Home » Search results for 'king james version' (Page 35)
Search Results for: king james version
Keswick’s Perfectionism: in Keswick’s Errors–an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 6 of 17
Additionally,
the related Keswick idea that, in this life, “sin . . . need not be a continued
source of trouble,”[1] is
likewise unbiblical. Such a concept lays
the groundwork for either self-deception in the believer who thinks he has
arrived at such a state of complete triumph over sin, or for hopeless despair
in the believer who knows his own heart too well to make such an
affirmation. The support by Keswick
leaders of such ideas, along with their unabashed affirmations of the truth of
perfectionism,[2] explain
why “from the first, opponents of Keswick have accused it of holding a shallow
view of sin. . . . [and of being] perfectionist.”[3] Indeed, Scripture does not present
progressive sanctification as an instantaneous transition from a state of utter
defeat to one of total victory.
Likewise, the fact that sinless perfection is impossible in this life is
Biblically a motive to continue striving for ever-greater progressive victory
against sin—not, as is commonly argued by many groups of perfectionists, a
reason to give up the fight in despair.[4]
Barabas states: “The value of a system
of thought or of a doctrine therefore depends upon the manner in which it
proposes to deal with the problem of sin.
Any failure here means failure all along the line.”[5] Unfortunately, the Keswick theology does not
properly deal with sin. While some who
have been helped spiritually because of Keswick preaching are blessedly
inconsistent, consistent belief that sin no longer need trouble the believer is
only possible by disregarding the true nature of sin or by adopting
perfectionism. Furthermore, to the
extent that Keswick lowers the standard of God’s requirement from literal and
absolute sinlessness to a lower and subjective standard of “known sin” that
downplays the evils of sins of ignorance,[6]
it leads believers to be satisfied with less than what God requires and
discourages them from striving after the actual standard of perfect conformity
to the absolute holiness of the Most High.[7]
the related Keswick idea that, in this life, “sin . . . need not be a continued
source of trouble,”[1] is
likewise unbiblical. Such a concept lays
the groundwork for either self-deception in the believer who thinks he has
arrived at such a state of complete triumph over sin, or for hopeless despair
in the believer who knows his own heart too well to make such an
affirmation. The support by Keswick
leaders of such ideas, along with their unabashed affirmations of the truth of
perfectionism,[2] explain
why “from the first, opponents of Keswick have accused it of holding a shallow
view of sin. . . . [and of being] perfectionist.”[3] Indeed, Scripture does not present
progressive sanctification as an instantaneous transition from a state of utter
defeat to one of total victory.
Likewise, the fact that sinless perfection is impossible in this life is
Biblically a motive to continue striving for ever-greater progressive victory
against sin—not, as is commonly argued by many groups of perfectionists, a
reason to give up the fight in despair.[4]
Barabas states: “The value of a system
of thought or of a doctrine therefore depends upon the manner in which it
proposes to deal with the problem of sin.
Any failure here means failure all along the line.”[5] Unfortunately, the Keswick theology does not
properly deal with sin. While some who
have been helped spiritually because of Keswick preaching are blessedly
inconsistent, consistent belief that sin no longer need trouble the believer is
only possible by disregarding the true nature of sin or by adopting
perfectionism. Furthermore, to the
extent that Keswick lowers the standard of God’s requirement from literal and
absolute sinlessness to a lower and subjective standard of “known sin” that
downplays the evils of sins of ignorance,[6]
it leads believers to be satisfied with less than what God requires and
discourages them from striving after the actual standard of perfect conformity
to the absolute holiness of the Most High.[7]
Associated
with the Keswick idea that sin need no longer trouble believers who have
entered into the Higher Life is the Pelagianizing and perfectionist idea,
adopted by Keswick from the Broadlands Conference,[8]
that the obligation of the believer to obey God is coextensive with his ability
to do so.[9] “A saying frequently heard at Keswick is
this[:] ‘God’s commandment is his enablement,’ meaning that God never issues a
command that He does not give us grace to fulfil.”[10] The Keswick theology asks, “Does God
therefore make demands of human beings that they cannot fulfil? Does He expect of them conduct beyond their
reach? . . . God’s requirements cannot be greater than His enablements. If they were, man would be mocked. . . . What
He demands He makes possible.”[11] Barabas cites no texts from the Bible to
prove his position, since none teach his equation of obligation and
ability. His argument, however, stands
squarely in the line of centuries of perfectionist argumentation and arises out
of the denial of total depravity that accompanied the Divine Seed heresy of the
Broadlands Conference and the Quakerism of the Pearsall Smiths. Consistency with the affirmation that man has
the inherent ability to perform all that God demands of him requires sinless
perfection, since God’s standard for man is nothing less than the perfect
purity and holiness of His own nature.
Affirming that, in this life, one can be entirely without sin is a
dangerous heresy affirmed only by unregenerate individuals (1 John 1:8, 10).
with the Keswick idea that sin need no longer trouble believers who have
entered into the Higher Life is the Pelagianizing and perfectionist idea,
adopted by Keswick from the Broadlands Conference,[8]
that the obligation of the believer to obey God is coextensive with his ability
to do so.[9] “A saying frequently heard at Keswick is
this[:] ‘God’s commandment is his enablement,’ meaning that God never issues a
command that He does not give us grace to fulfil.”[10] The Keswick theology asks, “Does God
therefore make demands of human beings that they cannot fulfil? Does He expect of them conduct beyond their
reach? . . . God’s requirements cannot be greater than His enablements. If they were, man would be mocked. . . . What
He demands He makes possible.”[11] Barabas cites no texts from the Bible to
prove his position, since none teach his equation of obligation and
ability. His argument, however, stands
squarely in the line of centuries of perfectionist argumentation and arises out
of the denial of total depravity that accompanied the Divine Seed heresy of the
Broadlands Conference and the Quakerism of the Pearsall Smiths. Consistency with the affirmation that man has
the inherent ability to perform all that God demands of him requires sinless
perfection, since God’s standard for man is nothing less than the perfect
purity and holiness of His own nature.
Affirming that, in this life, one can be entirely without sin is a
dangerous heresy affirmed only by unregenerate individuals (1 John 1:8, 10).
Keswick,
however, since it at times recognizes the dangerous and unscriptural character
of a more consistent perfectionism,[12]
does not usually take its perfectionist doctrine that obligation is limited to
ability to its actual conclusion, but stops with the affirmation that believers
can live without known sin, while at the same time affirming that all believers
still are sinners and do sin, although unwittingly. It is certainly true that believers can have
a clear conscience and determinately oppose all sin. It is likewise true that genuine and ever-greater
progressive victory over sin—although not the absolute victory coming in
heaven—is given to the saints on earth (Romans 6:14). However, the restricted Keswick perfectionism
is not compatible with its doctrine that obligation is limited to ability. God commands all men and angels to be
perfect, just as He is perfect (Matthew 5:48), but the Holy One of Israel is
not just free from certain areas of conscious sinning. God does not lower His standard to what is
possible for either unregenerate fallen man or pre-glorified regenerate man who
still has indwelling sin. Consistency
with its affirmation that man’s obligation is limited to his ability would
require Keswick to affirm either literal, absolute perfectionism for fallen men
or to downgrade the character of God’s holy character and law, and the nature
of sin, to something less than absolute conformity to the holiness of Jehovah.[13] Such conclusions cannot be avoided by Keswick’s
affirming that grace enables ability to meet Divine obligation. Absolute perfection or a downgrade in the nature
of sin must still follow—only the sinless perfection would now be allegedly enabled
by grace.[14] God certainly will give all His people the
grace to be sinlessly perfect, but He will only do so when they are forever
with Him, not during this life. The
necessary consequences of the Keswick doctrine of ability and obligation
explain why “opponents of Keswick have accused it [of being] perfectionist.”[15] Happily, Keswick advocates do not usually
believe what is truly involved in their affirmation that God’s standard for
fallen man is limited by the sinner’s ability.
But would it not be better to simply represent the teaching of the Bible
on sanctification accurately than to affirm a Pelagian and perfectionistic view
of obligation and ability, but inconsistently deny its consequences?
however, since it at times recognizes the dangerous and unscriptural character
of a more consistent perfectionism,[12]
does not usually take its perfectionist doctrine that obligation is limited to
ability to its actual conclusion, but stops with the affirmation that believers
can live without known sin, while at the same time affirming that all believers
still are sinners and do sin, although unwittingly. It is certainly true that believers can have
a clear conscience and determinately oppose all sin. It is likewise true that genuine and ever-greater
progressive victory over sin—although not the absolute victory coming in
heaven—is given to the saints on earth (Romans 6:14). However, the restricted Keswick perfectionism
is not compatible with its doctrine that obligation is limited to ability. God commands all men and angels to be
perfect, just as He is perfect (Matthew 5:48), but the Holy One of Israel is
not just free from certain areas of conscious sinning. God does not lower His standard to what is
possible for either unregenerate fallen man or pre-glorified regenerate man who
still has indwelling sin. Consistency
with its affirmation that man’s obligation is limited to his ability would
require Keswick to affirm either literal, absolute perfectionism for fallen men
or to downgrade the character of God’s holy character and law, and the nature
of sin, to something less than absolute conformity to the holiness of Jehovah.[13] Such conclusions cannot be avoided by Keswick’s
affirming that grace enables ability to meet Divine obligation. Absolute perfection or a downgrade in the nature
of sin must still follow—only the sinless perfection would now be allegedly enabled
by grace.[14] God certainly will give all His people the
grace to be sinlessly perfect, but He will only do so when they are forever
with Him, not during this life. The
necessary consequences of the Keswick doctrine of ability and obligation
explain why “opponents of Keswick have accused it [of being] perfectionist.”[15] Happily, Keswick advocates do not usually
believe what is truly involved in their affirmation that God’s standard for
fallen man is limited by the sinner’s ability.
But would it not be better to simply represent the teaching of the Bible
on sanctification accurately than to affirm a Pelagian and perfectionistic view
of obligation and ability, but inconsistently deny its consequences?
See here for this entire study.
[1] Pg. 36, So Great
Salvation, Barabas. Compare Robert
Pearsall Smith: “The Christian who has
the faith [of the Higher Life] need never sin” (pg. 257, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875).
Of course, Smith reduces “sin” to “conscious sin.”
Salvation, Barabas. Compare Robert
Pearsall Smith: “The Christian who has
the faith [of the Higher Life] need never sin” (pg. 257, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875).
Of course, Smith reduces “sin” to “conscious sin.”
[2] E. g., W. H. Griffith Thomas, responding to Warfield’s
critique of Keswick theology and attempting to justify Keswick, boldly stated: “‘Keswick’
stands for perfectionism. I have heard
that scores of times, and so have you—and it does” (pg. 283, “The Victorious
Life (I.).” Bibliotheca Sacra (76:303) July 1919, 267-288). Keswick leader A. T. Pierson said: “There is one kind of sinless
perfection in which every Keswick teacher believes—the sinless perfection of instantaneously and for ever renouncing
every known sin.” Pierson proves this sort of
perfectionism in the following manner: “There
is no mistake in the attitude of our Lord. He says: ‘Sin no more;’ and He would
not say that if He did not mean it.”
That is, God’s obligation on man and man’s ability to obey are
coextensive, Pierson believes, so if God commands man not to sin, a fallen man
with indwelling sin is able to be perfect; and, furthermore, “Paul preach[ed]
perfect holiness,” meaning the Keswick doctrine of perfectionism. However, other sorts of perfectionism were
not accepted at Keswick, according to Pierson—only their peculiar brand was
acceptable. Other than the distinctive
Keswick perfectionism, “being sinlessly perfect” is not for the “present” (pgs.
8-10, A Spiritual Clinique: Four Bible Readings Given at Keswick in 1907,
Pierson. New York, NY: Gospel Publishing House, 1907. Italics in original). During the “‘turn of the century’ era” from
“1897 to 1909 . . . Dr. Pierson came to Keswick more often than any other
speaker from America . . . and assumed from the first . . . a position of
leadership unique in a speaker from overseas.
Again and again we read of him guiding the proceedings in times of
particular moment.” The editor of the
Keswick Life of Faith periodical
verified that Pierson “dominated the Convention by his spiritual and
intellectual powers, and thousands hung upon his words with an intense
eagerness” (pg. 405, Keswick’s Authentic
Voice, ed. Stevenson).
critique of Keswick theology and attempting to justify Keswick, boldly stated: “‘Keswick’
stands for perfectionism. I have heard
that scores of times, and so have you—and it does” (pg. 283, “The Victorious
Life (I.).” Bibliotheca Sacra (76:303) July 1919, 267-288). Keswick leader A. T. Pierson said: “There is one kind of sinless
perfection in which every Keswick teacher believes—the sinless perfection of instantaneously and for ever renouncing
every known sin.” Pierson proves this sort of
perfectionism in the following manner: “There
is no mistake in the attitude of our Lord. He says: ‘Sin no more;’ and He would
not say that if He did not mean it.”
That is, God’s obligation on man and man’s ability to obey are
coextensive, Pierson believes, so if God commands man not to sin, a fallen man
with indwelling sin is able to be perfect; and, furthermore, “Paul preach[ed]
perfect holiness,” meaning the Keswick doctrine of perfectionism. However, other sorts of perfectionism were
not accepted at Keswick, according to Pierson—only their peculiar brand was
acceptable. Other than the distinctive
Keswick perfectionism, “being sinlessly perfect” is not for the “present” (pgs.
8-10, A Spiritual Clinique: Four Bible Readings Given at Keswick in 1907,
Pierson. New York, NY: Gospel Publishing House, 1907. Italics in original). During the “‘turn of the century’ era” from
“1897 to 1909 . . . Dr. Pierson came to Keswick more often than any other
speaker from America . . . and assumed from the first . . . a position of
leadership unique in a speaker from overseas.
Again and again we read of him guiding the proceedings in times of
particular moment.” The editor of the
Keswick Life of Faith periodical
verified that Pierson “dominated the Convention by his spiritual and
intellectual powers, and thousands hung upon his words with an intense
eagerness” (pg. 405, Keswick’s Authentic
Voice, ed. Stevenson).
While Pierson was generally correct that the
distinctive perfectionism of Hannah W. and Robert P. Smith was dominant at the
early Keswick convention, he was not correct in his affirmation that other
forms of perfectionism were not also acceptable at the Convention. Asa Mahan’s early influence makes it clear
that Oberlin Perfectionism was acceptable from the beginning. Moule was converted to the Keswick theology
at a convention that included both Evan Hopkins and “an ardent Salvation Army
captain,” an advocate of the Army’s standard Wesleyan perfectionism (pg. 42, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and
Future, Price & Randall).
Likewise, the “Japan Evangelistic Band . . . formed at the Convention of
1893 . . . looked to Wesleyan holiness speakers” (pg. 115, Transforming Keswick: The
Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall; cf. pg.
81, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick
Convention, Polluck; the Band was founded by Webb-Peploe’s curate Barclay
Buxton). “Another vital link between
Keswick and the Wesleyan holiness tradition was through Charles Inwood,” who
spoke at twenty-one Keswick conventions and represented Keswick internationally
while receving prophetic impressions through which he predicted the future (pg.
112, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and
Future, Price & Randall). “As a
Wesleyan Methodist himself, Inwood actively sought to influence Keswick
thinking from within the movement . . . Inwood was deeply indebted to the
Wesleyan revivalist tradition” (pg. 50, Ibid). The Methodist perfectionist, continuationist,
and woman preacher Amanda Smith, who preached at Keswick and was then invited
to and preached at Broadlands by invitation of Evan Hopkins and Lord
Mount-Temple in the 1880s, is another example of Methodist perfectionism being
propagated at Keswick (pg. 116, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck; The
Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life: The
Unpublished Personal Writings of Hannah Whitall Smith, ed. Dieter, entry
for December 30; Chapter 20-21, An
Autobiograpy: The Story of the Lord’s
Dealings with Mrs. Amanda Smith, The Colored Evangelist, Containing an Account
of her Life Work of Faith, and her Travels in America, England, Ireland,
Scotland, India, and Africa, as an Independent Missionary, Amanda
Smith. Chicago, IL: Meyer & Brother, 1893; pgs. 71-73, 114, The Life
that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of
the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910). The
ecumenicalism of the Keswick Convention embraced a variety of conflicting
perfectionisms, predominently the type taught by Hannah W. and Robert P. Smith,
but also that of the Oberlin and Wesleyan theologies, in its seeking for a
Higher Life spirituality.
distinctive perfectionism of Hannah W. and Robert P. Smith was dominant at the
early Keswick convention, he was not correct in his affirmation that other
forms of perfectionism were not also acceptable at the Convention. Asa Mahan’s early influence makes it clear
that Oberlin Perfectionism was acceptable from the beginning. Moule was converted to the Keswick theology
at a convention that included both Evan Hopkins and “an ardent Salvation Army
captain,” an advocate of the Army’s standard Wesleyan perfectionism (pg. 42, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and
Future, Price & Randall).
Likewise, the “Japan Evangelistic Band . . . formed at the Convention of
1893 . . . looked to Wesleyan holiness speakers” (pg. 115, Transforming Keswick: The
Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall; cf. pg.
81, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick
Convention, Polluck; the Band was founded by Webb-Peploe’s curate Barclay
Buxton). “Another vital link between
Keswick and the Wesleyan holiness tradition was through Charles Inwood,” who
spoke at twenty-one Keswick conventions and represented Keswick internationally
while receving prophetic impressions through which he predicted the future (pg.
112, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and
Future, Price & Randall). “As a
Wesleyan Methodist himself, Inwood actively sought to influence Keswick
thinking from within the movement . . . Inwood was deeply indebted to the
Wesleyan revivalist tradition” (pg. 50, Ibid). The Methodist perfectionist, continuationist,
and woman preacher Amanda Smith, who preached at Keswick and was then invited
to and preached at Broadlands by invitation of Evan Hopkins and Lord
Mount-Temple in the 1880s, is another example of Methodist perfectionism being
propagated at Keswick (pg. 116, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck; The
Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life: The
Unpublished Personal Writings of Hannah Whitall Smith, ed. Dieter, entry
for December 30; Chapter 20-21, An
Autobiograpy: The Story of the Lord’s
Dealings with Mrs. Amanda Smith, The Colored Evangelist, Containing an Account
of her Life Work of Faith, and her Travels in America, England, Ireland,
Scotland, India, and Africa, as an Independent Missionary, Amanda
Smith. Chicago, IL: Meyer & Brother, 1893; pgs. 71-73, 114, The Life
that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of
the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910). The
ecumenicalism of the Keswick Convention embraced a variety of conflicting
perfectionisms, predominently the type taught by Hannah W. and Robert P. Smith,
but also that of the Oberlin and Wesleyan theologies, in its seeking for a
Higher Life spirituality.
[3] Pg. 40, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[4] As already noted, Keswick does not (usually) teach
actual sinless perfection. However, by
teaching that continued struggle with sin in the Christian life, and anything
less than “perfect and constant victory over temptation” is “heart-breaking
defeat” (pgs. 95, 76, So Great Salvation,
Barabas), it lends itself to the argument of other and more radical
perfectionisms that anything less than the possibility of perfection (of
whatever kind is advocated by a particular perfectionst theology) in this life
is a ground for despair. Snodgrass
notes:
actual sinless perfection. However, by
teaching that continued struggle with sin in the Christian life, and anything
less than “perfect and constant victory over temptation” is “heart-breaking
defeat” (pgs. 95, 76, So Great Salvation,
Barabas), it lends itself to the argument of other and more radical
perfectionisms that anything less than the possibility of perfection (of
whatever kind is advocated by a particular perfectionst theology) in this life
is a ground for despair. Snodgrass
notes:
[Doctrines
of] perfectionism . . . [and] entire sanctification . . . fee[d] the mind with
the notion of entire freedom from sin; and this is, at once, the essence of the
system, and the reason of its danger. . . . [T]hose who anticipate better
effects [in holier Christian living] from the doctrine of Perfection than from
the common doctrine of Sanctification, reason falsely[.] . . . The question is
asked . . . “Who would expect an army to fight, with energy, under the
impression of inevitable defeat?” And
this, it is taken for granted, is a parallel case to that of the Christian, who
entertains no hope of entire sanctification in the present life. But, is it so? Has he the impression of inevitable defeat,
because he expects the war to be somewhat protracted? Does he lay down his arms, in despair,
because he believes that more than one battle is to be fought? Does he cease from the contest, because he
does not anticipate a perfect triumph, until the “last enemy” shall “be
destroyed,” which “is death”? The truth
is, that, on his own principles, he has an expectation of victory, which is
qualified by no peradventure; he anticipates it, with unwavering faith, and
with joyful hope; it is as certain to him, as the love and faithfulness of God
can make it;—nay, he has the earnest of it, in his present success;—he has
already come off as a conqueror in many a struggle;—he is pursuing his
advantage from one battle-field to another; and he has no doubt, that the time
is near, when all the armies of the aliens shall be put to flight, “And death,
the last of all his foes,/ Lie vanquished at his feet.” So far, therefore, as the certainty of
success is concerned, he has the same reason to persevere and be active, with
those who anticipate a speedier triumph.
of] perfectionism . . . [and] entire sanctification . . . fee[d] the mind with
the notion of entire freedom from sin; and this is, at once, the essence of the
system, and the reason of its danger. . . . [T]hose who anticipate better
effects [in holier Christian living] from the doctrine of Perfection than from
the common doctrine of Sanctification, reason falsely[.] . . . The question is
asked . . . “Who would expect an army to fight, with energy, under the
impression of inevitable defeat?” And
this, it is taken for granted, is a parallel case to that of the Christian, who
entertains no hope of entire sanctification in the present life. But, is it so? Has he the impression of inevitable defeat,
because he expects the war to be somewhat protracted? Does he lay down his arms, in despair,
because he believes that more than one battle is to be fought? Does he cease from the contest, because he
does not anticipate a perfect triumph, until the “last enemy” shall “be
destroyed,” which “is death”? The truth
is, that, on his own principles, he has an expectation of victory, which is
qualified by no peradventure; he anticipates it, with unwavering faith, and
with joyful hope; it is as certain to him, as the love and faithfulness of God
can make it;—nay, he has the earnest of it, in his present success;—he has
already come off as a conqueror in many a struggle;—he is pursuing his
advantage from one battle-field to another; and he has no doubt, that the time
is near, when all the armies of the aliens shall be put to flight, “And death,
the last of all his foes,/ Lie vanquished at his feet.” So far, therefore, as the certainty of
success is concerned, he has the same reason to persevere and be active, with
those who anticipate a speedier triumph.
Again: it is wrong, in
principle, to say, that the hope of success, in order to be an efficient
motive, must terminate upon acquisitions to be made within the limits of the
present life. This is neither consistent
with Scripture, nor in accordance with actual experience. The hope of the apostles and primitive
Christians, was a hope, which “entereth into that within the veil,” and, this
was the reason why it was an “anchor to the soul.” . . . It transported its
subjects beyond the region where sin and sorrow dwell, and brought them into
communion with the inhabitants and felicities of heaven. And this was the true secret of its animating
influence. It derived its energy from
the importance and glory of its object; and this was something entirely above
and beyond any degrees of sanctification to be anticipated here. “Every man,” says an apostle [1 John 3:3],
“that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself.” Such a hope will undoubtedly sanctify those
in whom it dwells; but a similar influence is never ascribed to any hope, the
object of which is to be realized on this side of the grave.
principle, to say, that the hope of success, in order to be an efficient
motive, must terminate upon acquisitions to be made within the limits of the
present life. This is neither consistent
with Scripture, nor in accordance with actual experience. The hope of the apostles and primitive
Christians, was a hope, which “entereth into that within the veil,” and, this
was the reason why it was an “anchor to the soul.” . . . It transported its
subjects beyond the region where sin and sorrow dwell, and brought them into
communion with the inhabitants and felicities of heaven. And this was the true secret of its animating
influence. It derived its energy from
the importance and glory of its object; and this was something entirely above
and beyond any degrees of sanctification to be anticipated here. “Every man,” says an apostle [1 John 3:3],
“that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself.” Such a hope will undoubtedly sanctify those
in whom it dwells; but a similar influence is never ascribed to any hope, the
object of which is to be realized on this side of the grave.
Moreover:
it is incorrect to assume, that the Christian derives his strongest impulses
for holy living, from direct meditations upon his prospect of success. No doubt, he has “respect unto the recompense
of the reward,” both here and hereafter; and yet, his experience will bear me
out in saying, that his heart is never assailed by more irresistible motives to
active and entire consecration to God, than when his mind is most fully
occupied by other considerations than those which relate immediately to
himself. . . . [A greater motive than being] taken up with reflections on the
degree of proficiency at which he [is] expecting to arrive . . . [is] “the love
of Christ constraineth us” [2 Corinthians 5:14]! Here [is] the main-spring of [Christian]
activity . . . with his face towards Calvary, with his eye on the cross, and
with his mind intent upon the compassion and condescension of a suffering
Saviour, he [is] carried beyond himself, and [is] borne away, by the impulse of
a mightier and more generous motive. So
it is in all the higher achievements of the Christian life. It is not by sitting down to meditate upon
the prospect of our perfect sanctification that we gather the strongest motives
to the pursuit of holiness. Our best
seasons, both of feeling and action, are those, in which we think least of
ourselves, and most, of the love of God, of the compassion of Christ, of the
claims of gratitude and duty, and of the beauty and excellency of holiness
itself. We are not servants, who work
merely for wages, but we are bound to our employment, by love and gratitude to
the master, as well as by the happiness we find in the service itself. . . . And
in these considerations, are contained our highest inducements, to persevere in
his service, and live to his glory. “For
none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself; for whether we live,
we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we
live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.” [Romans 14:7-8] (pgs. 95-101, The Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification,
Snodgrass).
it is incorrect to assume, that the Christian derives his strongest impulses
for holy living, from direct meditations upon his prospect of success. No doubt, he has “respect unto the recompense
of the reward,” both here and hereafter; and yet, his experience will bear me
out in saying, that his heart is never assailed by more irresistible motives to
active and entire consecration to God, than when his mind is most fully
occupied by other considerations than those which relate immediately to
himself. . . . [A greater motive than being] taken up with reflections on the
degree of proficiency at which he [is] expecting to arrive . . . [is] “the love
of Christ constraineth us” [2 Corinthians 5:14]! Here [is] the main-spring of [Christian]
activity . . . with his face towards Calvary, with his eye on the cross, and
with his mind intent upon the compassion and condescension of a suffering
Saviour, he [is] carried beyond himself, and [is] borne away, by the impulse of
a mightier and more generous motive. So
it is in all the higher achievements of the Christian life. It is not by sitting down to meditate upon
the prospect of our perfect sanctification that we gather the strongest motives
to the pursuit of holiness. Our best
seasons, both of feeling and action, are those, in which we think least of
ourselves, and most, of the love of God, of the compassion of Christ, of the
claims of gratitude and duty, and of the beauty and excellency of holiness
itself. We are not servants, who work
merely for wages, but we are bound to our employment, by love and gratitude to
the master, as well as by the happiness we find in the service itself. . . . And
in these considerations, are contained our highest inducements, to persevere in
his service, and live to his glory. “For
none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself; for whether we live,
we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we
live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.” [Romans 14:7-8] (pgs. 95-101, The Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification,
Snodgrass).
[5] Pg. 101, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[6] Lyman Atwater notes:
Some of our most dangerous sins are sins of
ignorance. Nay, the very ignorance of
moral and Christian duty is itself often most culpable, and incurs the divine
condemnation, even the woe upon those who call good evil and evil good; who put
light for darkness and darkness for light [Isaiah 5:20]. It is the very essence of sin to be
deceitful, to disguise itself, to hate the light, and refuse to come to the
light which would unveil it—and is not this declared by the Light of the world
to be eminently its condemnation?
