The Spirit, J. I.
Packer)
further. The point is plain. Passivity, which quietists think liberates
the Spirit, actually resists and quenches him.
Souls that cultivate passivity do not thrive, but waste away. The Christian’s motto should not be “Let go
and let God” but “Trust God and get going!” . . . [P]assivity [is] . . .
unbiblical . . . and hostile to Christian maturity. (pg. 128, Keep In Step With The Spirit, J. I.
Packer)
Recent Comments