What! Do men become innocent by
blinding themselves to their guilt, and sinless by ignoring their sin? Paul “verily thought that he ought to do many
things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth” [Acts 26:9]. Can a man be innocent and perfect in
persecuting the Church, whatever his ignorance or sincerity therein? Out [with] such casuistry, no matter how
plausible and acceptable it may be to a worldly and backslidden church, or
those who think they are something when they are nothing, or who “say they are
perfect,” by whatever names sanctioned! (pg. 407, “The Higher Life and
Christian Perfection,” Lyman H. Atwater.
The Presbyterian Quarterly and
Princeton Review (July 1877) 389-419)
ignorance. Nay, the very ignorance of
moral and Christian duty is itself often most culpable, and incurs the divine
condemnation, even the woe upon those who call good evil and evil good; who put
light for darkness and darkness for light [Isaiah 5:20]. It is the very essence of sin to be
deceitful, to disguise itself, to hate the light, and refuse to come to the
light which would unveil it—and is not this declared by the Light of the world
to be eminently its condemnation?
What! Do men become innocent by
blinding themselves to their guilt, and sinless by ignoring their sin? Paul “verily thought that he ought to do many
things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth” [Acts 26:9]. Can a man be innocent and perfect in
persecuting the Church, whatever his ignorance or sincerity therein? Out [with] such casuistry, no matter how
plausible and acceptable it may be to a worldly and backslidden church, or
those who think they are something when they are nothing, or who “say they are
perfect,” by whatever names sanctioned! (pg. 407, “The Higher Life and
Christian Perfection,” Lyman H. Atwater.
The Presbyterian Quarterly and
Princeton Review (July 1877) 389-419)
[7] B.
B. Warfield incisively notes concerning this sort of teaching:
B. Warfield incisively notes concerning this sort of teaching:
Nothing can be more important
than that the conception of perfection be maintained at its height. If there is
an eternal and immutable distinction between right and wrong . . . then [g]oodness
must be everywhere and in all beings essentially the same. The fundamental
principles of right moral action, must be the same to God and to his creatures;
and there must be one rule of duty—one standard by which to test character—to
angels and to men. . . . True perfection is one and the same thing in all
beings[.] The habit of conceiving of perfection as admitting of many
imperfections—moral imperfections,
glossed as infirmities, errors and inadvertences—not only lowers the standard
of perfection and with it the height of our aspirations, but corrupts our
hearts, dulls our discrimination of right and wrong, and betrays us into
satisfaction with attainments which are very far from satisfactory. There is no
more corrupting practice than the habit of calling right wrong and wrong right.
That is the essence of antinomianism, if we choose to speak in the language of
the schools. To give it its least offensive description, it is acquiescence in
sin. And this is the real arraignment of all perfectionist theories[.] They
lull men to sleep with a sense of attainments not really made; cut the nerve of
effort in the midst of the race; and tempt men to accept imperfection as
perfection—which is no less than to say evil is good. (pgs. 457-458, Studies in Perfectionism, Part Two, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol.
8, B. B. Warfield)
than that the conception of perfection be maintained at its height. If there is
an eternal and immutable distinction between right and wrong . . . then [g]oodness
must be everywhere and in all beings essentially the same. The fundamental
principles of right moral action, must be the same to God and to his creatures;
and there must be one rule of duty—one standard by which to test character—to
angels and to men. . . . True perfection is one and the same thing in all
beings[.] The habit of conceiving of perfection as admitting of many
imperfections—moral imperfections,
glossed as infirmities, errors and inadvertences—not only lowers the standard
of perfection and with it the height of our aspirations, but corrupts our
hearts, dulls our discrimination of right and wrong, and betrays us into
satisfaction with attainments which are very far from satisfactory. There is no
more corrupting practice than the habit of calling right wrong and wrong right.
That is the essence of antinomianism, if we choose to speak in the language of
the schools. To give it its least offensive description, it is acquiescence in
sin. And this is the real arraignment of all perfectionist theories[.] They
lull men to sleep with a sense of attainments not really made; cut the nerve of
effort in the midst of the race; and tempt men to accept imperfection as
perfection—which is no less than to say evil is good. (pgs. 457-458, Studies in Perfectionism, Part Two, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol.
8, B. B. Warfield)
[8] As Hannah W. Smith taught at
Broadlands: “God’s commands are not
grievous, but they would be if He commanded what we could not do” (pg. 128, The Life that
is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the
Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). Because of the Divine Seed, “We
have in our hearts the germ that can receive” (pg. 185, Ibid); no monergistic and supernatural regeneration of the totally
spiritually dead sinner is necessary.
Broadlands: “God’s commands are not
grievous, but they would be if He commanded what we could not do” (pg. 128, The Life that
is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the
Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). Because of the Divine Seed, “We
have in our hearts the germ that can receive” (pg. 185, Ibid); no monergistic and supernatural regeneration of the totally
spiritually dead sinner is necessary.
[9] The doctrine that fallen man’s obligation to obey is
limited to his ability to do so is refuted in the chapter in this book “Is
Fallen Man’s Obligation to Obey God Limited to His Ability to Do So?”
limited to his ability to do so is refuted in the chapter in this book “Is
Fallen Man’s Obligation to Obey God Limited to His Ability to Do So?”
[10] Pg. 30, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[11] Pg. 63, 188, So
Great Salvation, Barabas. Indeed,
that “What He expects of us He gives us the power to do, both in sanctification
and service” is stated to be “the message of Keswick” (pg. 155; cf. pg. 88).
Great Salvation, Barabas. Indeed,
that “What He expects of us He gives us the power to do, both in sanctification
and service” is stated to be “the message of Keswick” (pg. 155; cf. pg. 88).
[12] Keswick opposes consistent perfectionism, at least most
of the time—however, sometimes more consistent strains break out. For instance, Robert P. Smith permitted “an
aged minister by his side to assert roundly that he had lived for thirty-five
years as purely as Jesus” (pg. 325, The Works of Benjamin
B. Warfield: Perfectionism, Part One, Vol. 7, Benjamin B. Warfield. [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software,
2008]).
of the time—however, sometimes more consistent strains break out. For instance, Robert P. Smith permitted “an
aged minister by his side to assert roundly that he had lived for thirty-five
years as purely as Jesus” (pg. 325, The Works of Benjamin
B. Warfield: Perfectionism, Part One, Vol. 7, Benjamin B. Warfield. [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software,
2008]).
[13] This dilemma faces all perfectionist positions that
attempt to deal in any degree of seriousness with the Scriptural data. Note also that inability to sin because of a
will permanently and immutably inclined to holiness is not a little of the
bliss of the saint’s heavenly holiness, as it is a glorious characteristic of
the Divine holiness (Deuteronomy 32:4; Romans 9:14; 1 John 3:2-3).
attempt to deal in any degree of seriousness with the Scriptural data. Note also that inability to sin because of a
will permanently and immutably inclined to holiness is not a little of the
bliss of the saint’s heavenly holiness, as it is a glorious characteristic of
the Divine holiness (Deuteronomy 32:4; Romans 9:14; 1 John 3:2-3).
[14] Furthermore, once such a state of sinless perfection had
been entered, grace would no longer be necessary to sustain the believer in his
holiness; as God is perfectly holy and unable to sin, so the Christian would be
inherently perfectly holy and unable to sin.
been entered, grace would no longer be necessary to sustain the believer in his
holiness; as God is perfectly holy and unable to sin, so the Christian would be
inherently perfectly holy and unable to sin.
[15] Pg. 40, So Great
Salvation, Barabas. Barabas must
ignore the many affirmations of perfectionism by Keswick’s greatest leaders to
label the charge of perfectionism a mere “accusation.” He would have been more faithful to actual
historical facts had he stated: “[O]pponents of Keswick have accused it [of
being] perfectionist, and they were right,” or “The facts clearly demonstrate
that Keswick stands for perfectionism.”
Salvation, Barabas. Barabas must
ignore the many affirmations of perfectionism by Keswick’s greatest leaders to
label the charge of perfectionism a mere “accusation.” He would have been more faithful to actual
historical facts had he stated: “[O]pponents of Keswick have accused it [of
being] perfectionist, and they were right,” or “The facts clearly demonstrate
that Keswick stands for perfectionism.”
Keswick’s Low View of Sin: in Keswick’s Errors–an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 5 of 17
While
Keswick does warn about the evil of various sins, its advocates lead Christians
to lower views of the sinfulness of man by promising those who still possess
the sinful flesh “victory over all known sin.”[1] The Keswick downgrade of human sinfulness
follows the teaching of Broadlands and its successor Conventions[2]
and the emphasis of Hannah W. Smith on attaining carefree happiness and freedom
from feelings of guilt, while standing in in continuity with Pentecostalism.[3] Scripture teaches that no believer short of
glory loves God will all his heart, soul, and mind (Matthew 22:37-38), is
inwardly perfect, even as his heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48), or
perfectly obeys other similar commandments.
A believer’s obedience to some commands, such as: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly
in all wisdom” (Colossians 3:16), or “sin not” (1 Corinthians 15:34), is
imperfect but progressive. Likewise, believers
can be commanded to do more of what they are already doing to some extent (1
Thessalonians 5:11). Consequently, for a
believer to affirm, with Keswick, that the “cleansing work [of] . . . the
Spirit . . . to remove . . . sin . . . is as thorough as His revealing work . .
. [to] reveal sin”[4] he
must either suppress the Spirit’s testimony that some sins are truly sin or suppress
the Spirit’s testimony to his failure to meet the Divine standard of absolute sinless
perfection.[5] The child of God can greatly rejoice that he
has the privilege of drawing near to God and the power from the Holy Spirit to
walk in uprightness before his Father in genuine, glorious, and progressively
growing victory over sin. Regretably,
his closeness to God is hindered if, through Keswick teaching, he denys that
his real failure to entirely conform to commands such as Matthew 22:37-38 or
5:48 is indeed sin. Such failures should
be known, consciously acknowledged, guarded against, and hated as sin. Murray
astutely notes:
Keswick does warn about the evil of various sins, its advocates lead Christians
to lower views of the sinfulness of man by promising those who still possess
the sinful flesh “victory over all known sin.”[1] The Keswick downgrade of human sinfulness
follows the teaching of Broadlands and its successor Conventions[2]
and the emphasis of Hannah W. Smith on attaining carefree happiness and freedom
from feelings of guilt, while standing in in continuity with Pentecostalism.[3] Scripture teaches that no believer short of
glory loves God will all his heart, soul, and mind (Matthew 22:37-38), is
inwardly perfect, even as his heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48), or
perfectly obeys other similar commandments.
A believer’s obedience to some commands, such as: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly
in all wisdom” (Colossians 3:16), or “sin not” (1 Corinthians 15:34), is
imperfect but progressive. Likewise, believers
can be commanded to do more of what they are already doing to some extent (1
Thessalonians 5:11). Consequently, for a
believer to affirm, with Keswick, that the “cleansing work [of] . . . the
Spirit . . . to remove . . . sin . . . is as thorough as His revealing work . .
. [to] reveal sin”[4] he
must either suppress the Spirit’s testimony that some sins are truly sin or suppress
the Spirit’s testimony to his failure to meet the Divine standard of absolute sinless
perfection.[5] The child of God can greatly rejoice that he
has the privilege of drawing near to God and the power from the Holy Spirit to
walk in uprightness before his Father in genuine, glorious, and progressively
growing victory over sin. Regretably,
his closeness to God is hindered if, through Keswick teaching, he denys that
his real failure to entirely conform to commands such as Matthew 22:37-38 or
5:48 is indeed sin. Such failures should
be known, consciously acknowledged, guarded against, and hated as sin. Murray
astutely notes:
While Keswick stresses the gravity of sin,
there is still an underestimation of the consequences for the believer of
remaining indwelling sin[.] . . . Going hand in hand with this failure is a
corresponding preoccupation with what it calls known sin, apparent in its
definition that “the normal Christian
life is one of uniform sustained victory over known sin” (pg. 84; cf. pg. 99
[of Barabas, So Great Salvation]). If sin still dwells in the believer, if there
is still the tendency to sin, if corruption has not been eradicated, all of
which Keswick admits, then we ought to be always conscious of that sin. It is not by any means a virtue to say, as
Evan Hopkins says, that we need not be “conscious
of that tendency” (p. 50). . . . Indwelling sin is still sin and the believer
ought always to be conscious of it as
such. To fail to be conscious of it
amounts either to hypocrisy or self-deception.
To have sin in us and not to be conscious of it is itself grave sin; it
is culpable ignorance or culpable ignoring.
As long as sin remains there cannot be freedom from conscious sin, for
the simple reason that in the person who is sensitive to the gravity of sin and
to the demands of holiness this sin that remains is always reflected in
consciousness. Again, indwelling sin is
defiling and it defiles the holiest of the believer’s thoughts, words, and
actions. The specifically deliberate and
volitional is never immune to the defilement which proceeds from the corrupt
nature and that is why the most sanctified of saints are oftentimes most
acutely aware of their sinfulness just when by the power of Christ and the
grace of the Holy Spirit they are engaged in the holiest of their undertakings.
. . . [Indeed,] Keswick[’s] . . . liabilities . . . are related to or stem from
failure to take adequate account of the implications of the presence of sin in
the believer and of the effects which must follow in his consciousness. This reflects a defective view of holiness
and of its demands, which, in turn, gravely . . . impair[s] its effectiveness
as a convention “for the promotion of scriptural
holiness” (p. 30, [Barabas]).[6]
there is still an underestimation of the consequences for the believer of
remaining indwelling sin[.] . . . Going hand in hand with this failure is a
corresponding preoccupation with what it calls known sin, apparent in its
definition that “the normal Christian
life is one of uniform sustained victory over known sin” (pg. 84; cf. pg. 99
[of Barabas, So Great Salvation]). If sin still dwells in the believer, if there
is still the tendency to sin, if corruption has not been eradicated, all of
which Keswick admits, then we ought to be always conscious of that sin. It is not by any means a virtue to say, as
Evan Hopkins says, that we need not be “conscious
of that tendency” (p. 50). . . . Indwelling sin is still sin and the believer
ought always to be conscious of it as
such. To fail to be conscious of it
amounts either to hypocrisy or self-deception.
To have sin in us and not to be conscious of it is itself grave sin; it
is culpable ignorance or culpable ignoring.
As long as sin remains there cannot be freedom from conscious sin, for
the simple reason that in the person who is sensitive to the gravity of sin and
to the demands of holiness this sin that remains is always reflected in
consciousness. Again, indwelling sin is
defiling and it defiles the holiest of the believer’s thoughts, words, and
actions. The specifically deliberate and
volitional is never immune to the defilement which proceeds from the corrupt
nature and that is why the most sanctified of saints are oftentimes most
acutely aware of their sinfulness just when by the power of Christ and the
grace of the Holy Spirit they are engaged in the holiest of their undertakings.
. . . [Indeed,] Keswick[’s] . . . liabilities . . . are related to or stem from
failure to take adequate account of the implications of the presence of sin in
the believer and of the effects which must follow in his consciousness. This reflects a defective view of holiness
and of its demands, which, in turn, gravely . . . impair[s] its effectiveness
as a convention “for the promotion of scriptural
holiness” (p. 30, [Barabas]).[6]
Similarly, Hovey writes:
[Those who] assume that God has promised
to deliver them now from all sin, if they believe aright . . . [who teach]
“Holiness through Faith” . . . [teach that] there is a Christian, in
distinction from a divine, an angelic, or even an Adamic perfection, and [use
as a proof-text that] “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” . . . But according
to this view the standard of holiness is a fluctuating one, and for aught we
can see some of the followers of Christ, who have bound their fellow-Christians
to the rack or the stake for what was believed to be the mortal sin of heresy,
may have been acting at the time “up to the given measure of light upon their
duty,” and were therefore free from sin.
The error in this view is a very dangerous one. Faith in Christ does not, as a matter of
fact, render every act which partakes of it holy. Faith in Christ is acceptable to God, not
because it makes the conduct of the believer in this life sinless, but because
it unites the soul with Christ who has suffered for [him]. . . . Rahab and
Samson had faith, but they were not free from sin. And of one thing at least we may be sure—that
the Scriptures nowhere teach that “whatsoever is of faith is not sin.”[7]
to deliver them now from all sin, if they believe aright . . . [who teach]
“Holiness through Faith” . . . [teach that] there is a Christian, in
distinction from a divine, an angelic, or even an Adamic perfection, and [use
as a proof-text that] “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” . . . But according
to this view the standard of holiness is a fluctuating one, and for aught we
can see some of the followers of Christ, who have bound their fellow-Christians
to the rack or the stake for what was believed to be the mortal sin of heresy,
may have been acting at the time “up to the given measure of light upon their
duty,” and were therefore free from sin.
The error in this view is a very dangerous one. Faith in Christ does not, as a matter of
fact, render every act which partakes of it holy. Faith in Christ is acceptable to God, not
because it makes the conduct of the believer in this life sinless, but because
it unites the soul with Christ who has suffered for [him]. . . . Rahab and
Samson had faith, but they were not free from sin. And of one thing at least we may be sure—that
the Scriptures nowhere teach that “whatsoever is of faith is not sin.”[7]
Keswick overvaluation of carefree
happiness and freedom from guilty feelings[8]
is connected with Keswick’s denial of the Biblical truth that the fact of sin
should always remain in the believer’s consciousness. John Murray notes:
happiness and freedom from guilty feelings[8]
is connected with Keswick’s denial of the Biblical truth that the fact of sin
should always remain in the believer’s consciousness. John Murray notes:
The representatives of Keswick have a
passionate concern for deliverance from the oppressing consciousness of sin and
the dissatisfaction arising from this consciousness. Every person who has his eye upon the goal of
redemption must be aware of the oppression which sin involves and must long for
deliverance from it. But we must beware
of the tendency to complacency which is the snare of perfectionism. As long as sin remains we must have the
consciousness of it and the ensuing dissatisfaction. The more sanctified the believer becomes the
more acute becomes his conviction of the sinfulness that is his, the more he
loathes it and reproaches himself for it.
Here again one feels the passion for freedom from the oppressing consciousness
of sin, so characteristic of Keswick leaders, betrays a lack of appreciation of
what the presence of sin ought to mean in the consciousness of the believer.[9]
passionate concern for deliverance from the oppressing consciousness of sin and
the dissatisfaction arising from this consciousness. Every person who has his eye upon the goal of
redemption must be aware of the oppression which sin involves and must long for
deliverance from it. But we must beware
of the tendency to complacency which is the snare of perfectionism. As long as sin remains we must have the
consciousness of it and the ensuing dissatisfaction. The more sanctified the believer becomes the
more acute becomes his conviction of the sinfulness that is his, the more he
loathes it and reproaches himself for it.
Here again one feels the passion for freedom from the oppressing consciousness
of sin, so characteristic of Keswick leaders, betrays a lack of appreciation of
what the presence of sin ought to mean in the consciousness of the believer.[9]
Christians should not aim for or
be satisfied with anything less than the literal perfection set before them by
the holy character of the triune God and the incarnate Son. They ought to strive for genuine perfection
in dependence upon Christ, rather then resting satisfied with the Keswick
downgrade of perfection, understanding that their journey of sanctification
will not reach its final goal short of glory.
Indeed, when a saint sees his failure to conform to God’s own standard
of holiness as set before him in the Person of Christ, he is able to more
humbly and closely walk after the Spirit (Romans 7:14-8:4). Biblical sanctification has a deeper view of
the sinfulness of sin than does the Keswick theology, leading Scriptural and
non-Keswick piety to a deeper repentance for and hatred of sin, and a greater
glorification of and glorying in Jesus Christ, than is possible for the adherent
of Keswick (Luke 14:11). The believer
should repent, not only of his known sins, but also of his unknown sins, for
the corruption of his heart, for the imputation of Adam’s sin to himself,[10]
and for the corruption that adheres to even his holiest works, committing
himself to his infinitely precious High Priest who bears the inquity even of his
holy things (Exodus 28:38).
be satisfied with anything less than the literal perfection set before them by
the holy character of the triune God and the incarnate Son. They ought to strive for genuine perfection
in dependence upon Christ, rather then resting satisfied with the Keswick
downgrade of perfection, understanding that their journey of sanctification
will not reach its final goal short of glory.
Indeed, when a saint sees his failure to conform to God’s own standard
of holiness as set before him in the Person of Christ, he is able to more
humbly and closely walk after the Spirit (Romans 7:14-8:4). Biblical sanctification has a deeper view of
the sinfulness of sin than does the Keswick theology, leading Scriptural and
non-Keswick piety to a deeper repentance for and hatred of sin, and a greater
glorification of and glorying in Jesus Christ, than is possible for the adherent
of Keswick (Luke 14:11). The believer
should repent, not only of his known sins, but also of his unknown sins, for
the corruption of his heart, for the imputation of Adam’s sin to himself,[10]
and for the corruption that adheres to even his holiest works, committing
himself to his infinitely precious High Priest who bears the inquity even of his
holy things (Exodus 28:38).
Contrary
to Keswick practice, a Biblical Christian spirituality recognizes that not only
one’s individual and willful sins in thought, word, and deed are ungodly and
require repentance, but also unintentional sin, and even the corruption within
one’s best and holiest deeds, needs to be recognized and repented of. Consequently, Biblical piety contributes to a
deeper hatred and repentance for sin, and a greater joy in the glorious righteousness
of Christ wrought out for the believer on account of His free grace and love,
than does Keswick doctrine. Contrast,
for example, the too-shallow view of sin promited by Keswick founder Hannah W.
Smith with the spirituality elucidated in the following quote by Robert Hawker:
to Keswick practice, a Biblical Christian spirituality recognizes that not only
one’s individual and willful sins in thought, word, and deed are ungodly and
require repentance, but also unintentional sin, and even the corruption within
one’s best and holiest deeds, needs to be recognized and repented of. Consequently, Biblical piety contributes to a
deeper hatred and repentance for sin, and a greater joy in the glorious righteousness
of Christ wrought out for the believer on account of His free grace and love,
than does Keswick doctrine. Contrast,
for example, the too-shallow view of sin promited by Keswick founder Hannah W.
Smith with the spirituality elucidated in the following quote by Robert Hawker:
[M]y soul[,] thou needest not to look
abroad into another’s heart to see iniquity; for at home, in thine own, a voice
may be heard continually proclaiming it. Renewed as thou art by grace, still
thou feelest the workings of corrupt nature: and though, as the apostle said,
“with thy mind thou thyself servest the law of God, yet with thy flesh the law
of sin,” Romans 7:25. Pause over the solemn subject, and observe the working of
a body of sin and death, which is virtually all sin: “the carnal mind, (the
apostle saith) is enmity against God,” Romans 8:7; not only an enemy, but in
enmity: so that the very nature is so; it is averse, naturally averse to God,
and is everlastingly rising in opposition to his holy law. And this not only
(as some have supposed, but all men, if they would confess the truth, find to
the contrary) before a work of grace hath passed upon the soul, but after. Else
wherefore doth the apostle say, “the
flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and
these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that
ye would?” Galatians 5:17. He saith this to the regenerate, to the [saints] at
large. And consequently this conflict is after grace hath been manifested to
the soul, and not before. A sinner unawakened may indeed feel at times
compunctions of conscience, and be alarmed at what will be the consequence of
his sins: but these are only the alarms of conscience, not the workings of
grace: and for the most part, these alarms are but momentary. His affections are
all on the side of sin. His soul still remains “dead in trespasses and sins;”
and he himself, like a dead fish, swims down the stream of sin uninterrupted,
without resistance, and without concern. But when a child of God is renewed,
and the soul, that was before dead in trespasses and sins, becomes quickened
and regenerated; then it is that the conflict between the renewed part in
grace, and the unrenewed part in nature, begins, and never ends but with life.
My soul, hath the Lord taught thee this, made thee sensible of it, and caused
thee to groan under it? Dost thou find this heart of thine rebelling against
God; cold to divine things, but warm to natural enjoyments; framing excuses to
keep thee from sweet communion with the Lord; and even in the moment of
communion, running with a swarm of vain thoughts, that “like the flies in the
ointment of the apothecary causeth it to send forth an ill savour”? Are these
in thy daily, hourly, experience? . . . Oh! precious, precious Jesus! how
increasingly dear, under this view of a nature so totally corrupt, art thou to
my poor soul! What but the eternal and unceasing efficacy of thy blood and
righteousness could give my soul the smallest confidence, when I find that I
still carry about with me such a body of sin and death? Let those who know not
the plague of their own heart, talk of natural goodness; sure I am, there is
nothing of the kind in me. “I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth
no good thing.” And were it not, dearest Lord, for the holiness of thy person,
blood, and righteousness, the very sins which mingle up with all I say or do,
yea, even in prayer, would seal my condemnation. Lamb of God! it is the
everlasting merit of thy atonement and intercession, thy blood sprinkled upon
my person and offering, by which alone the justice of God is restrained and
satisfied, and that it breaks not forth in devouring fire, as upon the
sacrifice of old, to consume me upon my very knees! Blessed, blessed forever be
God for Jesus Christ![11]
abroad into another’s heart to see iniquity; for at home, in thine own, a voice
may be heard continually proclaiming it. Renewed as thou art by grace, still
thou feelest the workings of corrupt nature: and though, as the apostle said,
“with thy mind thou thyself servest the law of God, yet with thy flesh the law
of sin,” Romans 7:25. Pause over the solemn subject, and observe the working of
a body of sin and death, which is virtually all sin: “the carnal mind, (the
apostle saith) is enmity against God,” Romans 8:7; not only an enemy, but in
enmity: so that the very nature is so; it is averse, naturally averse to God,
and is everlastingly rising in opposition to his holy law. And this not only
(as some have supposed, but all men, if they would confess the truth, find to
the contrary) before a work of grace hath passed upon the soul, but after. Else
wherefore doth the apostle say, “the
flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and
these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that
ye would?” Galatians 5:17. He saith this to the regenerate, to the [saints] at
large. And consequently this conflict is after grace hath been manifested to
the soul, and not before. A sinner unawakened may indeed feel at times
compunctions of conscience, and be alarmed at what will be the consequence of
his sins: but these are only the alarms of conscience, not the workings of
grace: and for the most part, these alarms are but momentary. His affections are
all on the side of sin. His soul still remains “dead in trespasses and sins;”
and he himself, like a dead fish, swims down the stream of sin uninterrupted,
without resistance, and without concern. But when a child of God is renewed,
and the soul, that was before dead in trespasses and sins, becomes quickened
and regenerated; then it is that the conflict between the renewed part in
grace, and the unrenewed part in nature, begins, and never ends but with life.
My soul, hath the Lord taught thee this, made thee sensible of it, and caused
thee to groan under it? Dost thou find this heart of thine rebelling against
God; cold to divine things, but warm to natural enjoyments; framing excuses to
keep thee from sweet communion with the Lord; and even in the moment of
communion, running with a swarm of vain thoughts, that “like the flies in the
ointment of the apothecary causeth it to send forth an ill savour”? Are these
in thy daily, hourly, experience? . . . Oh! precious, precious Jesus! how
increasingly dear, under this view of a nature so totally corrupt, art thou to
my poor soul! What but the eternal and unceasing efficacy of thy blood and
righteousness could give my soul the smallest confidence, when I find that I
still carry about with me such a body of sin and death? Let those who know not
the plague of their own heart, talk of natural goodness; sure I am, there is
nothing of the kind in me. “I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth
no good thing.” And were it not, dearest Lord, for the holiness of thy person,
blood, and righteousness, the very sins which mingle up with all I say or do,
yea, even in prayer, would seal my condemnation. Lamb of God! it is the
everlasting merit of thy atonement and intercession, thy blood sprinkled upon
my person and offering, by which alone the justice of God is restrained and
satisfied, and that it breaks not forth in devouring fire, as upon the
sacrifice of old, to consume me upon my very knees! Blessed, blessed forever be
God for Jesus Christ![11]
Compare
also the words of John Owen:
also the words of John Owen:
[Believers] weigh
their own righteousness in the balance, and find it wanting; and this
two ways: —
their own righteousness in the balance, and find it wanting; and this
two ways: —
1.) In general,
and upon the whole of the matter, at their first setting themselves before God.
. . . This the saints renounce; they have no confidence in the flesh: they know
that all they can do, all that the law can do, which is weak through the flesh,
will not avail them. . . . This they bear in their minds daily, this they fill
their thoughts withal, that upon the account of what they have done, can do,
ever shall do, they cannot be accepted with God, or justified thereby. This
keeps their souls humble, full of a sense of their own vileness, all their
days.
and upon the whole of the matter, at their first setting themselves before God.
. . . This the saints renounce; they have no confidence in the flesh: they know
that all they can do, all that the law can do, which is weak through the flesh,
will not avail them. . . . This they bear in their minds daily, this they fill
their thoughts withal, that upon the account of what they have done, can do,
ever shall do, they cannot be accepted with God, or justified thereby. This
keeps their souls humble, full of a sense of their own vileness, all their
days.
2.) In particular.
They daily weigh all their particular actions in the balance, and find
them wanting, as to any such completeness as, upon their own account, to be
accepted with God.
They daily weigh all their particular actions in the balance, and find
them wanting, as to any such completeness as, upon their own account, to be
accepted with God.
“Oh!” says a
saint, “if I had nothing to commend me unto God but this prayer, this duty,
this conquest of a temptation, wherein I myself see so many failings, so much
imperfection, could I appear with any boldness before him? Shall I, then, piece
up a garment of righteousness out of my best duties? Ah! it is all as a defiled
cloth,” Isaiah 64:6.
saint, “if I had nothing to commend me unto God but this prayer, this duty,
this conquest of a temptation, wherein I myself see so many failings, so much
imperfection, could I appear with any boldness before him? Shall I, then, piece
up a garment of righteousness out of my best duties? Ah! it is all as a defiled
cloth,” Isaiah 64:6.
These thoughts
accompany them in all their duties, in their best and most choice performances:
—
accompany them in all their duties, in their best and most choice performances:
—
“Lord, what am I
in my best estate? How little suitableness unto thy holiness is in my best
duties! O spare me, in reference to the best thing that ever I did in my life!”
Nehemiah 13:22.
in my best estate? How little suitableness unto thy holiness is in my best
duties! O spare me, in reference to the best thing that ever I did in my life!”
Nehemiah 13:22.
When a man who
lives upon convictions has got some enlargements in duties, some conquest over
a sin or temptation, he hugs himself, like Micah when he had got a Levite to be
his priest: now surely it shall be well with him, now God will bless him: his
heart is now at ease; he has peace in what he has done. But he who has
communion with Christ, when he is highest in duties of sanctification and
holiness, is clearest in the apprehension of his own unprofitableness, and
rejects every thought that might arise in his heart of setting his peace in
them, or upon them. He says to his soul, “Do these things seem something to
thee? Alas! thou hast to do with an infinitely righteous God, who looks through
and through all that vanity, which thou art but little acquainted withal; and
should he deal with thee according to thy best works, thou must perish.”
lives upon convictions has got some enlargements in duties, some conquest over
a sin or temptation, he hugs himself, like Micah when he had got a Levite to be
his priest: now surely it shall be well with him, now God will bless him: his
heart is now at ease; he has peace in what he has done. But he who has
communion with Christ, when he is highest in duties of sanctification and
holiness, is clearest in the apprehension of his own unprofitableness, and
rejects every thought that might arise in his heart of setting his peace in
them, or upon them. He says to his soul, “Do these things seem something to
thee? Alas! thou hast to do with an infinitely righteous God, who looks through
and through all that vanity, which thou art but little acquainted withal; and
should he deal with thee according to thy best works, thou must perish.”
3.) They approve
of, value, and rejoice in, this righteousness, for their acceptation, which
the Lord Jesus has wrought out and provided for them; this being discovered
to them, they approve of it with all their hearts, and rest in it. Isaiah
45:24, “Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength.”
This is their voice and language, when once the righteousness of God in Christ
is made known unto them: “Here is righteousness indeed; here have I rest for my
soul. Like the merchant man in the gospel (Matthew 13:45,46) that finds the
pearl of price, I had been searching up and down; I looked this and that way
for help, but it was far away; I spent my strength for that which was not
bread: here is that, indeed, which makes me rich for ever!” When first the
righteousness of Christ, for acceptation with God, is revealed to a poor
laboring soul, that has fought for rest and has found none, he is surprised and
amazed, and is not able to contain himself: and such a one always in his heart
approves this righteousness . . . [a]s full of infinite wisdom . . . as full of grace. He
knows that sin had shut up the whole way of grace towards him; and whereas God
aims at nothing so much as the manifestation of his grace, he was utterly cut
short of it. Now, to have a complete righteousness provided, and yet abundance
of grace manifested, exceedingly delights the soul; —to have God’s dealing with
his person all grace, and dealing with his righteousness all justice, takes up
his thoughts.[12]
of, value, and rejoice in, this righteousness, for their acceptation, which
the Lord Jesus has wrought out and provided for them; this being discovered
to them, they approve of it with all their hearts, and rest in it. Isaiah
45:24, “Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength.”
This is their voice and language, when once the righteousness of God in Christ
is made known unto them: “Here is righteousness indeed; here have I rest for my
soul. Like the merchant man in the gospel (Matthew 13:45,46) that finds the
pearl of price, I had been searching up and down; I looked this and that way
for help, but it was far away; I spent my strength for that which was not
bread: here is that, indeed, which makes me rich for ever!” When first the
righteousness of Christ, for acceptation with God, is revealed to a poor
laboring soul, that has fought for rest and has found none, he is surprised and
amazed, and is not able to contain himself: and such a one always in his heart
approves this righteousness . . . [a]s full of infinite wisdom . . . as full of grace. He
knows that sin had shut up the whole way of grace towards him; and whereas God
aims at nothing so much as the manifestation of his grace, he was utterly cut
short of it. Now, to have a complete righteousness provided, and yet abundance
of grace manifested, exceedingly delights the soul; —to have God’s dealing with
his person all grace, and dealing with his righteousness all justice, takes up
his thoughts.[12]
Indeed, since Hannah W. Smith and
many advocates of Keswick who followerd her rejected justification by imputed
righteousness, not only was their view of sin too low, but their valuation of
Christ’s cross and righteousness were similarly blighted.
many advocates of Keswick who followerd her rejected justification by imputed
righteousness, not only was their view of sin too low, but their valuation of
Christ’s cross and righteousness were similarly blighted.
See here for this entire study.
[1] Pg. 20, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[2] “Victory over all known sin”
was the stated aim of the Broadlands Convention (pg. 21, The Keswick Story: The Authorized
History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck).
was the stated aim of the Broadlands Convention (pg. 21, The Keswick Story: The Authorized
History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck).
[3] Pg.
235, A Theology
of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal
Experience and the New Testament Witness, F. D. Bruner.
235, A Theology
of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal
Experience and the New Testament Witness, F. D. Bruner.
[4] Pg. 55, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[5] Baptist seminary professor Alvah Hovey noted:
[Those who] claim to be saved from conscious
transgression . . . lower the standard of holiness prescribed by the law of
God, until it agrees with their own experience. . . . [T]he requirements of the
divine law are so comprehensive and spiritual that no man can test his inward
life by that law, without perceiving that he is a transgressor. If he fails to meet the exact, the utmost
demands of that law, as set before him in the Scriptures, he is not saved from
conscious transgression. When, for
example, he is commanded to be holy, because God is holy, the standard is one
of absolute moral perfection; and, measuring himself and others by it, he will
see that the words of Christ are profoundly true, ‘There is none good but one,
that is, God;’ as if Christ had said to the young ruler [of Matthew 19:16-22],
‘By comparing yourself with any man, however upright and devout, you compare
yourself with one who is morally imperfect, with a sinner; while the only true
standard or right character for man is the holy character of God.’ The same result will be reached, if he tests
himself by the two great commands of the law:
‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind;’ and, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself.’ For what is it to love God
with all the heart, and soul, and mind?
It is to love him as purely and intensely and constantly as a being of
the same capacity, but without the least taint of evil in the heart to weaken, cloud,
or interrupt the ardors of holy affection, could love him. It is to love him with the whole force of the
soul, undiminished by the least remnant of selfishness. . . . [T]he law of God,
as set forth in the Bible, require[s] of all a life without sin; for it
commands them to be perfect or holy, while it brings forward the character of
God as the standard of holiness. . . . And there is no greater absurdity in
religion than to suppose that the standard of holiness has been lowered for the
servants of Christ. (pgs. 59-62, 125, Doctrine
of the Higher Christian Life Compared With the Teaching of the Holy Scriptures,
by Alvah Hovey)
transgression . . . lower the standard of holiness prescribed by the law of
God, until it agrees with their own experience. . . . [T]he requirements of the
divine law are so comprehensive and spiritual that no man can test his inward
life by that law, without perceiving that he is a transgressor. If he fails to meet the exact, the utmost
demands of that law, as set before him in the Scriptures, he is not saved from
conscious transgression. When, for
example, he is commanded to be holy, because God is holy, the standard is one
of absolute moral perfection; and, measuring himself and others by it, he will
see that the words of Christ are profoundly true, ‘There is none good but one,
that is, God;’ as if Christ had said to the young ruler [of Matthew 19:16-22],
‘By comparing yourself with any man, however upright and devout, you compare
yourself with one who is morally imperfect, with a sinner; while the only true
standard or right character for man is the holy character of God.’ The same result will be reached, if he tests
himself by the two great commands of the law:
‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind;’ and, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself.’ For what is it to love God
with all the heart, and soul, and mind?
It is to love him as purely and intensely and constantly as a being of
the same capacity, but without the least taint of evil in the heart to weaken, cloud,
or interrupt the ardors of holy affection, could love him. It is to love him with the whole force of the
soul, undiminished by the least remnant of selfishness. . . . [T]he law of God,
as set forth in the Bible, require[s] of all a life without sin; for it
commands them to be perfect or holy, while it brings forward the character of
God as the standard of holiness. . . . And there is no greater absurdity in
religion than to suppose that the standard of holiness has been lowered for the
servants of Christ. (pgs. 59-62, 125, Doctrine
of the Higher Christian Life Compared With the Teaching of the Holy Scriptures,
by Alvah Hovey)
[6] Pgs.
283, 286, Collected Writings of John
Murray, Vol. 4, a review of So Great
Salvation, Barabas. Italics in
original.
283, 286, Collected Writings of John
Murray, Vol. 4, a review of So Great
Salvation, Barabas. Italics in
original.
[7] Pgs. 108-110, Doctrine of the Higher Christian Life
Compared With the Teaching of the Holy Scriptures, by Alvah Hovey.
Compared With the Teaching of the Holy Scriptures, by Alvah Hovey.
[8] See,
e. g., Hannah W. Smith’s paradigmatic Keswick classic, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life.
e. g., Hannah W. Smith’s paradigmatic Keswick classic, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life.
[9] Pg.
286, Collected Writings of John Murray,
Vol. 4, a review of So Great Salvation,
Barabas.
286, Collected Writings of John Murray,
Vol. 4, a review of So Great Salvation,
Barabas.
[10] E.
g., Psalm 51:5-6 records David’s lament over his sin in Adam. On the Biblical basis for repenting of
original sin, see pgs. 267-285, Sermons
to the Natural Man, William G. T. Shedd (New York: Charles Scribner &
Co., 1871); pgs. 39-42, The Works of
David Clarkson, David Clarkson, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1864)
& pgs. 292-313, Vol. 3, Ibid;
pgs. 324-376, The Works of Thomas Goodwin,
Thomas Goodwin, Vol. 10 (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865).
g., Psalm 51:5-6 records David’s lament over his sin in Adam. On the Biblical basis for repenting of
original sin, see pgs. 267-285, Sermons
to the Natural Man, William G. T. Shedd (New York: Charles Scribner &
Co., 1871); pgs. 39-42, The Works of
David Clarkson, David Clarkson, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1864)
& pgs. 292-313, Vol. 3, Ibid;
pgs. 324-376, The Works of Thomas Goodwin,
Thomas Goodwin, Vol. 10 (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865).
[11] May 10, The Poor
Man’s Morning and Evening Portions, Robert Hawker.
Man’s Morning and Evening Portions, Robert Hawker.
[12] Chapter 8, “How the Saints Hold
Communion with Christ as to their Acceptation with God,” in Of Communion with God the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, John Owen.
Communion with Christ as to their Acceptation with God,” in Of Communion with God the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, John Owen.
Keswick Testimonials Over Exegesis: in Keswick’s Errors–an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 4 of 17
Keswick
theology, following the practice of the Broadlands Conference[1]
and the devaluation of doctrinal truth by Hannah W. Smith,[2]
downplays the role of the Word of God in sanctification to exalt testimonials.[3] While Deuteronomy 17:19 indicates that by
studying and growing in knowledge of God’s Word, one “may learn to fear the LORD his
God,” Keswick is “not interested in . . .
adding to the store of Bible knowledge of those who attend.”[4]
Maintaining a pattern set by earlier
Keswick classics, Barabas’s book, in the course of over two hundred pages,
never once cites John 15:3; 17:17; Acts 20:32; Romans 10:17; Ephesians
2:20; 5:26; Colossians 3:16; 1 Timothy 4:6; 1 Peter 2:2; Psalm 119:7; 119:50;
119:93, or any other text that teaches that sanctification takes
place through the instrumentality of the Word of God.[5] Such neglect is a serious error. The Bible is the instrumentality the Father
has ordained for the revelation of God’s glory through the Son by the Spirit,
the view of which transforms and sanctifies the believer (2 Corinthians 3:18; John
17:17, 26). Keswick’s downplaying of the
role of the Word of God in sanctification to exalt testimonials, a practice it
inherited from the Broadlands Conference[6]
and earlier Higher Life perfectionisms, is associated with its exaltation of
the testimonial as the key instrumentality for spreading its teachings. In the Keswick system, oral or written
testimonies of entering into and maintaining the Higher Life largely displaced
the expository preaching of and exegetical study of God’s Word.[7] Legions of books about those who discovered
the spiritual secret of Keswick theology, hundreds of testimonies of those who
discovered the Keswick system, and swarms of often inaccurate historical
accounts of blessings received by individuals, churches, and communities who
adopted the Higher Life system abound in Keswick settings. On the other hand, the “Convention is not
interested in . . . adding to the store of Bible knowledge”[8] of those who come to their
meetings, and “Keswick furnishes us with . . . no carefully prepared, weighty
discourses of a theological nature . . . for over seventy five years[.]”[9] Not even one carefully prepared discourse or
book expositing Scripture in a scholarly way has ever been written in favor of
the Keswick theology, as Keswick authors themselves testify. By downplaying the study of and growth in
knowledge of the Word of God and exalting uninspired testimonies instead, Keswick
hinders the believer’s sanctification.
theology, following the practice of the Broadlands Conference[1]
and the devaluation of doctrinal truth by Hannah W. Smith,[2]
downplays the role of the Word of God in sanctification to exalt testimonials.[3] While Deuteronomy 17:19 indicates that by
studying and growing in knowledge of God’s Word, one “may learn to fear the LORD his
God,” Keswick is “not interested in . . .
adding to the store of Bible knowledge of those who attend.”[4]
Maintaining a pattern set by earlier
Keswick classics, Barabas’s book, in the course of over two hundred pages,
never once cites John 15:3; 17:17; Acts 20:32; Romans 10:17; Ephesians
2:20; 5:26; Colossians 3:16; 1 Timothy 4:6; 1 Peter 2:2; Psalm 119:7; 119:50;
119:93, or any other text that teaches that sanctification takes
place through the instrumentality of the Word of God.[5] Such neglect is a serious error. The Bible is the instrumentality the Father
has ordained for the revelation of God’s glory through the Son by the Spirit,
the view of which transforms and sanctifies the believer (2 Corinthians 3:18; John
17:17, 26). Keswick’s downplaying of the
role of the Word of God in sanctification to exalt testimonials, a practice it
inherited from the Broadlands Conference[6]
and earlier Higher Life perfectionisms, is associated with its exaltation of
the testimonial as the key instrumentality for spreading its teachings. In the Keswick system, oral or written
testimonies of entering into and maintaining the Higher Life largely displaced
the expository preaching of and exegetical study of God’s Word.[7] Legions of books about those who discovered
the spiritual secret of Keswick theology, hundreds of testimonies of those who
discovered the Keswick system, and swarms of often inaccurate historical
accounts of blessings received by individuals, churches, and communities who
adopted the Higher Life system abound in Keswick settings. On the other hand, the “Convention is not
interested in . . . adding to the store of Bible knowledge”[8] of those who come to their
meetings, and “Keswick furnishes us with . . . no carefully prepared, weighty
discourses of a theological nature . . . for over seventy five years[.]”[9] Not even one carefully prepared discourse or
book expositing Scripture in a scholarly way has ever been written in favor of
the Keswick theology, as Keswick authors themselves testify. By downplaying the study of and growth in
knowledge of the Word of God and exalting uninspired testimonies instead, Keswick
hinders the believer’s sanctification.
D.
Martin Lloyd-Jones comments on Keswick’s failure to deal comprehensively and
carefully with the scriptural data related to the believer’s growth in holiness:
Martin Lloyd-Jones comments on Keswick’s failure to deal comprehensively and
carefully with the scriptural data related to the believer’s growth in holiness:
Instead of expounding the great New
Testament texts, [Keswick promulgators] so often started with their theory and
illustrated it by means of Old Testament characters and stories. You will find
that so often their texts were Old Testament texts. Indeed their method of
teaching was based on the use of illustrations rather than on exposition of
Scripture. An inevitable result was that they virtually ignored everything that
had been taught on the subject of sanctification during the previous eighteen
centuries. . . . Many of them boasted of this.[10]
Testament texts, [Keswick promulgators] so often started with their theory and
illustrated it by means of Old Testament characters and stories. You will find
that so often their texts were Old Testament texts. Indeed their method of
teaching was based on the use of illustrations rather than on exposition of
Scripture. An inevitable result was that they virtually ignored everything that
had been taught on the subject of sanctification during the previous eighteen
centuries. . . . Many of them boasted of this.[10]
Indeed,
even those who were passionately committed to the Higher Life theology, to the
extent that they were willing to favor it in print in its official literature,
admitted that sound Biblical interpretation was grievously lacking. Robert W. Dale testified:
even those who were passionately committed to the Higher Life theology, to the
extent that they were willing to favor it in print in its official literature,
admitted that sound Biblical interpretation was grievously lacking. Robert W. Dale testified:
I agree with every
word . . . about the singularly uncritical manner in which those who are
associated with this doctrine quote passages from both from the Old Testament
and the New. . . . But then let us remember that the gentlemen who represent
this particular movement are frankly and constantly acknowledging that they
have no claims to the kind of scholarship that is necessary to treat
theological questions scientifically. . . . I . . . [am] not hostile to this
movement, [but] favorable to it.[11]
word . . . about the singularly uncritical manner in which those who are
associated with this doctrine quote passages from both from the Old Testament
and the New. . . . But then let us remember that the gentlemen who represent
this particular movement are frankly and constantly acknowledging that they
have no claims to the kind of scholarship that is necessary to treat
theological questions scientifically. . . . I . . . [am] not hostile to this
movement, [but] favorable to it.[11]
Similarly,
another minister and friend of the Higher Life testified:
another minister and friend of the Higher Life testified:
If there has been
anything to which exception might be taken it has been the fanciful and even
absurd interpretation occasionally given to passages of Scripture, particularly
those of the Old Testament. But where
the end is so great . . . one is little disposed to find fault[.][12]
anything to which exception might be taken it has been the fanciful and even
absurd interpretation occasionally given to passages of Scripture, particularly
those of the Old Testament. But where
the end is so great . . . one is little disposed to find fault[.][12]
Such
admissions were regularly made by those who were contending, in print, for the
Higher Life and Keswick theology. What,
then, will those without partisan pre-commitments to Keswick conclude?
admissions were regularly made by those who were contending, in print, for the
Higher Life and Keswick theology. What,
then, will those without partisan pre-commitments to Keswick conclude?
The gross abuse, exegetical
fallacies, and silly allegorization of Scripture by advocates of the Higher
Life contributed to the Keswick consensus that discussion of doctrine and
careful exegesis of Scripture were not the way to spread the Blessing;[13] by such means the Keswick theology was so far
from being able to be propagated that it was certain to collapse. Examples of faulty
Keswick exegesis are legion. For
instance, consider the severe equivocation on the phrase “God’s people” in the
following argument by Barabas:
fallacies, and silly allegorization of Scripture by advocates of the Higher
Life contributed to the Keswick consensus that discussion of doctrine and
careful exegesis of Scripture were not the way to spread the Blessing;[13] by such means the Keswick theology was so far
from being able to be propagated that it was certain to collapse. Examples of faulty
Keswick exegesis are legion. For
instance, consider the severe equivocation on the phrase “God’s people” in the
following argument by Barabas:
Christians are too apt to think that only
the unsaved are sinners. . . . This certainly is not Biblical. The truth is that God’s Word has a great deal
more to say about the sin of God’s people than it does about the sin of those
who do not know Him. It was the sin of
God’s people that delayed the entrance of Israel into Canaan for forty
years. It was the sin of God’s people
that was responsible for the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. It was the sin of God’s people that caused
the crucifixion of the Messiah. It was
the sin of God’s people, more than the unbelief of the heathen, that caused
Paul heartache and sorrow. And it is the
sin of God’s people, more than anything else, that is hindering the
manifestation of His saving power in the world today. . . Keswick is right in
putting great stress on the fact that there must be a revival among Christians
of a sense of sin in themselves.[14]
the unsaved are sinners. . . . This certainly is not Biblical. The truth is that God’s Word has a great deal
more to say about the sin of God’s people than it does about the sin of those
who do not know Him. It was the sin of
God’s people that delayed the entrance of Israel into Canaan for forty
years. It was the sin of God’s people
that was responsible for the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. It was the sin of God’s people that caused
the crucifixion of the Messiah. It was
the sin of God’s people, more than the unbelief of the heathen, that caused
Paul heartache and sorrow. And it is the
sin of God’s people, more than anything else, that is hindering the
manifestation of His saving power in the world today. . . Keswick is right in
putting great stress on the fact that there must be a revival among Christians
of a sense of sin in themselves.[14]
The beginning and end of the
argument draw conclusions about those who are true believers, but the examples
in Scripture that are to prove the conclusion deal in each instance either
primarily or totally with the sin of those who merely professed to be God’s
true people, that is, those who, in the Old Testament, were merely “of Israel”
but not true spiritual Israel (Romans 9:6).
As demonstrated above,[15]
those who died in the wilderness wanderings pictured the professing but
unconverted, not backslidden saints. The
idolators who brought upon themselves the Deuteronomic curses, including the
Assyrian and Babylonian exile (Deuteronomy 28:63-68), went to hell (cf.
Revelation 21:8), as Paul indicates that those who are under the Deuteronomic
curse are the unsaved (Galatians 3:10; Deuteronomy 27:26) while all the
spiritual seed of Abraham are free from this curse and its penalty (Galatians
3:11-14). The passage concerning Paul’s
sorrow for his fellow Israelites indicates his sadness on account of their
coming damnation, not sorrow because they were on their way to heaven but
without a Higher Life (Romans 9:1-6).
And it was certainly not genuine believers, who were just a little
backslidden, who conspired against and crucified Christ! The Keswick conclusion drawn from this
argument—that Christians need to take sin in their lives very seriously—is
excellent. The exegetical basis provided
for the conclusion is a disaster.
argument draw conclusions about those who are true believers, but the examples
in Scripture that are to prove the conclusion deal in each instance either
primarily or totally with the sin of those who merely professed to be God’s
true people, that is, those who, in the Old Testament, were merely “of Israel”
but not true spiritual Israel (Romans 9:6).
As demonstrated above,[15]
those who died in the wilderness wanderings pictured the professing but
unconverted, not backslidden saints. The
idolators who brought upon themselves the Deuteronomic curses, including the
Assyrian and Babylonian exile (Deuteronomy 28:63-68), went to hell (cf.
Revelation 21:8), as Paul indicates that those who are under the Deuteronomic
curse are the unsaved (Galatians 3:10; Deuteronomy 27:26) while all the
spiritual seed of Abraham are free from this curse and its penalty (Galatians
3:11-14). The passage concerning Paul’s
sorrow for his fellow Israelites indicates his sadness on account of their
coming damnation, not sorrow because they were on their way to heaven but
without a Higher Life (Romans 9:1-6).
And it was certainly not genuine believers, who were just a little
backslidden, who conspired against and crucified Christ! The Keswick conclusion drawn from this
argument—that Christians need to take sin in their lives very seriously—is
excellent. The exegetical basis provided
for the conclusion is a disaster.
Another
example of invalid exegesis is Barabas’s assertion: “Paul constantly urges Christians to make
instantaneous decisions (as the aorist of his verbs shows) to yield their
members unto God (Romans 6:13), to present themselves unto God (Romans 12:1),
[and] to mortify the deeds of the body (Romans 8:13).”[16] Such an argument, while based on the teaching
of Robert P. Smith that surrender is “a
thing done once for all . . . just as we look on our marriage for life,”[17]
misunderstands the nature of the aorist tense[18]—even
apart from the fact that the command to mortify
in Romans 8:13 is not in the aorist tense at all but is a present tense
imperative.[19] Similarly, the classic The Keswick Convention: Its
Message, its Method, and its Men, affirms that at Keswick “[t]he student
becomes aware of the spiritual significance of the aorist tense in the
programme of holiness”[20]
and proceeds to misinterpret a variety of texts based on an inaccurate view of
the nature of the Greek aorist.[21] Evan Hopkins follows the pattern of
misinterpretation in his Keswick classic The
Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life.[22] Hopkins had a great “love [for] the Aorists
of New Testament Greek,” but, as a standard Keswick writer, he evidently did
not understand the tense very well.[23]
example of invalid exegesis is Barabas’s assertion: “Paul constantly urges Christians to make
instantaneous decisions (as the aorist of his verbs shows) to yield their
members unto God (Romans 6:13), to present themselves unto God (Romans 12:1),
[and] to mortify the deeds of the body (Romans 8:13).”[16] Such an argument, while based on the teaching
of Robert P. Smith that surrender is “a
thing done once for all . . . just as we look on our marriage for life,”[17]
misunderstands the nature of the aorist tense[18]—even
apart from the fact that the command to mortify
in Romans 8:13 is not in the aorist tense at all but is a present tense
imperative.[19] Similarly, the classic The Keswick Convention: Its
Message, its Method, and its Men, affirms that at Keswick “[t]he student
becomes aware of the spiritual significance of the aorist tense in the
programme of holiness”[20]
and proceeds to misinterpret a variety of texts based on an inaccurate view of
the nature of the Greek aorist.[21] Evan Hopkins follows the pattern of
misinterpretation in his Keswick classic The
Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life.[22] Hopkins had a great “love [for] the Aorists
of New Testament Greek,” but, as a standard Keswick writer, he evidently did
not understand the tense very well.[23]
For “Keswick
there was no passage of Scripture that was more frequently to the front” than
Romans 6, so that “it is doubtful whether a Keswick Convention has ever been
held in which one or more speakers did not deal with this chapter . . . [t]here
is no understanding of Keswick without an appreciation of the place accorded by
it to this chapter in its whole scheme of sanctification.”[24] Unfortunately, this chapter is also
fundamentally misunderstood. As
demonstrated above, Romans 6 is Paul’s proof that the justified will not
continue in sin, while Keswick reduces the chapter to a merely potential
freedom from sin.[25] Keswick teaches that “[i]t is possible [for
believers] to serve sin again, but not necessary.”[26] However, the Apostle Paul taught in Romans 6
that all believers are no longer the servants of sin, but are now the servants
of righteousness. Furthermore, the reckoning of Romans 6 is commanded
because the believer is already dead to sin, alive to God, and a servant of
righteousness, realities that necessarily affect the believer’s practical
life. Keswick teaches that reckoning activates an inactive and merely
potential sanctification, and for those believers that fail to enter the Higher
Life death to sin and life to God have no necessary practical influence. Both the Keswick idea that victory over sin
is only possible and potential for believers but is not certain, and the idea
that the reckoning of Romans 6
activates a merely potential and inactive progressive sanctification come from
the preaching of Hannah W. Smith at the 1874 Broadlands Conference[27]
and Mrs. Smith’s writings,[28]
not from careful exegesis of the book of Romans. Of course, meditating on the
truths of Romans 6 can be of great aid in resisting temptation, but the chapter
does not teach that reckoning activates an inactive and merely potential
sanctification, no matter what Mrs. Smith claimed that she experienced, and no
matter how many Keswick writers follow and reproduce her teaching. Keswick theology falls into serious error
because of its misinterpretation of key passages of Scripture on
sanctification.
there was no passage of Scripture that was more frequently to the front” than
Romans 6, so that “it is doubtful whether a Keswick Convention has ever been
held in which one or more speakers did not deal with this chapter . . . [t]here
is no understanding of Keswick without an appreciation of the place accorded by
it to this chapter in its whole scheme of sanctification.”[24] Unfortunately, this chapter is also
fundamentally misunderstood. As
demonstrated above, Romans 6 is Paul’s proof that the justified will not
continue in sin, while Keswick reduces the chapter to a merely potential
freedom from sin.[25] Keswick teaches that “[i]t is possible [for
believers] to serve sin again, but not necessary.”[26] However, the Apostle Paul taught in Romans 6
that all believers are no longer the servants of sin, but are now the servants
of righteousness. Furthermore, the reckoning of Romans 6 is commanded
because the believer is already dead to sin, alive to God, and a servant of
righteousness, realities that necessarily affect the believer’s practical
life. Keswick teaches that reckoning activates an inactive and merely
potential sanctification, and for those believers that fail to enter the Higher
Life death to sin and life to God have no necessary practical influence. Both the Keswick idea that victory over sin
is only possible and potential for believers but is not certain, and the idea
that the reckoning of Romans 6
activates a merely potential and inactive progressive sanctification come from
the preaching of Hannah W. Smith at the 1874 Broadlands Conference[27]
and Mrs. Smith’s writings,[28]
not from careful exegesis of the book of Romans. Of course, meditating on the
truths of Romans 6 can be of great aid in resisting temptation, but the chapter
does not teach that reckoning activates an inactive and merely potential
sanctification, no matter what Mrs. Smith claimed that she experienced, and no
matter how many Keswick writers follow and reproduce her teaching. Keswick theology falls into serious error
because of its misinterpretation of key passages of Scripture on
sanctification.
See here for this entire study.
[1] Compare
the very similar statements of purpose of the Keswick Convention (cf. pgs.
108ff., So Great Salvation, Barabas)
and the Broadlands Conferences (pgs. 262-263, 268, The Life that is Life Indeed:
Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910).
the very similar statements of purpose of the Keswick Convention (cf. pgs.
108ff., So Great Salvation, Barabas)
and the Broadlands Conferences (pgs. 262-263, 268, The Life that is Life Indeed:
Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910).
Pg. 262, The
Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences
of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences
of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
Hovey,
discussing other pre-Keswick forms of Higher Life theology, noted that they “at
least see[m] to depart . . . from the plain sense of Scripture by ascribing the
believer’s sanctification to the work of the Spirit, almost without the use of
the truth. Very little comparatively is
said of the office of truth . . . undervalu[ing] the sure word of God” (pgs.
126-127, Doctrine of the Higher Christian
Life Compared With the Teaching of the Holy Scriptures, Alvah Hovey).
discussing other pre-Keswick forms of Higher Life theology, noted that they “at
least see[m] to depart . . . from the plain sense of Scripture by ascribing the
believer’s sanctification to the work of the Spirit, almost without the use of
the truth. Very little comparatively is
said of the office of truth . . . undervalu[ing] the sure word of God” (pgs.
126-127, Doctrine of the Higher Christian
Life Compared With the Teaching of the Holy Scriptures, Alvah Hovey).
[2] E.
g., note Mrs. Smith’s denial of the Biblical unity between doctrine and practice
and affirmation of the sufficiency of morality combined with doctrine so
watered down that even a Deistic, non-Christian deity was acceptable:
g., note Mrs. Smith’s denial of the Biblical unity between doctrine and practice
and affirmation of the sufficiency of morality combined with doctrine so
watered down that even a Deistic, non-Christian deity was acceptable:
How true the old Friends were
when they used to tell us that it was not what we believed but how we lived that
was the real test of salvation, and how little we understood them! . . . And as
thee says, my opinions about God may all be wrong, but if my loyalty to Him is
real it will not matter. It seems as if it would be enough just to say, “God
is,” and, “Be good,” and then all would be said. It is the practical things
that interest me now. (Letter to Anna,
August 4, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 18 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter)
when they used to tell us that it was not what we believed but how we lived that
was the real test of salvation, and how little we understood them! . . . And as
thee says, my opinions about God may all be wrong, but if my loyalty to Him is
real it will not matter. It seems as if it would be enough just to say, “God
is,” and, “Be good,” and then all would be said. It is the practical things
that interest me now. (Letter to Anna,
August 4, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 18 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter)
[3] The
exaltation of testimonials over literally interpreted Scripture also suits
Quaker theology very well; does not the Inner Voice arising from the Divine
Seed within give a Word from God for today that is of greater value than the
Word given thousands of years ago in the Bible?
Should not testimonies to such modern day Words therefore hold the
preeminent place? As Hannah Smith
explained:
exaltation of testimonials over literally interpreted Scripture also suits
Quaker theology very well; does not the Inner Voice arising from the Divine
Seed within give a Word from God for today that is of greater value than the
Word given thousands of years ago in the Bible?
Should not testimonies to such modern day Words therefore hold the
preeminent place? As Hannah Smith
explained:
A Quaker “concern” [alleged revelation] was to my mind
clothed with even more authority than the Bible, for the Bible was God’s voice
of long ago, while the “concern” was His voice at the present moment and, as
such, was of far greater present importance . . . the preaching I hear[d] was
certainly calculated to exalt the “inward voice” and its communications above
all other voices . . . since God spoke to us directly. (pgs. 82-83, The Unselfishness of God, by Hannah W.
Smith)
clothed with even more authority than the Bible, for the Bible was God’s voice
of long ago, while the “concern” was His voice at the present moment and, as
such, was of far greater present importance . . . the preaching I hear[d] was
certainly calculated to exalt the “inward voice” and its communications above
all other voices . . . since God spoke to us directly. (pgs. 82-83, The Unselfishness of God, by Hannah W.
Smith)
[4] Pg. 108, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[5] Barabas follows in the footsteps of earlier Keswick
classics such as The Keswick
Convention: Its Message, its Method, and
its Men, ed. Harford, which likewise never cites any of these passages in
the course of its 249 pages. Harford’s
work itself follows the pattern of Keswick’s most important exposition, Hannah
W. Smith’s The Christian’s Secret of a
Happy Life, which omits all mention of these texts. Andrew Murray’s Abide in Christ, although it is supposed to exposit John 15, in the
course of 236 pages never discusses any of these passages; even John 15:3
appears only within a quotation of John 15:1-12 at the very beginning of the book,
never to appear again. Many other
Keswick books manifest the same conspicuous neglect. (Of course, in the many hundreds and even
thousands of devotional books and pamphlets by Keswick authors, at some point
the verses above are cited somewhere; the affirmation is not made that no
Keswick writer ever cites them anywhere, but that the de-emphasis upon such
texts is striking.) Contrast the
classical Baptist view as set forth in the chapter in this volume “The Means Of
Sanctification,” by James Petigru Boyce. What Jacob Abbott stated, reviewing the
foundational Keswick classic The Higher
Christian Life by William Boardman, is regrettably true of the main body of
Keswick theology in general:
classics such as The Keswick
Convention: Its Message, its Method, and
its Men, ed. Harford, which likewise never cites any of these passages in
the course of its 249 pages. Harford’s
work itself follows the pattern of Keswick’s most important exposition, Hannah
W. Smith’s The Christian’s Secret of a
Happy Life, which omits all mention of these texts. Andrew Murray’s Abide in Christ, although it is supposed to exposit John 15, in the
course of 236 pages never discusses any of these passages; even John 15:3
appears only within a quotation of John 15:1-12 at the very beginning of the book,
never to appear again. Many other
Keswick books manifest the same conspicuous neglect. (Of course, in the many hundreds and even
thousands of devotional books and pamphlets by Keswick authors, at some point
the verses above are cited somewhere; the affirmation is not made that no
Keswick writer ever cites them anywhere, but that the de-emphasis upon such
texts is striking.) Contrast the
classical Baptist view as set forth in the chapter in this volume “The Means Of
Sanctification,” by James Petigru Boyce. What Jacob Abbott stated, reviewing the
foundational Keswick classic The Higher
Christian Life by William Boardman, is regrettably true of the main body of
Keswick theology in general:
There is nowhere in [Boardman’s] volume a recognition
of the fact that the truth, as revealed in the holy scriptures, is the means of
sanctification. More than this: he puts faith in opposition to the use of means. . . . [H]is theory as to the means of sanctification . . . [is that]
it is derived immediately from Christ,
by faith, and not mediately, through the scriptures, appropriating them by faith, and finding Christ in
them, and through them bringing him into the soul. He quotes no such scriptures as these: “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is
truth;” [John 17:17] and John 15:3. 2 Pet 1:4.
He has very little to do with the Scriptures, any way; it is all theory, supported by what he calls
experience. He draws largely from the
experiences of men; very little from the inspired oracles of truth, and then
with a strange perversion or misapplication. . . . This theory as to the means of
sanctification, by Christ alone, received immediately by faith, in opposition
to the view that it is by the Spirit of Christ working in us through the truth,
is the one idea of the book, to which all else is intended to be subservient.
(pgs. 511-514, Review of William E. Boardman’s The Higher Christian Life, Jacob J. Abbott. Bibliotheca
Sacra (July 1860) 508-535. Italics
in original.)
of the fact that the truth, as revealed in the holy scriptures, is the means of
sanctification. More than this: he puts faith in opposition to the use of means. . . . [H]is theory as to the means of sanctification . . . [is that]
it is derived immediately from Christ,
by faith, and not mediately, through the scriptures, appropriating them by faith, and finding Christ in
them, and through them bringing him into the soul. He quotes no such scriptures as these: “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is
truth;” [John 17:17] and John 15:3. 2 Pet 1:4.
He has very little to do with the Scriptures, any way; it is all theory, supported by what he calls
experience. He draws largely from the
experiences of men; very little from the inspired oracles of truth, and then
with a strange perversion or misapplication. . . . This theory as to the means of
sanctification, by Christ alone, received immediately by faith, in opposition
to the view that it is by the Spirit of Christ working in us through the truth,
is the one idea of the book, to which all else is intended to be subservient.
(pgs. 511-514, Review of William E. Boardman’s The Higher Christian Life, Jacob J. Abbott. Bibliotheca
Sacra (July 1860) 508-535. Italics
in original.)
[6] E.
g., at Broadlands when “the question of victory over temptation was
considered,” a careful exposition of what the Bible taught on resisting
temptation (such as is found in John Owen’s treatise Of Temptation) was not conducted; on the contrary, “personal
testimony was the interesting feature” that provided the way to enter into
victory (pg. 152, The Life that is Life
Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands
Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). Likewise, to prove that the
Broadlands Conference was presenting the truth, “changed lives and characters
were a witness to others that could not be gainsaid . . . by their actions and
disposition, not by their words . . . [by] a great and marked increase in
gladness and cheerfulness,” the teachings of the Conference were validated
(pgs. 246-247, Ibid). Of course, living a holy life is very
important, but the infallible record of Scripture is the only inerrant
testimony to the truth: “To the law and
to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).
g., at Broadlands when “the question of victory over temptation was
considered,” a careful exposition of what the Bible taught on resisting
temptation (such as is found in John Owen’s treatise Of Temptation) was not conducted; on the contrary, “personal
testimony was the interesting feature” that provided the way to enter into
victory (pg. 152, The Life that is Life
Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands
Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). Likewise, to prove that the
Broadlands Conference was presenting the truth, “changed lives and characters
were a witness to others that could not be gainsaid . . . by their actions and
disposition, not by their words . . . [by] a great and marked increase in
gladness and cheerfulness,” the teachings of the Conference were validated
(pgs. 246-247, Ibid). Of course, living a holy life is very
important, but the infallible record of Scripture is the only inerrant
testimony to the truth: “To the law and
to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).
[7] The
displacement of exposition of Scripture for testimonial among the advocates of
the Keswick theology is so pervasive that W. H. Griffith Thomas, when seeking
to respond to B. B. Warfield’s crushing critique of the Keswick and Victorious
Life movements in the Princeton Review,
spends about half of his response (“The Victorious Life (I.).” Bibliotheca
Sacra (76:303) July 1919, 267-288; “The Victorious Life (II.).” Bibliotheca
Sacra (76:304) October 1919, 455-467)
on testimonials to the value of the Higher Life. Thomas argues for the Keswick theology based on what
he has “observed” (pg. 273), on “experience” (pg. 275), on “very many a
Christian experience” (pg. 277).
Warfield is wrong because “experience in general gives no suggestion” of
his position and “there is no general evidence of” Warfield’s doctrine, Thomas
claims, “in Christian lives” (pg. 464). “Warfield
. . . is disproved . . . by experience of everyday life” (pg. 275). The great majority of Thomas’s second article
is a compilation of testimonials to Keswick theology. He concludes:
displacement of exposition of Scripture for testimonial among the advocates of
the Keswick theology is so pervasive that W. H. Griffith Thomas, when seeking
to respond to B. B. Warfield’s crushing critique of the Keswick and Victorious
Life movements in the Princeton Review,
spends about half of his response (“The Victorious Life (I.).” Bibliotheca
Sacra (76:303) July 1919, 267-288; “The Victorious Life (II.).” Bibliotheca
Sacra (76:304) October 1919, 455-467)
on testimonials to the value of the Higher Life. Thomas argues for the Keswick theology based on what
he has “observed” (pg. 273), on “experience” (pg. 275), on “very many a
Christian experience” (pg. 277).
Warfield is wrong because “experience in general gives no suggestion” of
his position and “there is no general evidence of” Warfield’s doctrine, Thomas
claims, “in Christian lives” (pg. 464). “Warfield
. . . is disproved . . . by experience of everyday life” (pg. 275). The great majority of Thomas’s second article
is a compilation of testimonials to Keswick theology. He concludes:
I submit, with all deference to
Dr. Warfield, yet with perfect confidence, that the convinced acceptance of the
Keswick movement by such [men as have given testimonials to it] . . . is
impressive enough to make people inquire whether, after all, it does not stand
for essential Biblical truth[.] . . . [T]he rich experiences to which testimony
is given . . . the possession of an experience which has evidently enriched their
lives . . . [is] not to be set aside by any purely doctrinal and theoretical
criticism. (pgs. 462-466)
Dr. Warfield, yet with perfect confidence, that the convinced acceptance of the
Keswick movement by such [men as have given testimonials to it] . . . is
impressive enough to make people inquire whether, after all, it does not stand
for essential Biblical truth[.] . . . [T]he rich experiences to which testimony
is given . . . the possession of an experience which has evidently enriched their
lives . . . [is] not to be set aside by any purely doctrinal and theoretical
criticism. (pgs. 462-466)
The Keswick experience,
Griffith Thomas avers, is not to be set aside by criticism of its doctrine from
Scripture alone.
Griffith Thomas avers, is not to be set aside by criticism of its doctrine from
Scripture alone.
For
other examples of the spread of the Keswick theology by testimonial rather than
exegesis, see, e. g., pgs. 54, 71, Evan
Harry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander
Smellie; compare also the foundational work The
Higher Christian Life, William Boardman.
other examples of the spread of the Keswick theology by testimonial rather than
exegesis, see, e. g., pgs. 54, 71, Evan
Harry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander
Smellie; compare also the foundational work The
Higher Christian Life, William Boardman.
[8] Pg. 108, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[9] Pg. 51, So
Great Salvation, Barabas. The
seventy-five years was as of 1952, when Barabas wrote. Keswick has still produced no carefully
prepared and weighty theological discourses as the 150-year mark approaches.
Great Salvation, Barabas. The
seventy-five years was as of 1952, when Barabas wrote. Keswick has still produced no carefully
prepared and weighty theological discourses as the 150-year mark approaches.
[10] Pg.
321, The
Puritans: Their Origins and Successors: Addresses Delivered at the Puritan and
Westminster Conferences, 1959-1978, D. M. Lloyd-Jones. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth,
1987.
321, The
Puritans: Their Origins and Successors: Addresses Delivered at the Puritan and
Westminster Conferences, 1959-1978, D. M. Lloyd-Jones. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth,
1987.
[11] Pg. 450, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held
at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W.
J. Smith, 1875.
at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W.
J. Smith, 1875.
[12] Pgs. 464-465, 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 Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
[13] Cf. pg. 59, Account of the Union Meeting
for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to
September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to
September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
[14] Pgs.
59-60, So Great Salvation, Barabas. Note that nothing that remotely approaches a
comprehensive study of the NT word aJmartwlo/ß, “sinner,”
is undertaken by Barabas—an examination of its 47 uses in the New Testament
gives strong support to the position that, although believers still sin, only
the unconverted man is a “sinner” (Matthew 9:10–11, 13; 11:19; 26:45; Mark
2:15–17; 8:38; 14:41; Luke 5:8, 30, 32; 6:32–34; 7:34, 37, 39; 13:2; 15:1–2, 7,
10; 18:13; 19:7; 24:7; John 9:16, 24–25, 31; Romans 3:7; 5:8, 19; 7:13; Galatians
2:15, 17; 1 Timothy 1:9, 15; Hebrews 7:26; 12:3; James 4:8; 5:20; 1 Peter 4:18;
Jude 15).
59-60, So Great Salvation, Barabas. Note that nothing that remotely approaches a
comprehensive study of the NT word aJmartwlo/ß, “sinner,”
is undertaken by Barabas—an examination of its 47 uses in the New Testament
gives strong support to the position that, although believers still sin, only
the unconverted man is a “sinner” (Matthew 9:10–11, 13; 11:19; 26:45; Mark
2:15–17; 8:38; 14:41; Luke 5:8, 30, 32; 6:32–34; 7:34, 37, 39; 13:2; 15:1–2, 7,
10; 18:13; 19:7; 24:7; John 9:16, 24–25, 31; Romans 3:7; 5:8, 19; 7:13; Galatians
2:15, 17; 1 Timothy 1:9, 15; Hebrews 7:26; 12:3; James 4:8; 5:20; 1 Peter 4:18;
Jude 15).
[15] See
the chapter “Hebrews 3-4 As An Alleged Evidence For Perpetually Sinning
Christians.”
the chapter “Hebrews 3-4 As An Alleged Evidence For Perpetually Sinning
Christians.”
[16] Pg.
125, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
125, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[17] Pgs.
99, 136, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Italics in original.
99, 136, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Italics in original.
[18] For
an examination of this error on the use of the Greek aorist, compare pgs.
554-557; 713-724, Greek Grammar Beyond
the Basics, Daniel Wallace and pgs. 67-73, Exegetical Fallacies, D. A. Carson.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
1996).
an examination of this error on the use of the Greek aorist, compare pgs.
554-557; 713-724, Greek Grammar Beyond
the Basics, Daniel Wallace and pgs. 67-73, Exegetical Fallacies, D. A. Carson.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
1996).
[19] Qanatouvte.
[20] Pg.
179, The Keswick Convention: Its Message, its Method, and its Men, ed.
Harford.
179, The Keswick Convention: Its Message, its Method, and its Men, ed.
Harford.
[21] Pgs.
179-180, The Keswick Convention: Its Message, its Method, and its Men, ed.
Harford.
179-180, The Keswick Convention: Its Message, its Method, and its Men, ed.
Harford.
[22] Cf.
pgs. 108, 223, The Law of Liberty in the
Spiritual Life, Evan Hopkins.
pgs. 108, 223, The Law of Liberty in the
Spiritual Life, Evan Hopkins.
[23] See pgs.
95-96, Evan Harry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander Smellie; Hopkins’s
exposition of various texts based on this erroneous view that the aorist
fundamentally specifies acts that take place in “one instant of time” follows.
95-96, Evan Harry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander Smellie; Hopkins’s
exposition of various texts based on this erroneous view that the aorist
fundamentally specifies acts that take place in “one instant of time” follows.
Note
also the chapters above dealing with Romans 7:14-25; Colossians 2:6-7;
Galatians 2:20; and Hebrews 3-4. Keswick
writers misuse all of these texts and passages, as is evidenced in the
quotations in those chapters.
also the chapters above dealing with Romans 7:14-25; Colossians 2:6-7;
Galatians 2:20; and Hebrews 3-4. Keswick
writers misuse all of these texts and passages, as is evidenced in the
quotations in those chapters.
[24] Pg.
89, So Great Salvation, Barabas, cf.
pgs. 90-92, 104.
89, So Great Salvation, Barabas, cf.
pgs. 90-92, 104.
[25] Note
the chapter above entitled “The Just Shall Live by Faith.”
the chapter above entitled “The Just Shall Live by Faith.”
[26] Pg.
92, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
92, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[27] At
Broadlands in 1874, Mrs. Smith used Romans 6 to testify that believers are not
certain to conquer, but only “can” conquer, and this merely potential conquest
was something she had learned by her own experience. She testified: “Friends, it is
true, I have found it! I have known it![”] . . . All listened
with breathless attention, not least so the many clergymen who were present,
and surely, each heart felt a longing to reach the place at which Mrs. Smith
had arrived[.]” Her testimony was not
confirmed by an analysis of the context of the passage, but by her pleasasnt
appearance: “[S]he stood with the dark
oak background, her tall figure, lifted head, and radiant countenance. It was good to look at her, to observe her
dear, beautiful face, shining hair, serene, deep-blue eyes, and absolutely
natural, easy attitude, a personification of purity, joyous health, and
vitality[.]” Surely someone who looked
so nice could not be wrong. (See pgs. 220-223, The Life that is Life Indeed:
Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910.)
Broadlands in 1874, Mrs. Smith used Romans 6 to testify that believers are not
certain to conquer, but only “can” conquer, and this merely potential conquest
was something she had learned by her own experience. She testified: “Friends, it is
true, I have found it! I have known it![”] . . . All listened
with breathless attention, not least so the many clergymen who were present,
and surely, each heart felt a longing to reach the place at which Mrs. Smith
had arrived[.]” Her testimony was not
confirmed by an analysis of the context of the passage, but by her pleasasnt
appearance: “[S]he stood with the dark
oak background, her tall figure, lifted head, and radiant countenance. It was good to look at her, to observe her
dear, beautiful face, shining hair, serene, deep-blue eyes, and absolutely
natural, easy attitude, a personification of purity, joyous health, and
vitality[.]” Surely someone who looked
so nice could not be wrong. (See pgs. 220-223, The Life that is Life Indeed:
Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910.)
[28] The
idea that God does not work in the Christian until he, some time after
conversion, surrenders, reckons, and enters the Higher Life is found regularly
in Mrs. Smith’s writings. Only after
“surrender” does God first begin “to work in you . . . to do of His good
pleasure” (pgs. 57-60, The Christian’s
Secret of a Happy Life, Hannah W. Smith, rev. ed. London:
F. E. Longley, 1876).
idea that God does not work in the Christian until he, some time after
conversion, surrenders, reckons, and enters the Higher Life is found regularly
in Mrs. Smith’s writings. Only after
“surrender” does God first begin “to work in you . . . to do of His good
pleasure” (pgs. 57-60, The Christian’s
Secret of a Happy Life, Hannah W. Smith, rev. ed. London:
F. E. Longley, 1876).
Creationist and Jesus-Mythicist Videos, and a Blog for Women
Do you want a good resource for someone who thinks evolution is what all intelligent people believe in? Have you ever run into someone who says Jesus Christ did not exist, but was a myth (a Jesus mythicist)?
A Great Creationist Video
I am very pleased to let you know about Behind the MRI: The Testimony of Dr. Raymond Damadian, inventor of the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) scanner. In my experience, the most effective argument for evolution, by far, is “If you don’t believe in evolution, you are incredibly ignorant.” I understand this argument, for that is where I was as an unconverted youth. I thought that anyone who did not believe in evolution must have the intellect of a thimble. Of course, there are huge numbers of scientists that reject Darwinian evolution, since the facts of science do not establish evolution, and many scientists who accept the Biblical account of creation, as it is the best explanation of the facts and is, of course, established by the testimony of the Creator Himself, the only One who was present at the creation. Many people do not like to read, however, but will watch a video to take a brief break from their endless texts and tweets (LOL!). Indeed, in our church there is a couple who came to Christ in significant part through watching creationist videos–often watching them while smoking marijuana, amazingly enough! (Now that they are saved, they don’t smoke pot anymore–not even for medical purposes … in case you were wondering. Also, for any potheads reading this post, please do not get high while watching the video.) In any case, Behind the MRI gives the testimony of the scientist who invented the MRI. It would be very difficult to argue that such a person as Dr. Damadian–one who won many awards for his scientific work, and who would have received the Nobel Prize had he been an evolutionist instead of an outspoken creationist Christian–is not intelligent. Within a very professionally produced thirty minutes (not too long to lose the attention span of many, but not too short to have no content–actually, the content that the video manages to pack into those thirty minutes is excellent), the video discusses the nature of the MRI, interviews Dr. Damadian, so that watchers here some sound arguments against evolution and for creation from such a world-class scientist, and then proceeds to give a good gospel presentation that, unlike so many, both clearly explains the substitutionary work of Christ and includes repentance (Luke 13:3). Furthermore, the video is free and may be shared with any lost person, Christian, secular college or high school campus ministry, church group, or with any other body that is willing to watch it. I would encourage readers of What is Truth? to watch the video themselves, share it with their churches, and share it with lost people biased against Jesus Christ because of their unbiblical and unscientific belief in evolution. Watch Behind the MRI today by clicking here.
A Powerful Video Refutation of Jesus Mythicism in a Debate
James White, the Reformed Baptist apologist, is an excellent debater. While I wish he would do as good a job dealing with Biblically-based King James Onlyism/perfect preservationism (which he strongly opposes, despite claiming to follow the 1689 Baptist Confession, in which he is very inconsistent; see the video here on Baptist confessions and preservation or the essay on Baptist confessions and preservation here) as he does with, say, Roman Catholicism or Mormonism, he can do a great job dealing with atheists. (I would love to debate White myself on the topic: “The Biblical doctrine of preservation is consistent with the Greek New Testament text underneath most modern English Bible versions,” where he would be in the affirmative and I would be in the negative. If you are able to arrange such a debate, please contact me and we will, Lord willing, get it going.) In the debate video “Was Jesus a Myth?” James White utterly destroys Dan Barker, President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (the largest atheist organization in the United States). Dan Barker argues in his books and in the debate that the Lord Jesus never even existed, but was a figure copied from pagan mythology. James White utterly destroys Barker’s argument. Since both Barker and White have equal time, and Barker is such a prominent atheist (his books are endorsed by people like Richard Dawkins), people influenced by Dan Barker’s brand of militant atheism should be willing to watch the debate, and have their atheist hero melt before their eyes. The debate is definitely worth watching. This fact is, of course, by no means a recommendation of everything James White teaches, and things from his TULIP Calvinism, his universal church ecclesiology, his soft spot for Reformed false gospel-peddlers like Douglas Wilson, his very worldly music, and so on, are extremely dangerous errors. Dealing with Barker’s Jesus mythicism, however, White does a fantastic job. Note also the “Comments on the Barker-White debate” below the video.
May these videos be a blessing. Please feel free to provide any related comments or questions in the comment section below.
A Blog for Women
My wife has a blog called Reflections on Eternity which is designed for Christian women. It might be edifying to women in your church; feel free to check it out.
Erroneous Reliance on Circumstances as Evidence of the Holy Spirit’s Leading
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six
Very often through the years, I have witnessed or heard professing believers speak about “waiting on the leading of the Holy Spirit,” and what they meant actually was “waiting on circumstances that they interpreted as the leading of the Holy Spirit.” The terminology, “waiting on the leading of the Holy Spirit,” is very ambiguous. What does someone even mean when he is saying that? When someone does say or write it, I’ve seen people nodding their heads with understanding, but I’m very sure that people don’t really understand. It is almost utterly subjective and allows for a great many outcomes with ultimate interpretation being that God told someone to do what he was doing almost without question.
What are people expecting when they say, “I’m waiting on the leading of the Holy Spirit?” Sometimes they mean they are waiting for an impression or a feeling or a strong desire, some kind of nearly irresistible urge. It isn’t much of a different experience than the LDS “burning in the bosom.” It can’t be a burning in the bosom if the person isn’t Mormon, but it carries with it equal authority to the LDS experience. The Mormons, however, use James 1:5 as a biblical basis for their experience, essentially saying that the feeling is the wisdom they were asking for.
The language of waiting on the Spirit isn’t in the Bible. I’m not sure where it originated. Spirit-filling isn’t waiting. It is active, even as “be filled with the Spirit” is present tense, continuous action. A believer is never to be waiting as it relates to his relationship to the Holy Spirit. “Walk in the Spirit,” another biblical teaching, is to be continuous. The biblical idea of waiting is to wait for our reward, wait for the coming of the Lord. We don’t wait to start obeying what He said.
Sometimes the “leading of the Spirit” is a series of circumstances that form a picture to a person like a mosaic, a version of “reading the tea leaves” or “reading of the coffee grounds” in Middle Eastern tradition. I admit, it is funny to me, but then I stop laughing, recognizing that it shouldn’t be funny because many people are deceived in this way. I estimate that more than half, maybe three quarters, of independent or unaffiliated Baptists, and many more evangelicals and fundamentalists, label this kind of approach to decision making as “the leading of the Spirit.”
I recognize that people have instinct and gut feelings, but they shouldn’t call that “the leading of the Spirit.” Gut feeling can’t rise to the level of God talking. Some people have better instincts than others, for which they should be thankful. I’ve driven along a road, trying to find some place for which I’m looking, and then see enough landmarks to know that I’ve arrived. That isn’t the Holy Spirit. It is a combination of my own experience, thinking, knowledge of city planning, road design, and memory. Police detectives use the same type of instincts for solving crimes. They look at a body in a murder investigation and clues narrow their search to a set of specific individuals that they call suspects. You’ve heard someone say, “Follow the money.” That isn’t the Holy Spirit.
I played little league and then high school baseball. Baseball is a slow moving game that requires some focus and concentration that at times I did not either possess or practice. In the middle of a practice, or even a game, while my mind was wandering, a shadow would move toward me in the field, and I would duck. My instincts said, “duck,” because a ball was coming. It wasn’t a ball, but a low flying bird. People in the stands saw someone convulsing and wondered what was wrong, since a pitch hadn’t even been thrown. My arm raised in self preservation. I had this happen several times in my childhood. What my mind interpreted as a baseball was actually the shadow of a bird flying over. Some of you reading know what I’m talking about. I shouldn’t call that a baseball just because of an impression I had.
I’m not saying that circumstances have nothing to do with decision making. I’m not saying either that the Holy Spirit isn’t involved in circumstances. The Bible teaches the providence of God. I’m fine with someone calling circumstances the providence of God. Everything that happens is either allowed or caused by God. It wouldn’t happen without Him. However, how someone reads circumstances should not be called “the Holy Spirit leading.” The Holy Spirit leads through the Word of God. When we practice scripture we are being led by the Spirit.
Circumstances can and should be read. If the price goes up on a particular item, you might not buy it. It’s now too expensive. You were going to take a trip, but you put the necessary money into a repair of your water heater or the car is acting up, so you can’t trust it to take you out of town. When you are talking to someone in evangelism, he keeps looking at his watch or looking back over his shoulder. You ask him if he wants you to continue. He says, “No.”
Furthermore, you candidate as a pastor for a church. The committee or the church members ask you what you believe and practice. You tell them everything. They believe and practice different than you do. They don’t want you as pastor, so you don’t get the percentage of vote required by their church constitution. Someone has a sign that says, “No soliciting.” You don’t solicit. You visit every house in town and no one receives the gospel. You start on a different town. Jesus approaches a Samaritan town and they tell Him to leave. He leaves. Are all of those the leading of the Spirit? The Holy Spirit is not disconnected from the above decisions, because the Bible has something to say about all of them, but I know that isn’t what people mean when they say they are “waiting on the leading of the Spirit.”
I watched some Olympic pole vaulting on the internet. Certain participants would skip a height to reduce their potential number of misses, since that is a tie break in the competition. It also saves on energy to make less attempts. Skipping heights isn’t a good decision by a pole vaulter if he can’t clear the height he has skipped to. His decision should be based upon some knowledge that he can succeed at an attempted height. Many Olympic events require strategy. The Kenyan long distance runners unsuccessfully took the 10,000 meters out to a very fast pace to wear out Britain’s Mo Farah. He still had enough in the tank to pass them at the end and win despite even tripping and falling at one point in the race. Decisions Christians make take in similar considerations for decision making in their lives and its good to give God credit for enabling a good decision, but these are not “waiting on the Spirit to lead.”
The people of Israel were to recognize the arrival of Jesus. To do that, they needed to be sensitive to biblical cues from the Old Testament. A lot of evidence existed to point to Him as the Messiah. Jesus talked about this in Matthew 16, when he excoriated the Pharisees for their application of meteorological knowledge while failing at scriptural evidence. He was saying they had the ability to make good decisions — they just were taking that ability and not using it where it counted most. Judging the sky for good weather is appropriate decision making for a fisherman. That is not “waiting on the Holy Spirit to lead.”
Jesus uses a similar illustration as the one in Matthew 16 in Luke 14, where He speaks of men calculating the cost of building a tower before they start to build it. He uses the analogy for the consideration of following Him. He doesn’t deride the basis of calculating cost. He uses it as an illustration for the right way of making a decision. Jesus did this all the time. He said not to cast pearls before swine. That’s a waste of time, so it’s a bad decision to do it. You don’t need to “wait for” those to make a good decision. They are the kind of basis one uses to make a right decision.
Charismatics among others often teach a concept they call “praying through.” The idea, as I have read, is something like trying to get satellite radio while under an overpass. Your prayers are being disrupted by demonic or Satanic activity, but they will get through or God will get the answer through to you if you go through enough sacrifice for that to occur. The idea is that you might need to go without food and spend hours praying to get the leading of the Holy Spirit you need for a right decision. God removes the disruption, but only if you pay the price. Applying the “praying through” concept to purchasing a house would be to fast and pray, asking God to show whether you should buy the house, and then the Holy Spirit talks to you in your head, telling you what to do. That is very often what people mean by “the leading of the Holy Spirit.”
What people will “pray through” to get in the way of “the Holy Spirit leading,” they already have. You don’t have to wait to find out if you are supposed to evangelize somewhere. The next person is fine. Just do it (my apologies to Nike). It’s fine to talk to the first person in town like Paul did Lydia in Acts 16. When we started here in the Bay Area in 1987, I went to the person closest to us, and my next person was the next closest person to us. I didn’t skip those two to get to the third closest person, because of a feeling I had. A huge part of the decision where we started was that there was no church in the entire town. None. No church. It was a town that had no church (and no gas station).
We have the Holy Spirit’s leading. We are led by the Spirit, if we are saved. We don’t need to wait on it. It’s already arrived.
If I buy a piece of furniture at IKEA, which requires assembly, I wait to read the instructions before I start putting it together. I have to wait for certain supplies or tools to do a project. Usually you don’t marry the first man or woman you meet. I can talk to the first person I see in class, but that doesn’t mean he’s my new best friend. Scriptural thinking precedes decisions about marriage, about friendship, and about many activities. It doesn’t tell me how to put together IKEA furniture.
I could preach the gospel to several people a day for a month without anyone receiving Christ. I’m not seeing any results, but I don’t give up. I’m doing what God wants and I’m waiting on Him for the results. God has put His love in my heart for these people. That’s how you wait on the Lord. You take fulfillment in your position in Christ, the hope of eternal reward, and enjoy the multifaceted and plenty of the goodness of God. You don’t become impatient and do something unscriptural to speed up the results. That’s how you wait on the Holy Spirit. I waited until I had done all of the above. I’m now ready to move on. I waited until now to do that.
I take complete, thorough records. I have knocked on every door in town and left literature three different times. By following up, I have preached to someone at every door twice. In addition, I have preached to all my neighbors who would listen and every person who would listen with whom I do business. No one has received Christ. That is legitimate waiting. It’s up to the town now whether they will follow the Lord Jesus Christ or not. I don’t feel guilty. I don’t take the blame for their indifference. They’ve got to do what they’ve got to do, and they haven’t done that. I’ve waited for them the amount of time I’m supposed to wait and I have a biblical basis for moving on, which is how the Holy Spirit leads.
What people call “waiting on the Holy Spirit to lead” can be disobedience to God. They shouldn’t be waiting. Their waiting is not working or not serving or not loving. It’s an excuse. It can be spiritual pride. Someone says he’s waiting on the Holy Spirit, so that people will think he’s got some type of elite channel to the Holy Spirit beyond others. God talks to him directly unlike others, perhaps because he has sacrificed more. The people saying they are receiving these messages from God operate out of a wrong understanding of scripture, making apostolic and prophetic activity normative for today. They aren’t.
There is a kind of deniability to the described signs “evidence” of the Holy Spirit. They aren’t the fraudulent tongues or healings of Charismaticism. They are just not enough signs to deny they’re signs, at the same time being signs. People are waiting for something. This “leading” is something. They are a unique voice in the head, validated by some circumstances or series of circumstances, that are a sign that the voice is authentic. Enough people believe in this kind of activity that they validate one another. They point to each other as a confirmation of its reality. They accept each other for saying they are getting these experiences. It spreads to others.
When I confront Charismatics on their lies, they huff and puff with offense. I’m unloving to doubt their experience. I haven’t found it different with Baptists and their special means of advanced revelation. In addition, they throw down autonomy. You think you’re the pope if you question them. It’s going to keep going and get worse at this rate.
I consider the “waiting on the Spirit” language to be verbal and theological gobbledygook, essentially erroneous reliance on circumstances. Deny it. Leave it.
Keswick’s Quakerism, Rejection of Doctrine and Rejection of Studying Scripture: in Keswick’s Errors–an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 3 of 17
Keswick’s heavy
Quaker influence illustrates the failure among its leadership to separate from
even the most serious of errors and a lack of discernment about what is
involved in even being a Christian at all.[1] For example its co-founder Robert Wilson was
a Quaker, and from its inception the Keswick convention allowed those in
soul-damning error, such as the Quaker Hannah Whitall Smith, to mold its
doctrinal position. Holiness, sanctification, and separation
share the same word group in the Hebrew and Greek languages, and the disobedience
of the Keswick Convention to the Biblical commands to practice ecclesiastical
separation cleary hinder its intention of promoting holiness. Compromise on any area of the truth hinders
growth in holiness, for sanctification takes place by means of the truth (John
17:17).[2] What the Keswick Convention boasts of as a
strength, “that no man or woman has ever been known, through the influence or
under its teaching, to leave one communion for another,” so that “those who
accept the Keswick teaching and enter into the [Keswick] experience . . .
incline to remain where they are . . . [even in] moribund or dead churches,”[3]
is no strength at all, but, in fact, a very serious weakness. Keswick unites those professing paedobaptism
and believer’s baptism; those who think that sprinkled infants are Christians
and those who believe that one must be converted to become a Christian; those
who advocate hierarchical denominational structures and those who practice congregational
church government; those who believe in liturgical ritualism and those who
accept the regulative principle of worship; those who preach the inherent
goodness of man inherent in the Quaker “Divine seed” heresy and those who
accept the total depravity of man; and those who embrace corrupt sacramental
gospels with those who profess the true gospel of justification by faith alone
through Christ alone apart from religious ceremonies. When all such, together with sundry sorts of
other doctrinal deviants, get together for a “united communion service,”[4]
one can be happy that the Lord’s Supper is not really being practiced, as only
true Baptist churches can celebrate it, for the gross doctrinal and practical
disharmony might lead to many suffering serious illness or early death (1
Corinthians 11:30) as Divine judgment. In
sum, Keswick ecumenicalism is unscriptural and dangerous.
Quaker influence illustrates the failure among its leadership to separate from
even the most serious of errors and a lack of discernment about what is
involved in even being a Christian at all.[1] For example its co-founder Robert Wilson was
a Quaker, and from its inception the Keswick convention allowed those in
soul-damning error, such as the Quaker Hannah Whitall Smith, to mold its
doctrinal position. Holiness, sanctification, and separation
share the same word group in the Hebrew and Greek languages, and the disobedience
of the Keswick Convention to the Biblical commands to practice ecclesiastical
separation cleary hinder its intention of promoting holiness. Compromise on any area of the truth hinders
growth in holiness, for sanctification takes place by means of the truth (John
17:17).[2] What the Keswick Convention boasts of as a
strength, “that no man or woman has ever been known, through the influence or
under its teaching, to leave one communion for another,” so that “those who
accept the Keswick teaching and enter into the [Keswick] experience . . .
incline to remain where they are . . . [even in] moribund or dead churches,”[3]
is no strength at all, but, in fact, a very serious weakness. Keswick unites those professing paedobaptism
and believer’s baptism; those who think that sprinkled infants are Christians
and those who believe that one must be converted to become a Christian; those
who advocate hierarchical denominational structures and those who practice congregational
church government; those who believe in liturgical ritualism and those who
accept the regulative principle of worship; those who preach the inherent
goodness of man inherent in the Quaker “Divine seed” heresy and those who
accept the total depravity of man; and those who embrace corrupt sacramental
gospels with those who profess the true gospel of justification by faith alone
through Christ alone apart from religious ceremonies. When all such, together with sundry sorts of
other doctrinal deviants, get together for a “united communion service,”[4]
one can be happy that the Lord’s Supper is not really being practiced, as only
true Baptist churches can celebrate it, for the gross doctrinal and practical
disharmony might lead to many suffering serious illness or early death (1
Corinthians 11:30) as Divine judgment. In
sum, Keswick ecumenicalism is unscriptural and dangerous.
A
related error of Keswick, which developed out of the identical position at
Broadlands[5]
and which accorded well with the ecumenicalism of the movement,[6]
is that it “is interested in the practical application of religious truth
rather than in doctrinal or dogmatic theology.”[7] Biblically, no disjunction exists between
doctrine and practice—on the contrary, sound doctrine and practice mutually
reinforce each other (1 Timothy 4:16).
In keeping with its belittling of Biblical doctrine, Keswick has
produced an ocean of non-doctrinal books, “many volumes of devotional
literature.”[8] This non-dogmatic “literature of the
Convention . . . ha[s] circulated far and wide . . . throughout the world.”[9] Likewise, myriads of “addresses [have been]
given at the Convention year after year for over seventy-five years.” Nevertheless, “Keswick furnishes us with no
formal treatise of its doctrine of sin, and no carefully prepared, weighty
discourses of a theological nature”[10]
of any kind. This lack was abetted by
the total lack of formal theological training on the part of many early Keswick
leaders.[11] Keswick’s neglect of carefully prepared
theology is a definite weakness, although natural for those who accepted Robert
P. Smith’s view that for “souls i[n] vital conscious union with Christ . . .
the effects of any errors of judgment are neutralized.”[12]
related error of Keswick, which developed out of the identical position at
Broadlands[5]
and which accorded well with the ecumenicalism of the movement,[6]
is that it “is interested in the practical application of religious truth
rather than in doctrinal or dogmatic theology.”[7] Biblically, no disjunction exists between
doctrine and practice—on the contrary, sound doctrine and practice mutually
reinforce each other (1 Timothy 4:16).
In keeping with its belittling of Biblical doctrine, Keswick has
produced an ocean of non-doctrinal books, “many volumes of devotional
literature.”[8] This non-dogmatic “literature of the
Convention . . . ha[s] circulated far and wide . . . throughout the world.”[9] Likewise, myriads of “addresses [have been]
given at the Convention year after year for over seventy-five years.” Nevertheless, “Keswick furnishes us with no
formal treatise of its doctrine of sin, and no carefully prepared, weighty
discourses of a theological nature”[10]
of any kind. This lack was abetted by
the total lack of formal theological training on the part of many early Keswick
leaders.[11] Keswick’s neglect of carefully prepared
theology is a definite weakness, although natural for those who accepted Robert
P. Smith’s view that for “souls i[n] vital conscious union with Christ . . .
the effects of any errors of judgment are neutralized.”[12]
What was
important at Keswick, as in the teaching and ministry of Hannah and Robert P.
Smith, and at the Broadlands Conferences,[13]
was not the careful study of what Scripture said, but feeling happy—the secret
of a happy life.[14] While Keswick’s neglect of the careful study
of Scripture suited the Quaker exaltation of immediate extra-canonical
revelation, for those who wanted to know what God’s Word said about
sanctification, it was a great hindrance that at “the early Conventions . . .
[a]ll the addresses were extemporaneous,”[15]
so that none of the spiritual guides who were to lead others into the way of
holiness could preach carefully exposited Scripture. All speakers had to teach unprepared:
important at Keswick, as in the teaching and ministry of Hannah and Robert P.
Smith, and at the Broadlands Conferences,[13]
was not the careful study of what Scripture said, but feeling happy—the secret
of a happy life.[14] While Keswick’s neglect of the careful study
of Scripture suited the Quaker exaltation of immediate extra-canonical
revelation, for those who wanted to know what God’s Word said about
sanctification, it was a great hindrance that at “the early Conventions . . .
[a]ll the addresses were extemporaneous,”[15]
so that none of the spiritual guides who were to lead others into the way of
holiness could preach carefully exposited Scripture. All speakers had to teach unprepared:
Canon
Harford-Battersby . . . . assigned . . . speaking roles each evening for the
following day, after a time of prayer with the chairman [Robert Wilson] in his
vicarage drawing room . . . informal planning of the speakers for each day,
undertaken only during the week itself, characterized the Convention for more
than fifty years. . . . Some may see in that a more noble leading of the
Spirit, whilst others may call it flying by the seat of your pants[.][16]
Harford-Battersby . . . . assigned . . . speaking roles each evening for the
following day, after a time of prayer with the chairman [Robert Wilson] in his
vicarage drawing room . . . informal planning of the speakers for each day,
undertaken only during the week itself, characterized the Convention for more
than fifty years. . . . Some may see in that a more noble leading of the
Spirit, whilst others may call it flying by the seat of your pants[.][16]
Keswick maintained “a remarkable
absence of planning and organizing of speakers.”[17] It is not surprising that a later Keswick
president thought that “the reason that Convention blessings were short-lived”
was the “lack of solid exposition” at the Conference.[18] Keswick’s oft recognized[19]
lack of carefully prepared and theologically precise views of sin and the
solution for it is evident in its inaccurate presentations and bungling
refutations by Keswick advocates of alternative positions on sanctification,
its failure to deal comprehensively and carefully with the scriptural data
related to the believer’s growth in holiness, its invalid arguments, its allegorical
interpretation of Scripture, and its faulty exegesis of key texts on
sanctification.[20] In all these ways, while unfaithful to the
Bible, Keswick continued faithful to its roots at Broadlands, where the
misinterpretation of Scripture was tightly connected to the Quaker Divine Seed
heresy.[21] From the Divine Seed doctrine many an
allegorization of Scripture came forth—what need was there of careful exegesis
of the Bible for one who has the Divine Seed within, and from his allegedly
sinless spirit receives new revelations?
Keswick does not do well to set against each other “exegetical skill”
and “present illumination and anointing of the Holy Spirit,” claiming to value
the latter despite downplaying the former.
In fact, Keswick’s theological sickness is evident in the affirmation
that the “distinctive vitality” of “Keswick meetings” is “lost” if “exegetical
skill instead of . . . present illumination” is employed in preaching.[22] Indeed, Keswick authors have testified that
the generality of those that accede to their theology do so not as a result of their
having exegeted and searched the Scriptures (Acts 17:11), but because of their pleasant
feelings and experiences at Keswick conferences.[23] It is consequently not surprising that the
key requirement for ascending the Keswick platform during its founding decades
was not doctrinal orthodoxy, but, as at Broadlands, the experience of entering
into the carefree happiness of the Higher Life.[24] Keswick’s inability to support itself
exegetically, and its reliance upon testimonies and pleasant words and deeds to
lead people into its system, is explained by Robert P. Smith:
absence of planning and organizing of speakers.”[17] It is not surprising that a later Keswick
president thought that “the reason that Convention blessings were short-lived”
was the “lack of solid exposition” at the Conference.[18] Keswick’s oft recognized[19]
lack of carefully prepared and theologically precise views of sin and the
solution for it is evident in its inaccurate presentations and bungling
refutations by Keswick advocates of alternative positions on sanctification,
its failure to deal comprehensively and carefully with the scriptural data
related to the believer’s growth in holiness, its invalid arguments, its allegorical
interpretation of Scripture, and its faulty exegesis of key texts on
sanctification.[20] In all these ways, while unfaithful to the
Bible, Keswick continued faithful to its roots at Broadlands, where the
misinterpretation of Scripture was tightly connected to the Quaker Divine Seed
heresy.[21] From the Divine Seed doctrine many an
allegorization of Scripture came forth—what need was there of careful exegesis
of the Bible for one who has the Divine Seed within, and from his allegedly
sinless spirit receives new revelations?
Keswick does not do well to set against each other “exegetical skill”
and “present illumination and anointing of the Holy Spirit,” claiming to value
the latter despite downplaying the former.
In fact, Keswick’s theological sickness is evident in the affirmation
that the “distinctive vitality” of “Keswick meetings” is “lost” if “exegetical
skill instead of . . . present illumination” is employed in preaching.[22] Indeed, Keswick authors have testified that
the generality of those that accede to their theology do so not as a result of their
having exegeted and searched the Scriptures (Acts 17:11), but because of their pleasant
feelings and experiences at Keswick conferences.[23] It is consequently not surprising that the
key requirement for ascending the Keswick platform during its founding decades
was not doctrinal orthodoxy, but, as at Broadlands, the experience of entering
into the carefree happiness of the Higher Life.[24] Keswick’s inability to support itself
exegetically, and its reliance upon testimonies and pleasant words and deeds to
lead people into its system, is explained by Robert P. Smith:
Do not press this fulness of the Gospel [the Higher Life], in its
doctrinal, dogmatic side. It is not so
much a doctrine to be argued as a life
to be lived. Confess Christ—do not profess
to be anything. . . . Your life must be your argument to those who see you constantly. Do not worry them by doctrinal statements,
but love them into the fulness of salvation.
It is usual to hear persons say, “I was wrong. I could meet the arguments, but the life of my friend has convinced me
that she was right.”[25]
doctrinal, dogmatic side. It is not so
much a doctrine to be argued as a life
to be lived. Confess Christ—do not profess
to be anything. . . . Your life must be your argument to those who see you constantly. Do not worry them by doctrinal statements,
but love them into the fulness of salvation.
It is usual to hear persons say, “I was wrong. I could meet the arguments, but the life of my friend has convinced me
that she was right.”[25]
Thus, careful statements of
Biblical teaching only “worry” the generality of those who accede to the Higher
Life. Although arguments for Keswick doctrine
from the text of Scripture can be easily met, as the Bible does not teach the
theology of the Pearsall Smiths, the appearance of a carefree and happy life
full of rest and quiet leads many to adopt the Higher Life. The theological imprecision that results by
setting the Holy Ghost against painstaking exegesis of the Word He dictated is
also a major explanatory factor for the other Biblical errors in the Keswick
theology. Keswick statements on
theological issues are often better when they are not taken seriously, but only
their general intention is considered; taking Keswick too seriously leads to
serious error.
Biblical teaching only “worry” the generality of those who accede to the Higher
Life. Although arguments for Keswick doctrine
from the text of Scripture can be easily met, as the Bible does not teach the
theology of the Pearsall Smiths, the appearance of a carefree and happy life
full of rest and quiet leads many to adopt the Higher Life. The theological imprecision that results by
setting the Holy Ghost against painstaking exegesis of the Word He dictated is
also a major explanatory factor for the other Biblical errors in the Keswick
theology. Keswick statements on
theological issues are often better when they are not taken seriously, but only
their general intention is considered; taking Keswick too seriously leads to
serious error.
See here for this entire study.
[1] Compare Jessie Penn-Lewis’s “deep conviction” that “many
who have been reckoned ‘Modernists,’ even in the Mission field, are not really
so in heart,” but are really “servants of Christ” that Keswick partisans should
“labour to help . . . all that is in our power” (pg. 280, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir,
Mary N. Garrard). Many theological
modernists are not, Penn-Lewis affirms, unregenerate false teachers who should
be marked, avoided, and rejected.
Rather, they are servants of Christ who should be assisted as much as
possible; they are simply in need of some Higher Life teaching so that all will
be well. If even modernists should be
accepted, it is no surprise that Penn-Lewis preached that “divergent views on
prophecy, on sanctification, on healing, and other matters . . . should be put
aside” to assist in bringing about “the UNITY of the Body of Christ in view of
His soon Return” (pg. 283, Ibid.). Since the Keswick co-founder, Canon
Harford-Battersby, was himself High Church, then Broad Church, and only then an
evangelical Anglican, and all without a conversion experience, Jessie
Penn-Lewis’s statements are not surprising.
who have been reckoned ‘Modernists,’ even in the Mission field, are not really
so in heart,” but are really “servants of Christ” that Keswick partisans should
“labour to help . . . all that is in our power” (pg. 280, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir,
Mary N. Garrard). Many theological
modernists are not, Penn-Lewis affirms, unregenerate false teachers who should
be marked, avoided, and rejected.
Rather, they are servants of Christ who should be assisted as much as
possible; they are simply in need of some Higher Life teaching so that all will
be well. If even modernists should be
accepted, it is no surprise that Penn-Lewis preached that “divergent views on
prophecy, on sanctification, on healing, and other matters . . . should be put
aside” to assist in bringing about “the UNITY of the Body of Christ in view of
His soon Return” (pg. 283, Ibid.). Since the Keswick co-founder, Canon
Harford-Battersby, was himself High Church, then Broad Church, and only then an
evangelical Anglican, and all without a conversion experience, Jessie
Penn-Lewis’s statements are not surprising.
[2] The following statement illustrates the less-than-proper
view of truth advocated by many Keswick proponents: “Keswick itself has been and is still
criticized; but that is of no serious consequence. The truth of God is bigger than any one view
or school of thought” (pg. 10, So Great
Salvation, Barabas). Contrary to
Barabas, true theology has the objective propositional content that was given
by the Father to His Son as Mediator to reveal to the church by the Spirit
through the Scriptures. Rather than
lightly treating criticism of Keswick because the truth of God is allegedly
bigger than any one view, such criticism should be evaluated Biblically and
acted upon if it is accurate, or rejected if it is unscriptural.
view of truth advocated by many Keswick proponents: “Keswick itself has been and is still
criticized; but that is of no serious consequence. The truth of God is bigger than any one view
or school of thought” (pg. 10, So Great
Salvation, Barabas). Contrary to
Barabas, true theology has the objective propositional content that was given
by the Father to His Son as Mediator to reveal to the church by the Spirit
through the Scriptures. Rather than
lightly treating criticism of Keswick because the truth of God is allegedly
bigger than any one view, such criticism should be evaluated Biblically and
acted upon if it is accurate, or rejected if it is unscriptural.
Of course, the statement that the truth of God is
bigger than any one view is itself incoherent.
If the truth of God is bigger than any one view, it is bigger than the
view that it is bigger than any one view, in which case the truth of God is not
bigger than any one view.
bigger than any one view is itself incoherent.
If the truth of God is bigger than any one view, it is bigger than the
view that it is bigger than any one view, in which case the truth of God is not
bigger than any one view.
[3] Pg. 35, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[4] Pg. 149, So Great
Salvation, Barabas; cf. pg. 98, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
The open communion service would take place in the meeting place of T.
D. Harford Battersby’s Anglican congregation, where the severe errors of the
Anglican communion liturgy were recited week by week (pgs. xiv-xv, Memoir of T. D. Harford-Battersby,
Harford).
Salvation, Barabas; cf. pg. 98, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
The open communion service would take place in the meeting place of T.
D. Harford Battersby’s Anglican congregation, where the severe errors of the
Anglican communion liturgy were recited week by week (pgs. xiv-xv, Memoir of T. D. Harford-Battersby,
Harford).
[5] E.
g., at the 1874 Broadlands Conference Robert P. Smith taught that the “purpose
of this gathering together . . . was different from that of other religious
gatherings. It was not for the teaching
of religious truths,” but for the inculcation of the Higher Life in which the
“teaching of the Spirit should be heard” (pg. 120, Memorials [of
William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890),
in accordance with the Quaker doctrines of the Inner Light and the Divine
Seed. The “aim [was] less to enforce a
creed than to inspire a life” for Broadlands preachers such as the universalist
George MacDonald (pg. 59, The Life that
is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the
Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). “The Conferences were, as Lord
Mount-Temple said at the opening of the first one, ‘not for the promulgation of
any new system, nor for the combined execution of any organized plan, but a
meeting of grateful, loving hearts, united . . . to lead a higher and deeper
Christian life’” (pgs. 119-120, Ibid.).
g., at the 1874 Broadlands Conference Robert P. Smith taught that the “purpose
of this gathering together . . . was different from that of other religious
gatherings. It was not for the teaching
of religious truths,” but for the inculcation of the Higher Life in which the
“teaching of the Spirit should be heard” (pg. 120, Memorials [of
William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890),
in accordance with the Quaker doctrines of the Inner Light and the Divine
Seed. The “aim [was] less to enforce a
creed than to inspire a life” for Broadlands preachers such as the universalist
George MacDonald (pg. 59, The Life that
is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the
Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). “The Conferences were, as Lord
Mount-Temple said at the opening of the first one, ‘not for the promulgation of
any new system, nor for the combined execution of any organized plan, but a
meeting of grateful, loving hearts, united . . . to lead a higher and deeper
Christian life’” (pgs. 119-120, Ibid.).
[6] Thus, in the words of very sympathetic Methodist
writers, whose purpose in writing was generally to defend the Keswick theology
and perfectionism (as taught, in their view, most perfectly by Wesley) against
Higher Life critics:
writers, whose purpose in writing was generally to defend the Keswick theology
and perfectionism (as taught, in their view, most perfectly by Wesley) against
Higher Life critics:
The [Keswick] theology . . . does very seriously expose
itself to misconception through its lack of systematic coherence and
completeness. A certain consciousness of
this seems sometimes to disturb the equanimity of the teachers, and tempts them
to speak disparagingly of dogmatic theology[.] . . . It is not to be expected,
of course, that the leaders of the movement . . . should publish to the world
their precise creed . . . [since they] have generally been careful to disavow
any connection with denominations and communions . . . on the principle of
keeping out of view everything that might raise the question of sectarian
differences . . . ignor[ing] . . . the formalities of worship, and ritual, and
sacraments . . . effac[ing] . . . the distinction of pastorship and laity . . .
[and] not always tak[ing] . . . sufficient care . . . to preclude . . . the
imputation of Pelagianism . . . brought by almost all the censors against the
movement. (pgs. 100-101, “The Brighton Convention and Its Opponents.” London Quarterly Review, October 1875)
itself to misconception through its lack of systematic coherence and
completeness. A certain consciousness of
this seems sometimes to disturb the equanimity of the teachers, and tempts them
to speak disparagingly of dogmatic theology[.] . . . It is not to be expected,
of course, that the leaders of the movement . . . should publish to the world
their precise creed . . . [since they] have generally been careful to disavow
any connection with denominations and communions . . . on the principle of
keeping out of view everything that might raise the question of sectarian
differences . . . ignor[ing] . . . the formalities of worship, and ritual, and
sacraments . . . effac[ing] . . . the distinction of pastorship and laity . . .
[and] not always tak[ing] . . . sufficient care . . . to preclude . . . the
imputation of Pelagianism . . . brought by almost all the censors against the
movement. (pgs. 100-101, “The Brighton Convention and Its Opponents.” London Quarterly Review, October 1875)
[7] Pg. 42, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[8] Pg. 42, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[9] Pg. 9, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[10] Pg. 51, So Great Salvation, Barabas. This fact mentioned
by Barabas does not mean that nobody associated with the Keswick theology has
ever produced anything with at least a certain amount of scholarly value; it
does mean that no Keswick advocate has ever composed a careful and scholarly
presentation or theological defense of the distinctives of the Keswick
doctrine. Rather, Keswick writings are
“a mass of unsystematic literature, not always absolutely consistent with
itself” (pg. 259, “Means and Measure of Holiness,” Thomas Smith. The
British and Foreign Evangelical Review [April 1876] 251-280). Barabas is by no means the only Keswick
advocate to recognize that no carefully prepared and theologically precise
presentation of its position has even been written—this absence has been
continually recognized from the very origin of the Keswick movement. R. W. Dale noted:
by Barabas does not mean that nobody associated with the Keswick theology has
ever produced anything with at least a certain amount of scholarly value; it
does mean that no Keswick advocate has ever composed a careful and scholarly
presentation or theological defense of the distinctives of the Keswick
doctrine. Rather, Keswick writings are
“a mass of unsystematic literature, not always absolutely consistent with
itself” (pg. 259, “Means and Measure of Holiness,” Thomas Smith. The
British and Foreign Evangelical Review [April 1876] 251-280). Barabas is by no means the only Keswick
advocate to recognize that no carefully prepared and theologically precise
presentation of its position has even been written—this absence has been
continually recognized from the very origin of the Keswick movement. R. W. Dale noted:
I said to Dr. Boardman only a
few months ago that it seemed to me that this [Higher Life] movement had
prophets, but had not teachers; and he acknowledged that there was a great deal
of truth in that. I asked where he could
show me a theological book in which this doctrine was so stated as really to
satisfy any theological mind, and he was obliged to acknowledge that it was
very difficult indeed to name any such book. . . . I have been called upon as
one not hostile to this movement, [but] as favorable to it. (pg. 450, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875)
few months ago that it seemed to me that this [Higher Life] movement had
prophets, but had not teachers; and he acknowledged that there was a great deal
of truth in that. I asked where he could
show me a theological book in which this doctrine was so stated as really to
satisfy any theological mind, and he was obliged to acknowledge that it was
very difficult indeed to name any such book. . . . I have been called upon as
one not hostile to this movement, [but] as favorable to it. (pg. 450, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875)
[11] E. g., Evan Hopkins & Webb-Peploe “had no formal
theological training” (pg. 68, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck); neither did Hannah or Robert Pearsall
Smith, Robert Wilson, or many other Higher Life leaders.
theological training” (pg. 68, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck); neither did Hannah or Robert Pearsall
Smith, Robert Wilson, or many other Higher Life leaders.
[12] Pg. 186, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Smith’s doctrine that errors of judgment have no negative consequences
for people who experience the Higher Life as he had done helps explain both his
adoption and continued propagation of the erotic Bridal Baptism doctrine. His judgment might indicate that he was
propagating the vilest of perversions, but such judgment was to be set aside
for the thrills of a “conscious union” where the rational could be set aside.
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Smith’s doctrine that errors of judgment have no negative consequences
for people who experience the Higher Life as he had done helps explain both his
adoption and continued propagation of the erotic Bridal Baptism doctrine. His judgment might indicate that he was
propagating the vilest of perversions, but such judgment was to be set aside
for the thrills of a “conscious union” where the rational could be set aside.
[13] The
wonder of the Higher Life resulted in “[t]he intense happiness experienced at
Broadlands,” which was “as the dawn of a fresh springtime in th[e] lives” of
many (pg. 267, The Life that is Life
Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands
Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). Although the vast body at the
Broadlands Conferences had never been born again but were wretched and
unconverted sinners, they were not led to feel their awful misery, but were
confirmed in carefree happiness and self-delusion. “[A]t Broadlands . . . changed lives and
characters . . . could not be gainsaid . . . one noted a great and marked
increase in gladness and cheerfulness” (pgs. 246-247, Ibid). Indeed, Broadlands
leaders testified that the spiritualism and the presence of demons
impersonating the spirits of dead people contributed to the great happiness of
those present. As the Mount-Temples
believed, “the presence of unseen heavenly ones added to the deep gladness that
was felt” (pg. 262, Ibid.).
wonder of the Higher Life resulted in “[t]he intense happiness experienced at
Broadlands,” which was “as the dawn of a fresh springtime in th[e] lives” of
many (pg. 267, The Life that is Life
Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands
Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). Although the vast body at the
Broadlands Conferences had never been born again but were wretched and
unconverted sinners, they were not led to feel their awful misery, but were
confirmed in carefree happiness and self-delusion. “[A]t Broadlands . . . changed lives and
characters . . . could not be gainsaid . . . one noted a great and marked
increase in gladness and cheerfulness” (pgs. 246-247, Ibid). Indeed, Broadlands
leaders testified that the spiritualism and the presence of demons
impersonating the spirits of dead people contributed to the great happiness of
those present. As the Mount-Temples
believed, “the presence of unseen heavenly ones added to the deep gladness that
was felt” (pg. 262, Ibid.).
[14] Thus, at the Oxford Convention, people learned: “If our preaching does not make people glad,
we have not got the right message” (pg. 263, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness,
Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874.
Chicago: Revell, 1874). For the Oxford Convention, then, it would
seem that the Lord Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, did not have the right
message when He proclaimed: “Blessed are
they that mourn” (Matthew 5:4; cf. Luke 6:25; 7:32; 1 Corinthians 5:2; 2
Corinthians 7:7; James 4:9; Daniel 10:2; Joel 2:12, etc.). Rather than the message of Christ and the
Apostles, Hannah Smith taught at Brighton that the Holy Spirit is not “one to
make us unhappy”—thoughts that make one unhappy “always come from Satan” (pg.
376, 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 Christian is to enter into the Higher
stage where “he
abides in utter unconcern and perfect rest . . . perfect abandonment of ease
and comfort . . . the Higher Christian Life” (Chapter 3, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life, Hannah W. Smith).
we have not got the right message” (pg. 263, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness,
Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874.
Chicago: Revell, 1874). For the Oxford Convention, then, it would
seem that the Lord Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, did not have the right
message when He proclaimed: “Blessed are
they that mourn” (Matthew 5:4; cf. Luke 6:25; 7:32; 1 Corinthians 5:2; 2
Corinthians 7:7; James 4:9; Daniel 10:2; Joel 2:12, etc.). Rather than the message of Christ and the
Apostles, Hannah Smith taught at Brighton that the Holy Spirit is not “one to
make us unhappy”—thoughts that make one unhappy “always come from Satan” (pg.
376, 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 Christian is to enter into the Higher
stage where “he
abides in utter unconcern and perfect rest . . . perfect abandonment of ease
and comfort . . . the Higher Christian Life” (Chapter 3, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life, Hannah W. Smith).
[15] Pg. 16, Keswick’s
Authentic Voice, ed. Stevenson. It is
admitted that Keswick addresses were often “rather disjointed” because of this
lack of study (pg. 17), even as at the Brighton Convention Robert P. Smith
noted: “I do not think that there has
been a single address arranged; I know there have been no formal preparations
made in any respect,” as not until late in the evening were speakers for the
next day selected (pgs. 12,
437-438, Record of the Convention for the
Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June
7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875). Likewise at the Oxford Convention it “was not
so much what was said, in the purely extempore remarks or addresses,” for all
that the people heard were “unpremeditated extempore addressess,” concerning
which what mattered was “the preparedness of the heart to listen” (pgs. 180, 200, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874). People were profoundly prepared to accept in
their hearts whatever the speakers said or taught in their unprepared and
unpremeditated addresses; this was possible because, as Robert P. Smith
explained, for those in the Higher Life “the effects of any errors of judgment
are neutralized” (pg. 186) so no negative effects would result from the many
misinterpretations and misapplications of the Bible.
Authentic Voice, ed. Stevenson. It is
admitted that Keswick addresses were often “rather disjointed” because of this
lack of study (pg. 17), even as at the Brighton Convention Robert P. Smith
noted: “I do not think that there has
been a single address arranged; I know there have been no formal preparations
made in any respect,” as not until late in the evening were speakers for the
next day selected (pgs. 12,
437-438, Record of the Convention for the
Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June
7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875). Likewise at the Oxford Convention it “was not
so much what was said, in the purely extempore remarks or addresses,” for all
that the people heard were “unpremeditated extempore addressess,” concerning
which what mattered was “the preparedness of the heart to listen” (pgs. 180, 200, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874). People were profoundly prepared to accept in
their hearts whatever the speakers said or taught in their unprepared and
unpremeditated addresses; this was possible because, as Robert P. Smith
explained, for those in the Higher Life “the effects of any errors of judgment
are neutralized” (pg. 186) so no negative effects would result from the many
misinterpretations and misapplications of the Bible.
[16] Pg. 205, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall; pg. 44, The Keswick Story: The
Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall; pg. 44, The Keswick Story: The
Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
[17] Pg. 49, The Keswick
Story: The Authorized History of the
Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Quotation marks within the reference above have been removed.
Story: The Authorized History of the
Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Quotation marks within the reference above have been removed.
[18] Graham Scroggie; see pg. 71, Transforming Keswick: The
Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[19] For example, Hannah W. Smith stated:
As to the matter
of theology in this [doctrine of the Higher Life], I beg, as I always do, that
nobody will listen to me with theological ears.
It is very likely that I make plenty of mistakes in that direction, but
if you get hold of the experience, then you can put the matter straight . . .
[I may not give] a very clear or exact statement of Christian truth; but I am
sure . . . that [I present] an exact statement of Christian experience. (pg. 54, 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 theology in this [doctrine of the Higher Life], I beg, as I always do, that
nobody will listen to me with theological ears.
It is very likely that I make plenty of mistakes in that direction, but
if you get hold of the experience, then you can put the matter straight . . .
[I may not give] a very clear or exact statement of Christian truth; but I am
sure . . . that [I present] an exact statement of Christian experience. (pg. 54, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held
at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W.
J. Smith, 1875)
Of
course, it is impossible to have an exact view of Christian experience without
an exact statement of Christian truth, and believers are always to evaluate
what they hear with “theological ears” that are carefully sifting with
Scripture what others affirm (Isaiah 8:20; John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 1 John
4:1-3). If Mrs. Smith admits that she
makes many mistakes with Christian truth, she ought not to be preaching at
all—a certainty in any case (1 Timothy 2:11-15).
course, it is impossible to have an exact view of Christian experience without
an exact statement of Christian truth, and believers are always to evaluate
what they hear with “theological ears” that are carefully sifting with
Scripture what others affirm (Isaiah 8:20; John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 1 John
4:1-3). If Mrs. Smith admits that she
makes many mistakes with Christian truth, she ought not to be preaching at
all—a certainty in any case (1 Timothy 2:11-15).
[20] The phenomena mentioned in this sentence are
examined in more detail below.
examined in more detail below.
[21] For
example, teachers at the Broadlands Conference proclaimed: “Whenever I meet a man, I know the germ of
the Christ-life is there. . . . Christ is the life of men, the Divine seed in
every one” (pgs. 178-179, The Life that
is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the
Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). The Divine Seed led to many
allegorical misinterpretations of Scripture at Broadlands. For example, in Revelation 22:2, “The leaves of the tree are for the healing
of the nations” is not about the leaves of the tree of life in the New
Jerusalem, but really means: “We cannot
live in this world without longing to be healers” (pg. 179, Ibid). After all, the New Jerusalem only
“signif[ies] glorified humanity” (pg. 132).
With similar allegory, “The birds of the air came and lodged in the branches” (Matthew 13:32) means, to the
amazement of the student of Scripture:
“We are to be the support and sustainers of those who are seeking rest”
(pg. 179, Ibid. Italics reproduced
from the original.). Indeed, Broadlands
even made the astonishing discovery that in Luke 16 Lazarus was worse off than
the rich man: “Lazarus was the most
wanting in brotherly kindness, for Dives [the rich man] got no help from Lazarus . . . They were both in Hades. Better to be a sufferer than a helpless
witness of suffering. . . . The only true heaven is a character like God’s”
(pg. 208, Ibid. Italics in original.). Perhaps such an exaltation of the rich man in
hell above Lazarus in paradise was assisted by the Broadlands confusion of the
Antichrist with Christ in texts such as Revelation 6:2 (pg. 207, Ibid), but such is uncertain.
example, teachers at the Broadlands Conference proclaimed: “Whenever I meet a man, I know the germ of
the Christ-life is there. . . . Christ is the life of men, the Divine seed in
every one” (pgs. 178-179, The Life that
is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the
Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.
London: James Nisbet & Co,
1910). The Divine Seed led to many
allegorical misinterpretations of Scripture at Broadlands. For example, in Revelation 22:2, “The leaves of the tree are for the healing
of the nations” is not about the leaves of the tree of life in the New
Jerusalem, but really means: “We cannot
live in this world without longing to be healers” (pg. 179, Ibid). After all, the New Jerusalem only
“signif[ies] glorified humanity” (pg. 132).
With similar allegory, “The birds of the air came and lodged in the branches” (Matthew 13:32) means, to the
amazement of the student of Scripture:
“We are to be the support and sustainers of those who are seeking rest”
(pg. 179, Ibid. Italics reproduced
from the original.). Indeed, Broadlands
even made the astonishing discovery that in Luke 16 Lazarus was worse off than
the rich man: “Lazarus was the most
wanting in brotherly kindness, for Dives [the rich man] got no help from Lazarus . . . They were both in Hades. Better to be a sufferer than a helpless
witness of suffering. . . . The only true heaven is a character like God’s”
(pg. 208, Ibid. Italics in original.). Perhaps such an exaltation of the rich man in
hell above Lazarus in paradise was assisted by the Broadlands confusion of the
Antichrist with Christ in texts such as Revelation 6:2 (pg. 207, Ibid), but such is uncertain.
Keswick allegorization and Scripture-twisting thus
followed the pattern set at the Broadlands Conference and its successors. At Broadlands in 1874 a “very distinct
feature of this Conference, [which] must not be omitted in any attempt to
delineate it . . . [was] the conversations over passages in Scripture [where
people] had not tarried in the letter
of the Word, but had discerned everywhere beneath it the living Word . . . unveiling . . . the inward and spiritual meaning
in the Jewish history and ceremonial” (pgs. 122-123, Memorials [of William Francis
Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890). Consequently, for example, the Oxford
Convention took the fact that “[a]ll priests are Levites, but all Levites are
not priests” and allegorized it to support the division of Christians into
those living the Higher Life and those not.
Furthermore, the number of days it took to cleanse the temple in 2
Chronicles 29:17 was allegorized into Higher Life truth, and an address was
given on “Joseph a type of the risen life.”
Another allegorization included Samuel’s predictions about the
conclusion of Saul’s search for his father’s donkeys, receipt of bread from
people, and encounter with a company of prophets in 1 Samuel 10 as “a picture
of the Christian life” where people are “first chosen, then consecrated.” Likewise, the water coming from Ezekiel’s Millennial
temple (Ezekiel 47) teaches the Higher Life; the Valley of Achor (Joshua 7, 15;
Isaiah 65; Hosea 2) is “the place of entire absolute renunciation of all
discovered evil for a door of heavenly blessing”; “Kadesh Barnea” is
allegorized into a font of Higher Life truth; the fact that Solomon wrote the
Song of Songs teaches that the Higher Life is a “reign of peace,” and so on
(pgs. 58, 60, 124, 128-130, 148, 268-269, 306-7, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874). It is difficult to know whether it is better
to laugh at such ridiculous allegorizations or cry because of their dishonor to
God’s holy Word.
followed the pattern set at the Broadlands Conference and its successors. At Broadlands in 1874 a “very distinct
feature of this Conference, [which] must not be omitted in any attempt to
delineate it . . . [was] the conversations over passages in Scripture [where
people] had not tarried in the letter
of the Word, but had discerned everywhere beneath it the living Word . . . unveiling . . . the inward and spiritual meaning
in the Jewish history and ceremonial” (pgs. 122-123, Memorials [of William Francis
Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890). Consequently, for example, the Oxford
Convention took the fact that “[a]ll priests are Levites, but all Levites are
not priests” and allegorized it to support the division of Christians into
those living the Higher Life and those not.
Furthermore, the number of days it took to cleanse the temple in 2
Chronicles 29:17 was allegorized into Higher Life truth, and an address was
given on “Joseph a type of the risen life.”
Another allegorization included Samuel’s predictions about the
conclusion of Saul’s search for his father’s donkeys, receipt of bread from
people, and encounter with a company of prophets in 1 Samuel 10 as “a picture
of the Christian life” where people are “first chosen, then consecrated.” Likewise, the water coming from Ezekiel’s Millennial
temple (Ezekiel 47) teaches the Higher Life; the Valley of Achor (Joshua 7, 15;
Isaiah 65; Hosea 2) is “the place of entire absolute renunciation of all
discovered evil for a door of heavenly blessing”; “Kadesh Barnea” is
allegorized into a font of Higher Life truth; the fact that Solomon wrote the
Song of Songs teaches that the Higher Life is a “reign of peace,” and so on
(pgs. 58, 60, 124, 128-130, 148, 268-269, 306-7, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874). It is difficult to know whether it is better
to laugh at such ridiculous allegorizations or cry because of their dishonor to
God’s holy Word.
Similarly, Keswick convention founder T. D.
Harford-Battersby adopted the Higher Life theology after hearing an allegorical
misinterpretation of John 4:46-53 by Evan Hopkins (cf. pgs. 157-158, Memoir of T. D. Harford-Battersby; pg.
52, The Keswick Convention: Its Message, its Method, and its Men,
Harford; pgs. 113ff., 174, Account of the Union
Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to
September 7, 1874. Chicago:
Revell, 1874). Compare also the
numerous examples of severe eisegesis in the elenctic examination of
controverted passages on sanctification and the several vignettes of central Keswick
leaders in the various chapters of this book.
The Higher Life was found in countless texts when allegorized, although
it was not in any when principles of grammatical-historical hermeneutics were
applied.
Harford-Battersby adopted the Higher Life theology after hearing an allegorical
misinterpretation of John 4:46-53 by Evan Hopkins (cf. pgs. 157-158, Memoir of T. D. Harford-Battersby; pg.
52, The Keswick Convention: Its Message, its Method, and its Men,
Harford; pgs. 113ff., 174, Account of the Union
Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to
September 7, 1874. Chicago:
Revell, 1874). Compare also the
numerous examples of severe eisegesis in the elenctic examination of
controverted passages on sanctification and the several vignettes of central Keswick
leaders in the various chapters of this book.
The Higher Life was found in countless texts when allegorized, although
it was not in any when principles of grammatical-historical hermeneutics were
applied.
[22] Pg. 214, The
Keswick Convention: Its Message, its
Method, and its Men, ed. Harford.
Keswick Convention: Its Message, its
Method, and its Men, ed. Harford.
[23] For instance, A. E. Barnes-Lawrence, in The Keswick Convention: Its Message, its Method, and its Men, ed.
Harford, on pgs. 188-191 describes how a typical “cleric of devout mind who for
the first time has come to Keswick, prepared to find fault, but for the moment
is withholding his judgment” is brought to adopt the Higher Life doctrine. He goes to a prayer meeting, sees a lot of
people who are fervent (pgs. 188-189), hears “the flood of melody as the hymn
is taken up by the great assembly,” is impressed by the “sudden hush and
expectant quietness that falls” in the “Bible Readings,” concludes that his own
“best sermons” arouse “languid” interest in comparison with those at the
Convention, and that people at the Convention are more “keen” than those in his
congregation, and he therefore adopts the Keswick theology, even while
averring: “It was not the address,
certainly not . . . and I should have treated that last point quite differently
myself” (pg. 190). By such impressions
and feelings, rather than by careful study of the Bible, hundreds of ministers
receive the Keswick message (pg. 191).
“Such a testimony is not unfrequent, and it carries its own imprimatur” (pg. 190).
Harford, on pgs. 188-191 describes how a typical “cleric of devout mind who for
the first time has come to Keswick, prepared to find fault, but for the moment
is withholding his judgment” is brought to adopt the Higher Life doctrine. He goes to a prayer meeting, sees a lot of
people who are fervent (pgs. 188-189), hears “the flood of melody as the hymn
is taken up by the great assembly,” is impressed by the “sudden hush and
expectant quietness that falls” in the “Bible Readings,” concludes that his own
“best sermons” arouse “languid” interest in comparison with those at the
Convention, and that people at the Convention are more “keen” than those in his
congregation, and he therefore adopts the Keswick theology, even while
averring: “It was not the address,
certainly not . . . and I should have treated that last point quite differently
myself” (pg. 190). By such impressions
and feelings, rather than by careful study of the Bible, hundreds of ministers
receive the Keswick message (pg. 191).
“Such a testimony is not unfrequent, and it carries its own imprimatur” (pg. 190).
For further examples, note Griffith-Thomas’s attempt
to respond to Warfield’s crushing critique of the Keswick theology by testimonial,
rather than exegesis, in this work’s chapter on whether Keswick critics
misrepresent Keswick; cf. also pgs. 66, 85-86, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
to respond to Warfield’s crushing critique of the Keswick theology by testimonial,
rather than exegesis, in this work’s chapter on whether Keswick critics
misrepresent Keswick; cf. also pgs. 66, 85-86, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
[24] “The
only qualification required from the speakers [at Broadlands] was that they
should have personal experience of the truths they uttered” (pg. 120, cf. pg.
265, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences,
Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910). Of course, Christian preachers should know
experientially the truths that they proclaim, but testimony to having received
a certain experience is by no means a sufficient standard for allowing a person
behind a pulpit (cf. 1 Timothy 1:3, 13; 2 John 7-11).
only qualification required from the speakers [at Broadlands] was that they
should have personal experience of the truths they uttered” (pg. 120, cf. pg.
265, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences,
Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910). Of course, Christian preachers should know
experientially the truths that they proclaim, but testimony to having received
a certain experience is by no means a sufficient standard for allowing a person
behind a pulpit (cf. 1 Timothy 1:3, 13; 2 John 7-11).
[25] Pg. 291, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Italics in original. Cf. pg.
263. Note that the generic “friend” who
leads another to adopt the Higher Life is a “she.”
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
Italics in original. Cf. pg.
263. Note that the generic “friend” who
leads another to adopt the Higher Life is a “she.”
Keswick’s Ecumenicalism #2, in Keswick’s Errors: an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 2 of 17
Since at Broadlands communion with devils through spiritualism found an
important place, it is not surprising that Grubb was by no means the only
heretic who used the ecumenicalism of Keswick to spread doctrines of demons.[1] “James Mountain, Keswick’s early
song-leader,” who led the singing at “the Brighton Convention of 1875, and at
the first Keswick” and many following meetings, “subscribed to British
Israelism[2]
. . . for forty years.”[3] The “liberal evangelicalism” that denied the
verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture and other key tenets of Christian
orthodoxy found its place at Keswick among men such as John Battersby Harford,
the “most prominent of the [Keswick] founder’s sons.”[4] Keswick council members had “no agreement
about the appropriateness of [the] term . . . ‘inerrancy’” for the Holy Bible;
indeed, Keswick President Graham Scroggie “stated that subscription to a
particular theory of inspiration was not . . . a true test of doctrinal
orthodoxy.”[5]
important place, it is not surprising that Grubb was by no means the only
heretic who used the ecumenicalism of Keswick to spread doctrines of demons.[1] “James Mountain, Keswick’s early
song-leader,” who led the singing at “the Brighton Convention of 1875, and at
the first Keswick” and many following meetings, “subscribed to British
Israelism[2]
. . . for forty years.”[3] The “liberal evangelicalism” that denied the
verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture and other key tenets of Christian
orthodoxy found its place at Keswick among men such as John Battersby Harford,
the “most prominent of the [Keswick] founder’s sons.”[4] Keswick council members had “no agreement
about the appropriateness of [the] term . . . ‘inerrancy’” for the Holy Bible;
indeed, Keswick President Graham Scroggie “stated that subscription to a
particular theory of inspiration was not . . . a true test of doctrinal
orthodoxy.”[5]
In 1894, “John R. Mott, an American who became the foremost
international and ecumenical misionary figure of his time, was at the Keswick
camp.”[6] Sadhu Sundar Singh, who “was converted to
Christianity by a vision on 18 Dec. 1904 . . . and donned the robe of a Sadhu
(i.e. ‘holy man’) in an endeavour to present Christianity in a Hindu form,”[7] and
who “claim[ed]
to have received many visions and experienced many miracles”[8] validating his
Hindu-Christian syncretism, spoke at Keswick despite “sympathy towards Hinduism
and Spiritualism.”[9] Key Keswick leaders manifested a very
spiritually dangerous willingness to share platforms at Holiness Conventions
and other settings with false teachers and fanatical perfectionists—for example,
shortly before speaking at Keswick in 1886, Handley Moule and other Keswick
speakers preached at a Convention at Cambridge organized by Douglas Hamilton
with the unabashed perfectionist Smyth-Piggott, as a result of which many
Cambridge undergraduates, including Charles Harford, Canon Harford-Battersby’s
youngest son, came to believe
“themselves to be quite free from all internal evil.” A few months later,
Hamilton joined the Agapemonites,[10]
and “[w]hen Pigott joined him . . . the extremist wing of Holiness made
shipwreck.”[11] As time passed, the Pentecostal movement
found a home at Keswick, so that by the 1960s Keswick, along with its
association with the wider ecumenical movement,[12]
invited charismatics to speak at the Convention, while their ministers became
part of the Keswick council itself.[13] Doctrinal confusion and apostasy has found a secure
home in the ecumenical atmosphere of the Keswick Convention from the time of
its founding. Keswick ecumenicalism has
never been purged out. On the contrary,
ecumenicalism has constantly been rejoiced in and fostered.
international and ecumenical misionary figure of his time, was at the Keswick
camp.”[6] Sadhu Sundar Singh, who “was converted to
Christianity by a vision on 18 Dec. 1904 . . . and donned the robe of a Sadhu
(i.e. ‘holy man’) in an endeavour to present Christianity in a Hindu form,”[7] and
who “claim[ed]
to have received many visions and experienced many miracles”[8] validating his
Hindu-Christian syncretism, spoke at Keswick despite “sympathy towards Hinduism
and Spiritualism.”[9] Key Keswick leaders manifested a very
spiritually dangerous willingness to share platforms at Holiness Conventions
and other settings with false teachers and fanatical perfectionists—for example,
shortly before speaking at Keswick in 1886, Handley Moule and other Keswick
speakers preached at a Convention at Cambridge organized by Douglas Hamilton
with the unabashed perfectionist Smyth-Piggott, as a result of which many
Cambridge undergraduates, including Charles Harford, Canon Harford-Battersby’s
youngest son, came to believe
“themselves to be quite free from all internal evil.” A few months later,
Hamilton joined the Agapemonites,[10]
and “[w]hen Pigott joined him . . . the extremist wing of Holiness made
shipwreck.”[11] As time passed, the Pentecostal movement
found a home at Keswick, so that by the 1960s Keswick, along with its
association with the wider ecumenical movement,[12]
invited charismatics to speak at the Convention, while their ministers became
part of the Keswick council itself.[13] Doctrinal confusion and apostasy has found a secure
home in the ecumenical atmosphere of the Keswick Convention from the time of
its founding. Keswick ecumenicalism has
never been purged out. On the contrary,
ecumenicalism has constantly been rejoiced in and fostered.
While Keswick rejects separatism for
ecumenicalism, Scripture never commands individuals or true churches to ignore
Biblical doctrine to come together in an ecumenical setting. Rather, God requires a strict separation of
the faithful from false teachers and even disobedient brethren. They are to be
separate from all false doctrine, false teachers, and error. So far from ignoring such, they must, to
honor the Lord, specifically mark and reprove error and those who advocate it.[14] Keswick denigrates creed to exalt conduct in
relation to spiritual life, while Scripture exalts both creed and conduct (1
John 3:7, 14; 2 John 9) in relation to spiritual life. Faithful Biblical preaching deals with all that
is in the Word, whether it is “in season” or “out of season” (2 Timothy
3:16-4:2), but Keswick speakers “consider themselves pledged . . . not to teach
during the course of any Keswick Convention any doctrines or opinions but those
upon which there is general agreement [at the Convention]. . . . Speakers are
not permitted to discuss controversial matters at the Convention.”[15] Contrary to Keswick, true churches must
tolerate “no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3), not overlook doctrine to become
ecumenical. The fact that Keswick fails
to expose, but rather tolerates and supports[16]
the heresies of Protestant denominations, such as the baptismal regeneration
that plagues the large majority of the paedobaptist world,[17]
is a great failure on its part.
Keswick’s utter lack of strict association with the modern
representatives of the congregations of the New Testament—historic Baptist
churches—leaves the movement apart from the authority of the pillar and ground
of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and the work of spiritual edification that God
has ordained take place within that context (Ephesians 4:11-16). The movement thus lacks the promise which the
Biblical Baptist congregation possesses—that Christ would build up or edify His
church (Matthew 16:18).[18] As a result, error can take root firmly and
easily at Keswick as the movement is without the special protection that Christ
provides as Head of His congregation.
ecumenicalism, Scripture never commands individuals or true churches to ignore
Biblical doctrine to come together in an ecumenical setting. Rather, God requires a strict separation of
the faithful from false teachers and even disobedient brethren. They are to be
separate from all false doctrine, false teachers, and error. So far from ignoring such, they must, to
honor the Lord, specifically mark and reprove error and those who advocate it.[14] Keswick denigrates creed to exalt conduct in
relation to spiritual life, while Scripture exalts both creed and conduct (1
John 3:7, 14; 2 John 9) in relation to spiritual life. Faithful Biblical preaching deals with all that
is in the Word, whether it is “in season” or “out of season” (2 Timothy
3:16-4:2), but Keswick speakers “consider themselves pledged . . . not to teach
during the course of any Keswick Convention any doctrines or opinions but those
upon which there is general agreement [at the Convention]. . . . Speakers are
not permitted to discuss controversial matters at the Convention.”[15] Contrary to Keswick, true churches must
tolerate “no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3), not overlook doctrine to become
ecumenical. The fact that Keswick fails
to expose, but rather tolerates and supports[16]
the heresies of Protestant denominations, such as the baptismal regeneration
that plagues the large majority of the paedobaptist world,[17]
is a great failure on its part.
Keswick’s utter lack of strict association with the modern
representatives of the congregations of the New Testament—historic Baptist
churches—leaves the movement apart from the authority of the pillar and ground
of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and the work of spiritual edification that God
has ordained take place within that context (Ephesians 4:11-16). The movement thus lacks the promise which the
Biblical Baptist congregation possesses—that Christ would build up or edify His
church (Matthew 16:18).[18] As a result, error can take root firmly and
easily at Keswick as the movement is without the special protection that Christ
provides as Head of His congregation.
See here for this entire study.
[1] See further, e. g., the biographical studies in the
section “Keswick and Continuationism” below.
section “Keswick and Continuationism” below.
[2] British
Israelism, the view adopted by the Identity Movement, Aryan and Neo-Nazi
groups, the Ku Klux Klan, and cults such as anti-Trinitarian segregationist
Herbert W. Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God, teaches the following:
Israelism, the view adopted by the Identity Movement, Aryan and Neo-Nazi
groups, the Ku Klux Klan, and cults such as anti-Trinitarian segregationist
Herbert W. Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God, teaches the following:
[British Israelism is a]
fanciful theory which holds that Great Britain is really the Israelite tribe of
Ephraim, the United States is Manasseh, and the British throne is the throne of
David. British Israelism (B.I.) has constructed a theory, which it passes off
as history, that makes the British and American white populations direct
descendants of the Israelites from the dispersion period. . . . [A]rguments [in
its favor] are purely imaginary. . . . The entire theory of the ten lost tribes
is a myth also. According to B.I., the ten northern tribes were lost and were
not included in the regathering with Judah after the exile. But according to
Luke 2:36, Anna was of the northern tribe of Asher. In Acts 26:7 Paul mentions
the presence of “our twelve tribes,” indicating that none of them had been “lost.”
B.I. exhibits an arbitrary exegesis of Scripture married to a fairy-tale
tradition posing as history and has produced one of the most baseless and
absurd varieties of Bible study that the human mind has yet produced. (pgs. 70-71,
Dictionary
of Theological Terms, Alan
Cairns. Greenville, SC: Ambassador
Emerald International, 2002)
fanciful theory which holds that Great Britain is really the Israelite tribe of
Ephraim, the United States is Manasseh, and the British throne is the throne of
David. British Israelism (B.I.) has constructed a theory, which it passes off
as history, that makes the British and American white populations direct
descendants of the Israelites from the dispersion period. . . . [A]rguments [in
its favor] are purely imaginary. . . . The entire theory of the ten lost tribes
is a myth also. According to B.I., the ten northern tribes were lost and were
not included in the regathering with Judah after the exile. But according to
Luke 2:36, Anna was of the northern tribe of Asher. In Acts 26:7 Paul mentions
the presence of “our twelve tribes,” indicating that none of them had been “lost.”
B.I. exhibits an arbitrary exegesis of Scripture married to a fairy-tale
tradition posing as history and has produced one of the most baseless and
absurd varieties of Bible study that the human mind has yet produced. (pgs. 70-71,
Dictionary
of Theological Terms, Alan
Cairns. Greenville, SC: Ambassador
Emerald International, 2002)
[3] Pgs. 83, 134, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Note that early Pentecostal leaders from Charles Parham to George
Jeffryes similarly believed in British Israelism (See, e. g., pg. 253, The Making of the Modern Church:
Christianity in England since 1800, B. G. Worrall. London: SPCK, 1993; “Parham, Charles Fox,” in
Dictionary of Christianity in America,
Daniel G. Reid et al. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.).
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Note that early Pentecostal leaders from Charles Parham to George
Jeffryes similarly believed in British Israelism (See, e. g., pg. 253, The Making of the Modern Church:
Christianity in England since 1800, B. G. Worrall. London: SPCK, 1993; “Parham, Charles Fox,” in
Dictionary of Christianity in America,
Daniel G. Reid et al. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.).
[4] Pg. 137, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall; pg. 150, The Keswick Story: The
Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall; pg. 150, The Keswick Story: The
Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
[5] See pgs. 64-69, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[6] Pg. 117, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[7] Pg. 1568, The
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev.), F. L. Cross,
& E. A. Livingstone.
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev.), F. L. Cross,
& E. A. Livingstone.
[8] Pg. 647, Who’s Who
in Christian History, ed. J. Douglas & P. W. Comfort.
in Christian History, ed. J. Douglas & P. W. Comfort.
[9] Pg. 175, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[10] The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church notes:
Dictionary of the Christian Church notes:
[The] Church of the . . .
Agapemone . . . [was a] small 19th-cent. English sect. It was founded by Henry
James Prince (1811–99), who in 1840 was ordained as curate of Charlynch . . .
in Somerset. Together with his rector, Samuel Starky, he started a revivalist
movement which soon resulted in illusions of the grossest kind. Both left the
Church of England and began a ministry of their own, asserting that they were
the Holy Spirit personified, the Two Witnesses of Rev. 11, or Elijah. In 1849
they opened the “Agapemone” or “Abode of Love” in the village of Spaxton (in
Somerset), being amply supported by their followers, who believed Prince to be
a Divine being. The morals of the sect caused great scandal, and a trial in
1860 revealed the licentiousness of Prince and his followers. In the early
1890s the sect conducted a campaign in Clapton in NE London, calling themselves
the “Children of the Resurrection.” J. H. Smyth-Pigott, Prince’s successor in
the leadership, proclaimed himself to be Christ. The sect disappeared early in
the 20th century. (pg. 27, The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd rev. ed., Cross &
Livingstone)
Agapemone . . . [was a] small 19th-cent. English sect. It was founded by Henry
James Prince (1811–99), who in 1840 was ordained as curate of Charlynch . . .
in Somerset. Together with his rector, Samuel Starky, he started a revivalist
movement which soon resulted in illusions of the grossest kind. Both left the
Church of England and began a ministry of their own, asserting that they were
the Holy Spirit personified, the Two Witnesses of Rev. 11, or Elijah. In 1849
they opened the “Agapemone” or “Abode of Love” in the village of Spaxton (in
Somerset), being amply supported by their followers, who believed Prince to be
a Divine being. The morals of the sect caused great scandal, and a trial in
1860 revealed the licentiousness of Prince and his followers. In the early
1890s the sect conducted a campaign in Clapton in NE London, calling themselves
the “Children of the Resurrection.” J. H. Smyth-Pigott, Prince’s successor in
the leadership, proclaimed himself to be Christ. The sect disappeared early in
the 20th century. (pg. 27, The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd rev. ed., Cross &
Livingstone)
Likewise, the New International Dictionary of the
Christian Church records:
Christian Church records:
Agapemonism
[was a] religious movement founded by Henry James Prince (1811–99), an
evangelical perfectionist. Ordained in 1840, Prince became a curate first in
the Bath and Wells diocese and later in the diocese of Ely. Both bishops
inhibited him. It was probably in 1843 that he began to make extravagant
statements which gave the impression that he was claiming to be in some sense
an incarnation of God. A community was formed at Spaxton where a magnificent
residence was acquired and called Agapemone (Abode of Love). Prince declared
that community of goods was binding upon believers, and numerous devotees
handed over their property to him. The legal case Nottidge v. Prince
revealed grave disorders, and the movement was generally discredited, though
Prince and a number of followers continued to live in the Agapemone. In the
1890s the movement enjoyed a revival under J.H. Smyth-Pigott, formerly a curate
of St. Jude’s, Mildmay Park. Calling themselves “Children of the Resurrection,”
his followers built a meeting place known as the “Ark of the Resurrection.” In
1902 Smyth-Pigott proclaimed himself to be Jesus Christ, and the movement lost
its vogue. Some of Prince’s writings breathe a spirit of devotion to Christ,
but they are marred by an erotic element. Regarding himself and Samuel Starky,
his former Somerset rector, as the two witnesses of Revelation 11, Prince
proclaimed the doom of Christendom, for example in The Council of God in Judgment. (“Agapemonism,” in The New International Dictionary of the
Christian Church, gen. ed. J. D. Douglas)
[was a] religious movement founded by Henry James Prince (1811–99), an
evangelical perfectionist. Ordained in 1840, Prince became a curate first in
the Bath and Wells diocese and later in the diocese of Ely. Both bishops
inhibited him. It was probably in 1843 that he began to make extravagant
statements which gave the impression that he was claiming to be in some sense
an incarnation of God. A community was formed at Spaxton where a magnificent
residence was acquired and called Agapemone (Abode of Love). Prince declared
that community of goods was binding upon believers, and numerous devotees
handed over their property to him. The legal case Nottidge v. Prince
revealed grave disorders, and the movement was generally discredited, though
Prince and a number of followers continued to live in the Agapemone. In the
1890s the movement enjoyed a revival under J.H. Smyth-Pigott, formerly a curate
of St. Jude’s, Mildmay Park. Calling themselves “Children of the Resurrection,”
his followers built a meeting place known as the “Ark of the Resurrection.” In
1902 Smyth-Pigott proclaimed himself to be Jesus Christ, and the movement lost
its vogue. Some of Prince’s writings breathe a spirit of devotion to Christ,
but they are marred by an erotic element. Regarding himself and Samuel Starky,
his former Somerset rector, as the two witnesses of Revelation 11, Prince
proclaimed the doom of Christendom, for example in The Council of God in Judgment. (“Agapemonism,” in The New International Dictionary of the
Christian Church, gen. ed. J. D. Douglas)
Since
Oliphant and Smyth-Pigott held Holiness missions together, one would expect the
presence of the Agapemonite sect’s erotic elements (which included “spiritual”
wives with whom very physical immorality was committed). The Agapemonites also supported many other
shameful and unspeakable abominations (pg. 68, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck; cf. “Agapemone,”
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/453-agapemone).
Oliphant and Smyth-Pigott held Holiness missions together, one would expect the
presence of the Agapemonite sect’s erotic elements (which included “spiritual”
wives with whom very physical immorality was committed). The Agapemonites also supported many other
shameful and unspeakable abominations (pg. 68, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck; cf. “Agapemone,”
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/453-agapemone).
[11] Pgs. 71-72, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Charles Harford later renounced Smyth-Piggot perfectionism.
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Charles Harford later renounced Smyth-Piggot perfectionism.
[12] Pg. 79, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall; pg. 130, The Keswick Story: The
Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall; pg. 130, The Keswick Story: The
Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
[13] Pgs. 251-2, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[14] Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 5:11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1;
2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14; 2 Timothy 3:5.
2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14; 2 Timothy 3:5.
[15] Pg. 35, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[16] For example, Barabas records that Keswick’s influence on
H. W. Webb-Peploe’s congregation resulted in their increasing ten-fold their
contributions to the Anglican Church Missionary Society, where Webb-Peploe was
a Committee member. Barabas fails to
mention that the Society supported both charismatics and men who preached and
associated with a sacramental false gospel and other soul-damning heresies (cf.
pg. 165, So Great Salvation, Barabas;
pg. 11, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick
Convention, Polluck pg. 158, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall).
The natural, Biblical expectation mentioned by Barabas that “the Church
Missionary Society would get no more out of that church ‘now that a revivalist
had come,’” was, unfortunately, disappointed.
Rather, “the C. M. S. . . . [was among] the earliest [societies] to
recognize Keswick’s value” (pg. 85, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck).
Webb-Peploe had been associated with the Higher Life and Keswick
theology from the time of its founding at the first Broadlands Conference (pg. 148, Memorials [of William Francis
Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890; but see pg. 29, Forward Movements, Pierson).
H. W. Webb-Peploe’s congregation resulted in their increasing ten-fold their
contributions to the Anglican Church Missionary Society, where Webb-Peploe was
a Committee member. Barabas fails to
mention that the Society supported both charismatics and men who preached and
associated with a sacramental false gospel and other soul-damning heresies (cf.
pg. 165, So Great Salvation, Barabas;
pg. 11, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick
Convention, Polluck pg. 158, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall).
The natural, Biblical expectation mentioned by Barabas that “the Church
Missionary Society would get no more out of that church ‘now that a revivalist
had come,’” was, unfortunately, disappointed.
Rather, “the C. M. S. . . . [was among] the earliest [societies] to
recognize Keswick’s value” (pg. 85, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck).
Webb-Peploe had been associated with the Higher Life and Keswick
theology from the time of its founding at the first Broadlands Conference (pg. 148, Memorials [of William Francis
Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890; but see pg. 29, Forward Movements, Pierson).
[17] Compare pgs. 1-10, Heaven
Only For the Baptized? The Gospel of Christ versus Baptismal Regeneration
and “Were the Reformers Heretics?” by Thomas Ross. Elec. acc. http://faithsaves.net.
Only For the Baptized? The Gospel of Christ versus Baptismal Regeneration
and “Were the Reformers Heretics?” by Thomas Ross. Elec. acc. http://faithsaves.net.
[18] The defender of Keswick ecumenicalism can appeal in vain
to the alleged command of Christ for unity within the universal church, for
such an entity is itself another error and false doctrine Protestantism has taken
from its corrupt Roman Catholic fountain.
For representative refutations of the universal church dogma, see Ecclesia, B. H. Carroll (Emmaus, PA:
Challenge Press, n. d. reprint ed.; The Myth of the Universal, Invisible Church
Theory Exploded, Roy Mason (Emmaus, PA: Challenge Press, 2003) & Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine, Robert
Sargent, Vol. 4 (Oak Harbor, WA: Bible Baptist Church Publications,
1990), pgs. 481-542. Erroneous
ecclesiology also leads the Keswick theology into an erroneous view of the connection
of Spirit baptism and sanctification (cf. the exegetical analysis in the
chapter, “Spirit Baptism: A Completed Historical Event. An Exposition and
Defense of the Historic Baptist View of Spirit Baptism”).
to the alleged command of Christ for unity within the universal church, for
such an entity is itself another error and false doctrine Protestantism has taken
from its corrupt Roman Catholic fountain.
For representative refutations of the universal church dogma, see Ecclesia, B. H. Carroll (Emmaus, PA:
Challenge Press, n. d. reprint ed.; The Myth of the Universal, Invisible Church
Theory Exploded, Roy Mason (Emmaus, PA: Challenge Press, 2003) & Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine, Robert
Sargent, Vol. 4 (Oak Harbor, WA: Bible Baptist Church Publications,
1990), pgs. 481-542. Erroneous
ecclesiology also leads the Keswick theology into an erroneous view of the connection
of Spirit baptism and sanctification (cf. the exegetical analysis in the
chapter, “Spirit Baptism: A Completed Historical Event. An Exposition and
Defense of the Historic Baptist View of Spirit Baptism”).
Keswick’s Errors: Ecumenicalism & Summary of Other Errors, in an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 1 of 17
Keswick
theology has severe problems. These
problems are natural in light of Keswick’s corrupt roots. Keswick’s errors and heresies include its
ecumenicalism, its theological shallowness or even incomprehensibility, its
downplaying of the role of God’s Word in sanctification, its distaste for
careful exegetical and systematic theology and the Biblical dogmatics arising
from such theology, its allegorical hermeneutical methods and exegetical
fallacies, its shallow views of sin, and its perfectionism. Furthermore, Keswick supports certain
Pelagian or semi-Pelagian positions, improperly divorces justification and
sanctification, is confused about the nature of saving repentance, denies that
God’s sanctifying grace always frees Christians from bondage to sin and changes
them, and fails to warn strongly about the possibility of those who are
professedly Christians being unregenerate.
Keswick likewise supports an unbiblical pneumatology, supports
continuationism as opposed to cessationism, advances significant exegetical
errors, distorts the positions and critiques of opponents of the errors of the
Higher Life movement, misrepresents the role of faith in sanctification,
supports Quietism, and denies that God actually renews the nature of believers
to make them less sinful and more personally holy. Keswick’s grievous errors and heresies should
have no place in any Christian’s life.
theology has severe problems. These
problems are natural in light of Keswick’s corrupt roots. Keswick’s errors and heresies include its
ecumenicalism, its theological shallowness or even incomprehensibility, its
downplaying of the role of God’s Word in sanctification, its distaste for
careful exegetical and systematic theology and the Biblical dogmatics arising
from such theology, its allegorical hermeneutical methods and exegetical
fallacies, its shallow views of sin, and its perfectionism. Furthermore, Keswick supports certain
Pelagian or semi-Pelagian positions, improperly divorces justification and
sanctification, is confused about the nature of saving repentance, denies that
God’s sanctifying grace always frees Christians from bondage to sin and changes
them, and fails to warn strongly about the possibility of those who are
professedly Christians being unregenerate.
Keswick likewise supports an unbiblical pneumatology, supports
continuationism as opposed to cessationism, advances significant exegetical
errors, distorts the positions and critiques of opponents of the errors of the
Higher Life movement, misrepresents the role of faith in sanctification,
supports Quietism, and denies that God actually renews the nature of believers
to make them less sinful and more personally holy. Keswick’s grievous errors and heresies should
have no place in any Christian’s life.
The Keswick
Convention intentionally “stands for no particular brand of denominational
theology. It could not, and have on its
platform men of many different denominational affiliations.”[1] There is an (alleged) “ecumenical value of
Keswick . . . gathering together as it has done men and women of . . . almost
all Protestant denominations,”[2]
for “denominational differences are put aside as of little importance in
comparison with what all Christians hold in common. The motto of the Convention is, ‘ALL ONE IN
CHRIST JESUS.’”[3] Following the great desire of Lord
Mount-Temple and his associates to unite heresy, apostasy, and orthodoxy in a
melting pot of ecumenical spirituality,[4]
the Broadlands, Oxford, Brighton, and Keswick Conventions fulfilled the wishes
of their ecumenical founders.[5] Therefore, at Keswick, “men . . . forget
their religious differences . . . [and the conflict] of creeds . . . [and] of
sects,” so that “Keswick has . . . no[t] weakened any of the old . . .
denomination[s.] . . . Its aim has been to send back Church members . . . to
their old circles.”[6] Keswick united Anglicans with their
sacramentalism, Quakers with their false gospel, Lutherans with their baptismal
regeneration, and many other religious organizations and individuals of “almost
every shade of religious opinion.”[7] Keswick accepted the Broadlands idea that
“[i]t is not our creed, but our conduct, that proclaims what our life is.”[8] The Keswick Convention consequently brings
together “ministers of all denominations,” uniting “High Churchmen and Low
Churchmen,” despite the damnable sacramental heresies of High Church
Anglicanism, and in this union spiritual wolves and sheep discover that “the
things on which they honestly differ are as nothing[.]” Keswick wishes to “hasten that day” when the
Anglican “Church and Dissent join hands” and “reunion is an established fact.”[9] The piety of Keswick is such that “the
dividing-lines between church and church are forgotten.”[10] Indeed, Keswick founder Canon
Harford-Battersby’s goal was “the Re-union of the Churches . . . bringing
together on a common basis members of all Christian churches,”[11]
a goal which shall be fulfilled in the one-world religious system centered in
Rome and described by the Apostle John as “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF
HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” (Revelation 17:5). Keswick follows the pattern of Robert and
Hannah Smith’s “preaching[,] [which] was not sectarian; they led no exodus from
any of the Churches, but taught only the need for the Higher Life.”[12] Robert Smith “presented himself as an unattached teacher, who would
fain serve all denominations alike.”[13] He would not visit a city and proclaim the
Higher Life without broad and ecumenical support.[14] He declared:
“I am not aware of a single instance in which these [Higher Life]
meetings have led Christian persons to change their denominational connection.”[15] On the contrary, he affirmed: “I have reason to believe that hundreds have
been saved by . . . this line of teaching . . . from temptation to change . . .
their ecclesiastical connections.”[16] After years of Keswick Conventions, its
leaders could boast that their “movement, so far as is known, never
resulted in a change of the Church connection of a single individual from that
in which it found him.”[17]
Keswick consciously and strongly embraced the teaching of the Broadlands
Conference that “a desire to proselytize . . . is entirely opposed to the
spirit and teaching of Jesus.”[18] Keswick maintained the passionate
ecumenicalism of its founders and early leaders.
Convention intentionally “stands for no particular brand of denominational
theology. It could not, and have on its
platform men of many different denominational affiliations.”[1] There is an (alleged) “ecumenical value of
Keswick . . . gathering together as it has done men and women of . . . almost
all Protestant denominations,”[2]
for “denominational differences are put aside as of little importance in
comparison with what all Christians hold in common. The motto of the Convention is, ‘ALL ONE IN
CHRIST JESUS.’”[3] Following the great desire of Lord
Mount-Temple and his associates to unite heresy, apostasy, and orthodoxy in a
melting pot of ecumenical spirituality,[4]
the Broadlands, Oxford, Brighton, and Keswick Conventions fulfilled the wishes
of their ecumenical founders.[5] Therefore, at Keswick, “men . . . forget
their religious differences . . . [and the conflict] of creeds . . . [and] of
sects,” so that “Keswick has . . . no[t] weakened any of the old . . .
denomination[s.] . . . Its aim has been to send back Church members . . . to
their old circles.”[6] Keswick united Anglicans with their
sacramentalism, Quakers with their false gospel, Lutherans with their baptismal
regeneration, and many other religious organizations and individuals of “almost
every shade of religious opinion.”[7] Keswick accepted the Broadlands idea that
“[i]t is not our creed, but our conduct, that proclaims what our life is.”[8] The Keswick Convention consequently brings
together “ministers of all denominations,” uniting “High Churchmen and Low
Churchmen,” despite the damnable sacramental heresies of High Church
Anglicanism, and in this union spiritual wolves and sheep discover that “the
things on which they honestly differ are as nothing[.]” Keswick wishes to “hasten that day” when the
Anglican “Church and Dissent join hands” and “reunion is an established fact.”[9] The piety of Keswick is such that “the
dividing-lines between church and church are forgotten.”[10] Indeed, Keswick founder Canon
Harford-Battersby’s goal was “the Re-union of the Churches . . . bringing
together on a common basis members of all Christian churches,”[11]
a goal which shall be fulfilled in the one-world religious system centered in
Rome and described by the Apostle John as “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF
HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” (Revelation 17:5). Keswick follows the pattern of Robert and
Hannah Smith’s “preaching[,] [which] was not sectarian; they led no exodus from
any of the Churches, but taught only the need for the Higher Life.”[12] Robert Smith “presented himself as an unattached teacher, who would
fain serve all denominations alike.”[13] He would not visit a city and proclaim the
Higher Life without broad and ecumenical support.[14] He declared:
“I am not aware of a single instance in which these [Higher Life]
meetings have led Christian persons to change their denominational connection.”[15] On the contrary, he affirmed: “I have reason to believe that hundreds have
been saved by . . . this line of teaching . . . from temptation to change . . .
their ecclesiastical connections.”[16] After years of Keswick Conventions, its
leaders could boast that their “movement, so far as is known, never
resulted in a change of the Church connection of a single individual from that
in which it found him.”[17]
Keswick consciously and strongly embraced the teaching of the Broadlands
Conference that “a desire to proselytize . . . is entirely opposed to the
spirit and teaching of Jesus.”[18] Keswick maintained the passionate
ecumenicalism of its founders and early leaders.
The doctrinal confusion that results from Keswick ecumenicalism has
plagued the Convention from the time of its founding until modern times. As at
Broadlands a “great variety of spheres of thought were admitted for
consideration, and wide and progressive views were presented and listened to,”[19]
so at Keswick theological liberalism and apostasy were presented and listened
to. For example, following the steps of
Hannah W. Smith in the rejection of eternal torment, George Grubb, a key
Keswick leader from the 1880s onward, denied hell in favor of annihilationism
or conditional immortality.[20] In 1899 Grubb was the first Keswick leader
sent out to bring the Higher Life message to the world. He was an effective speaker; Keswick theology
and annihilationism arose everywhere he went.[21] In response to the annihilationism of Grubb
and other Keswick missioners such as Gelson Gregson, Keswick co-founder Robert
Wilson declared: “If Keswick won’t own
those whom the Lord does—Grubb, Moore, Gregson, etc., where are we? High and very
dry I fear?” In response to a query by a
lady Keswick missionary who held to annihilationism, “John Battersby Harford, as honorary
secretary of the Keswick Missionary Council, insisted . . . that there was no
official Keswick opinion about whether conditional immortality was true or
false.”[22] Rejecting what Jesus Christ plainly taught
about hell (Mark 9:43-48) was acceptable at Keswick.
plagued the Convention from the time of its founding until modern times. As at
Broadlands a “great variety of spheres of thought were admitted for
consideration, and wide and progressive views were presented and listened to,”[19]
so at Keswick theological liberalism and apostasy were presented and listened
to. For example, following the steps of
Hannah W. Smith in the rejection of eternal torment, George Grubb, a key
Keswick leader from the 1880s onward, denied hell in favor of annihilationism
or conditional immortality.[20] In 1899 Grubb was the first Keswick leader
sent out to bring the Higher Life message to the world. He was an effective speaker; Keswick theology
and annihilationism arose everywhere he went.[21] In response to the annihilationism of Grubb
and other Keswick missioners such as Gelson Gregson, Keswick co-founder Robert
Wilson declared: “If Keswick won’t own
those whom the Lord does—Grubb, Moore, Gregson, etc., where are we? High and very
dry I fear?” In response to a query by a
lady Keswick missionary who held to annihilationism, “John Battersby Harford, as honorary
secretary of the Keswick Missionary Council, insisted . . . that there was no
official Keswick opinion about whether conditional immortality was true or
false.”[22] Rejecting what Jesus Christ plainly taught
about hell (Mark 9:43-48) was acceptable at Keswick.
Thus, Grubb “traveled extensively in . . . [spreading the] ministry [of]
. . . the Keswick message,” being among a select number chosen by Keswick to
spread the Higher Life “far afield” to countries such as “Australia, Canada, .
. . India and the Far East . . . the United States . . . and other lands.”[23] Indeed, Grubb “was the first to be sent
abroad as a ‘Keswick deputation’ speaker—a most fruitful aspect of the
Convention’s ministry . . . Mr. Grubb traveled widely as an ‘ambassador at
large’ of Keswick and was greatly used . . . especially in India, Ceylon and
Australia . . . his . . . ‘return home’ visits to Keswick . . . invariably had
a stimulating effect,” his messages making a “profound impression,” so that he
was among the “most renowned . . . [and] most distinguished exponents” of the
Keswick theology.[24] At his worldwide Keswick venues Grubb
promoted his heresies, from annihilationism to the Broadlands Conference
doctrine[25]
that people could make Jesus Christ return more quickly,[26]
while exemplifying Keswick ecumenicalism by “cross[ing] the oceans”
specifically to “conduct a mission” for the “extreme high church Bishop of Cape
Town.”[27] Grubb similarly spread the Higher Life
doctrine of a post-conversion Spirit baptism at Keswick in England and
worldwide,[28]
being Keswick’s “important influence . . . [and] advocate in the 1890s of the
baptism of the Spirit,”[29]
as well as “drawing particular attention to th[e] subject [of] . . . [h]ealing
. . . at Keswick . . . influences [that] were to find their way into
Pentecostalism in Britain and North America.”[30]
. . . the Keswick message,” being among a select number chosen by Keswick to
spread the Higher Life “far afield” to countries such as “Australia, Canada, .
. . India and the Far East . . . the United States . . . and other lands.”[23] Indeed, Grubb “was the first to be sent
abroad as a ‘Keswick deputation’ speaker—a most fruitful aspect of the
Convention’s ministry . . . Mr. Grubb traveled widely as an ‘ambassador at
large’ of Keswick and was greatly used . . . especially in India, Ceylon and
Australia . . . his . . . ‘return home’ visits to Keswick . . . invariably had
a stimulating effect,” his messages making a “profound impression,” so that he
was among the “most renowned . . . [and] most distinguished exponents” of the
Keswick theology.[24] At his worldwide Keswick venues Grubb
promoted his heresies, from annihilationism to the Broadlands Conference
doctrine[25]
that people could make Jesus Christ return more quickly,[26]
while exemplifying Keswick ecumenicalism by “cross[ing] the oceans”
specifically to “conduct a mission” for the “extreme high church Bishop of Cape
Town.”[27] Grubb similarly spread the Higher Life
doctrine of a post-conversion Spirit baptism at Keswick in England and
worldwide,[28]
being Keswick’s “important influence . . . [and] advocate in the 1890s of the
baptism of the Spirit,”[29]
as well as “drawing particular attention to th[e] subject [of] . . . [h]ealing
. . . at Keswick . . . influences [that] were to find their way into
Pentecostalism in Britain and North America.”[30]
See here for this entire study.
[1] Pg. 29, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[2] Pg. 9, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
Salvation, Barabas.
[3] Pg. 186, So Great
Salvation, Barabas. Similarly, at
the Keswick-type Swanwick conferences led by Jessie Penn-Lewis, “[m]inisters of
many denominations, lay workers, and spiritual teachers” came together around
Keswick and mystical theology “in one spirit, and without controversy over
divergent points of view” (pg. 276, Mrs.
Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N.
Garrard; cf. pgs. 299-301). Visions were
seen and expounded at such conferences, in accordance with the continuationism
of the participants (e. g., pgs. 118-119, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall).
Salvation, Barabas. Similarly, at
the Keswick-type Swanwick conferences led by Jessie Penn-Lewis, “[m]inisters of
many denominations, lay workers, and spiritual teachers” came together around
Keswick and mystical theology “in one spirit, and without controversy over
divergent points of view” (pg. 276, Mrs.
Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N.
Garrard; cf. pgs. 299-301). Visions were
seen and expounded at such conferences, in accordance with the continuationism
of the participants (e. g., pgs. 118-119, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall).
[4] Pg.
134, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron
Mount-Temple],
Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
134, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron
Mount-Temple],
Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
[5] Pg. 119, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890.
Thus,
for example, at Broadlands “all shades of religious opinion” were present (pg. 139, Memorials [of William Francis
Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890); at the Oxford Convention “High Churchmen and Low
Churchmen sat side by side; and Nonconformist ministers [joined them,] [a]ll
united in prayer[.] . . . It was surely a reason for praise to God that so many
Christians, differing strongly on important subjects, should listen . . . [to
the Higher Life] addresses on Holiness [by men including] Mr. R. Pearsall Smith
[and] W. E. Boardman” (pg. 119, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874). Those of “the Society of Friends . . .
Episcopalians . . . Presbyterians . . . Methodists . . . Congregationalists . .
. Baptist[s] . . . Wesleyan[s],” and others all joined together in ecumenical
unity (pgs. 262-263, 342; cf. 177-178).
Oxford ministers also recognized the value of Western and Eastern
Catholicism; they proclaimed: “Many of
the [Russian Orthodox] priests are believers, and are circulating the Word of
God” (pg. 230). One minister testified: “I was converted through the instrumentality
of a monk” (pg. 191). Those who believed
in the corrupt sacramental gospel of the Anglican High Church movement did not
come under conviction and see their need to receive the true gospel; rather,
they went away “comforted, consoled, peaceful, [and] joyful” in their false
gospel (pg. 362).
Printed for private circulation, 1890.
Thus,
for example, at Broadlands “all shades of religious opinion” were present (pg. 139, Memorials [of William Francis
Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London:
Printed for private circulation, 1890); at the Oxford Convention “High Churchmen and Low
Churchmen sat side by side; and Nonconformist ministers [joined them,] [a]ll
united in prayer[.] . . . It was surely a reason for praise to God that so many
Christians, differing strongly on important subjects, should listen . . . [to
the Higher Life] addresses on Holiness [by men including] Mr. R. Pearsall Smith
[and] W. E. Boardman” (pg. 119, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874). Those of “the Society of Friends . . .
Episcopalians . . . Presbyterians . . . Methodists . . . Congregationalists . .
. Baptist[s] . . . Wesleyan[s],” and others all joined together in ecumenical
unity (pgs. 262-263, 342; cf. 177-178).
Oxford ministers also recognized the value of Western and Eastern
Catholicism; they proclaimed: “Many of
the [Russian Orthodox] priests are believers, and are circulating the Word of
God” (pg. 230). One minister testified: “I was converted through the instrumentality
of a monk” (pg. 191). Those who believed
in the corrupt sacramental gospel of the Anglican High Church movement did not
come under conviction and see their need to receive the true gospel; rather,
they went away “comforted, consoled, peaceful, [and] joyful” in their false
gospel (pg. 362).
[6] Pg. 176, The
Keswick Convention: Its Message, its
Method, and its Men, ed. Harford.
Keswick Convention: Its Message, its
Method, and its Men, ed. Harford.
[7] Pgs. 10, 427, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held
at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W.
J. Smith, 1875.
at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W.
J. Smith, 1875.
[8] Pg.
184, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences,
Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. For Broadlands and Keswick, creed and conduct
were to be set against each other. For Scripture
and in true spirituality, creed and conduct mutually reinforce one other in
evaluating the presence or strength of spiritual life.
184, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences,
Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. For Broadlands and Keswick, creed and conduct
were to be set against each other. For Scripture
and in true spirituality, creed and conduct mutually reinforce one other in
evaluating the presence or strength of spiritual life.
The
rise of the “People’s Church” movement, which through the influence of the
Brighton Convention rejected historical Christianity for a Higher Life
agnosticism, illustrates where the unscriptural Keswick disjunction between
creed and conduct can lead:
rise of the “People’s Church” movement, which through the influence of the
Brighton Convention rejected historical Christianity for a Higher Life
agnosticism, illustrates where the unscriptural Keswick disjunction between
creed and conduct can lead:
[T]he Oxford-Brighton movement was . . . the means of
forwarding the agnostic ‘Peoples’ Church’ through an attendant at Brighton,
who, in a joyous sense of a yielded will, and full trust, feeling the force of
the historical difficulties in Christianity, tho [sic] he seemed as earnest, sincere, consecrated and true in heart
as ever, felt led with the same sort of personal devotion to making a church
for the large class of morally good men among the working classes whom he found
seemingly incapable of Christian faith, in its historical sense, and he formed
congregations out of such. (pg. 20, Forward
Movements, Pierson)
forwarding the agnostic ‘Peoples’ Church’ through an attendant at Brighton,
who, in a joyous sense of a yielded will, and full trust, feeling the force of
the historical difficulties in Christianity, tho [sic] he seemed as earnest, sincere, consecrated and true in heart
as ever, felt led with the same sort of personal devotion to making a church
for the large class of morally good men among the working classes whom he found
seemingly incapable of Christian faith, in its historical sense, and he formed
congregations out of such. (pg. 20, Forward
Movements, Pierson)
[9] Pg. 191, The
Keswick Convention: Its Message, its
Method, and its Men, ed. Harford.
Keswick Convention: Its Message, its
Method, and its Men, ed. Harford.
[10] Pg. 177, pg. 11, Evan
Harry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander
Smellie.
Harry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander
Smellie.
[11] Pg. 221, Memoir of
T. D. Harford-Battersby, Harford.
T. D. Harford-Battersby, Harford.
[12] Pg. 13, Religious
Fanaticism, Strachey.
Fanaticism, Strachey.
[13] “The Higher Life Movement,” Chapter 4 in Perfectionism, Vol. 2, B. B. Warfield.
[14] Pg. 432, pg. 12, 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 Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th,
1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
[15] Pg. 432, 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.
[16] Pg. 185, Account
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford,
August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
[17] Pg.
19, Forward Movements of the Last Half
Century, Arthur T. Pierson. New
York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls,
1900. The importance to Pierson of this
ecumenical anti-separatism as one of the merits of Keswick was such that he
emphasized it again on pg. 41; a “conspicuous result” of attendance at “Keswick
meetings” was for people to “incline to stay where they are, ecclesiastically,”
even in denominations with a “dead and formal service”; “no man or woman ever
yet being known, through its influence or under its teaching, to leave one
communion for another” (pg. 41, Ibid).
19, Forward Movements of the Last Half
Century, Arthur T. Pierson. New
York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls,
1900. The importance to Pierson of this
ecumenical anti-separatism as one of the merits of Keswick was such that he
emphasized it again on pg. 41; a “conspicuous result” of attendance at “Keswick
meetings” was for people to “incline to stay where they are, ecclesiastically,”
even in denominations with a “dead and formal service”; “no man or woman ever
yet being known, through its influence or under its teaching, to leave one
communion for another” (pg. 41, Ibid).
[18] Pg.
150, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences,
Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
150, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences,
Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
[19] Pg.
18, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences,
Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
18, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences,
Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
[20] Pgs. 88-97, The
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Keswick Story: The Authorized History of
the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
[21] Pg. 110, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[22] Pgs. 113-114, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Italics reproduced from the original.
After all, as an authorized statement of Keswick declares, “Conditional
Immortality . . . [is] a doctrine . . . lying in that doctrinal limbo where
revelation grants no sharp outlines . . . not . . . clearly heterodox. The matter lay rather within the scope of
private judgment” (pg. 95, The Keswick
Story: The Authorized History of the
Keswick Convention, Polluck). God’s
Word states that the lost “shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which
is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be
tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in
the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever
and ever: and they have no rest day nor night” (Revelation 14:9-11); but, for
Keswick, such texts are not clear. Who
can tell from such a passage whether “tormented with fire and brimstone . . .
for ever and ever . . . no rest day nor night” means the lost are tormented
with fire and brimstone for ever and ever, and have no rest day nor night, or
whether they are annihilated, so that they are never tormented with fire and
brimstone, but rest peacefully day and night?
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Italics reproduced from the original.
After all, as an authorized statement of Keswick declares, “Conditional
Immortality . . . [is] a doctrine . . . lying in that doctrinal limbo where
revelation grants no sharp outlines . . . not . . . clearly heterodox. The matter lay rather within the scope of
private judgment” (pg. 95, The Keswick
Story: The Authorized History of the
Keswick Convention, Polluck). God’s
Word states that the lost “shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which
is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be
tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in
the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever
and ever: and they have no rest day nor night” (Revelation 14:9-11); but, for
Keswick, such texts are not clear. Who
can tell from such a passage whether “tormented with fire and brimstone . . .
for ever and ever . . . no rest day nor night” means the lost are tormented
with fire and brimstone for ever and ever, and have no rest day nor night, or
whether they are annihilated, so that they are never tormented with fire and
brimstone, but rest peacefully day and night?
[23] Pg. 21, Keswick’s
Authentic Voice, ed. Stevenson.
Authentic Voice, ed. Stevenson.
[24] Pgs. 249, 17, Keswick’s Authentic Voice, ed. Stevenson. See pg.
141, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and
Future, Price & Randall, for the Keswick connection of George Grubb’s
nephew Norman.
141, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and
Future, Price & Randall, for the Keswick connection of George Grubb’s
nephew Norman.
[25] E.
g., those who adopted Broadlands’ doctrine could “hasten . . . the coming of
the kingdom of God” (pg. 269, The Life
that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of
the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910; the teaching of Broadlands included
hastening both the current and eschatological aspects of the kingdom, hastening
it “in any and every way.”).
g., those who adopted Broadlands’ doctrine could “hasten . . . the coming of
the kingdom of God” (pg. 269, The Life
that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of
the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London:
James Nisbet & Co, 1910; the teaching of Broadlands included
hastening both the current and eschatological aspects of the kingdom, hastening
it “in any and every way.”).
[26] Pg. 247, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
This teaching of the Broadlands Conference was also promoted by other
Keswick leaders such as Jessie Penn-Lewis. (See pg. 181, The Overcomer, December 1913.)
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
This teaching of the Broadlands Conference was also promoted by other
Keswick leaders such as Jessie Penn-Lewis. (See pg. 181, The Overcomer, December 1913.)
[27] Pg. 90, The Keswick
Story: The Authorized History of the
Keswick Convention, Polluck.
Story: The Authorized History of the
Keswick Convention, Polluck.
[28] Pgs. 51-52, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[29] Pg. 76, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[30] Pg. 178, Transforming
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past,
Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
Hillary Clinton, Legal Relativism, and the Church
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Hillary Clinton felony violated that federal law. In the words of Andrew C. McCarthy:
With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.
Here’s the applicable statement from FBI director James B. Comey:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
You will notice that the law says nothing about intent. This does not mean, of course, that a prosecutor could not have proven intent. I believe intent would have been easy to prove in this case. Why did Hillary Clinton have a private server? She needed to be able to cover for illegal activities — that is very easy to see. However, the law doesn’t require a demonstration of intent. Yet, Comey says, “we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton…intended to violate laws.”
Comey did say there is evidence Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless in [her] handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” the very definition of “gross negligence.” Concerning what Comey was doing, Andrew McCarthy again writes:
It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.
Comey set up “intent” as a straw man, one not necessary to convict Hillary Clinton of a felony.
Since Comey came down with his explanation of the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton, as would be expected, most of her supporters are happy. One, they are a crowd of people who do not care if she violated the law or threatened the security of the United States. Two, they can take laws and make them mean whatever they want them to mean. This system of interpretation has been called “loose constructionism,” a fruit of progressivism and postmodernism.
Institutionally, the United States has departed from God, and, therefore, absolute truth. Beyond saying anything is right or wrong anymore, this nation cannot say what anything means. The naturalist believes only nature, matter in motion, exists without God, so is also left without an explanation for the laws of logic.
My family and I went whitewater rafting today on the Colorado River, and while we floated through the canyon along highway 70, our guide explained how that the river wore this ravine over a period of 15,000 years. Our family met that comment with silence. For one, I knew that naturalists say more like 15 million years, so I was laughing to myself about the 15,000 versus 15,000,000. I asked him where all the sediment went from all of these deep caverns, and he said it went to Lake Powell. I asked and exclaimed, “All of it went into that one lake? Wow!” He wasn’t sure on that question. What I’m saying is that people can make up whatever they want when they are naturalists.
Without assuming the existence of the laws of logic, no one has any meaningful way of communicating, reasoning, or proving anything. Words mean whatever is convenient for whatever preference someone wants to take. In the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Richard A. Epstein writes in his “Linguistic Relativism and the Decline of the Rule of Law”:
Both the narrow and broad conceptions of the rule of law presuppose that the tools of ordinary language are powerful enough to allow judges and scholars to formulate legal rules that make implementing the rule of law possible. Unfortunately, many scholars despair that the tools of textual analysis are not strong enough to meet the persistent challenges of the linguistic skeptic.
How or why did this change? Epstein later in the same article gives some examples of how or why the change:
[T]he writers in the progressive tradition (who first ushered in and then defended the Court’s New Deal jurisprudence) [took] the general position that . . . key constitutional words [were] deeply plastic and filled with inherent ambiguity. . . . [D]oubt paves the way for the rise of the Fourth Branch of Government—the independent administrative agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and the National Labor Relations Board—whose “duties,” Justice Sutherland said, “are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative,” without giving any idea as to how these novel terms map onto the constitutional structure. Once this degree of linguistic freedom is given, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to distill clear meanings from established texts whose meaning had once filtered through a set of shared historical experiences.
Linguistic relativism leads to legal relativism. Epstein continues:
So why then the legal relativism—that is, some notion that there are no independent grounds for preferring one outcome to another—which surfaces in different ways in different contexts? The simplest explanation is the best. Let a judge assume that there are fixed meanings to controversial terms, and the scope of judicial discretion in interpreting statutes or constitutional texts is necessarily limited. For progressive law professors . . . those linguistic straitjackets would reduce the opportunity to transform constitutional doctrine.
Now I want to go straight to my major point of this post. Conservatives decry the perversion of law through linguistic and then legal relativism. The uncertainty of language and then laws results in the sanction of illegal activity. The criminals play games with words and the law, like “it depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Evangelicals might say they hate the linguistic relativism. Do they?
God is One. His Word is One. The meaning is perspicuous. It’s plain. We do not have a linguistic excuse with ordinary meaning of the language of scripture. What has evangelicalism done?
Evangelicalism (and much of fundamentalism) plays Clintonian games with scripture in numbers of different ways. I could point you to several, but I want to focus on one: the new and unbiblical approach of essentials and non-essentials.
Intent is not found in the federal law violated by Hillary Clinton. Conservatives act like they can know that. It’s ordinary language. It’s really easy to understand “gross negligence” equal to Comey’s “extremely careless.” Any right thinking of ordinary language in the law know she is a felon.
How much more sad is the violation of God’s law than the violation of United States federal law? Evangelicals justify disobedience with their “essentials and non-essentials.” They assume that language cannot be understood. They make God unclear. To evangelicals, He is less clear than human law, federal law, therefore, their people are required only in a very short list of essentials. Most of what God has said has been reduced to non-essentials. The non-essentials are in there, but they don’t have to be kept. For all intents and purposes, even the conservative evangelicals are linguistic relativists.
Judgment must begin in the house of God. If we can’t obey God, His Word, in the church, why would we expect obedience to lesser laws? The doubt and uncertainty in the church justifies what’s happening in our nation. Our churches are full of spiritual criminals. Church leaders allow them to get away with it. They justify it with linguistic relativism that is not characteristic of the clarity of God.
Keswick’s Biblical Strengths: where Keswick is Correct, in an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 2 of 4
The necessity of
experiential communion with Jesus Christ through the Spirit by faith is also by
no means a Keswick distinctive. A host
of old evangelical theologians, such as the profoundly influential Puritan John
Owen (1616-1683) clearly proclaimed this glorious truth. Indeed, history demonstrates that, so far
from the necessity of communion with Christ being a Keswick distinctive,
Christians with a non-Higher Life theology of sanctification have preached and
written on the topic with a spiritual vigour that surpasses the productions of
the Keswick movement. Regretably, despite
the profound impact John Owen’s works have made on the Christian world’s
understanding of the doctrine of sanctification, and the importance many non-Keswick
evangelicals and historic Baptists place on his writings as a model of
non-Keswick Biblical piety, Stephen Barabas’s extensive bibliography in So Great Salvation does not include even
one work by John Owen. Not a single work
by Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, John Flavel, Horatius Bonar, Charles
Spurgeon, or many other classic writers on sanctification are listed either.[1] Since Owen’s writings have led many away from
Keswick theology to a more Biblical piety,[2]
they provide a good example of what the tradition of orthodox evangelical piety
that rejected Keswick after its invention had been teaching for centuries
before the rise of the Higher Life. Owen
wrote:
experiential communion with Jesus Christ through the Spirit by faith is also by
no means a Keswick distinctive. A host
of old evangelical theologians, such as the profoundly influential Puritan John
Owen (1616-1683) clearly proclaimed this glorious truth. Indeed, history demonstrates that, so far
from the necessity of communion with Christ being a Keswick distinctive,
Christians with a non-Higher Life theology of sanctification have preached and
written on the topic with a spiritual vigour that surpasses the productions of
the Keswick movement. Regretably, despite
the profound impact John Owen’s works have made on the Christian world’s
understanding of the doctrine of sanctification, and the importance many non-Keswick
evangelicals and historic Baptists place on his writings as a model of
non-Keswick Biblical piety, Stephen Barabas’s extensive bibliography in So Great Salvation does not include even
one work by John Owen. Not a single work
by Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, John Flavel, Horatius Bonar, Charles
Spurgeon, or many other classic writers on sanctification are listed either.[1] Since Owen’s writings have led many away from
Keswick theology to a more Biblical piety,[2]
they provide a good example of what the tradition of orthodox evangelical piety
that rejected Keswick after its invention had been teaching for centuries
before the rise of the Higher Life. Owen
wrote:
[Christians
ought to] make this observation of the lively actings of faith and love in and
towards Jesus Christ their chiefest concern in all their retirements, yea, in
their whole walk before God. . . . [T]he effects of his presence with us, and
the manifestation of himself unto us[,] [are as follows:]
ought to] make this observation of the lively actings of faith and love in and
towards Jesus Christ their chiefest concern in all their retirements, yea, in
their whole walk before God. . . . [T]he effects of his presence with us, and
the manifestation of himself unto us[,] [are as follows:]
(1.) Now the
first of these is the life, vigor, and effectual acting of all grace in us.
This is an inseparable consequent and effect of a view of his glory. Whilst we
enjoy it, we live; nevertheless not we, but Christ lives in us, exciting and
acting all his graces in us. This is that which the apostle instructs us in;
while “we behold his glory as in a glass, we are transformed into the same
image, from glory to glory,” 2 Corinthians 3:18—that is, whilst by faith we
contemplate on the glory of Christ as revealed in the gospel, all grace will
thrive and flourish in us towards a perfect conformity unto him. For whilst we
abide in this view and contemplation, our souls will be preserved in holy
frames, and in a continual exercise of love and delight, with all other
spiritual affections towards him. It is impossible, whilst Christ is in the eye
of our faith as proposed in the Gospel, but that we shall labor to be like him,
and greatly love him. Neither is there any way for us to attain unto either of
these, which are the great concernments of our souls—namely, to be like unto
Christ, and to love him—but by a constant view of him and his glory by faith;
which powerfully and effectually works them in us. All the doctrinal knowledge
which we have of him is useless, all the view we have of his glory is but
fancy, imagination, or superstition, which are not accompanied with this transforming
power. And that which is wrought by it, is the increase and vigor of all grace;
for therein alone our conformity unto him does consist. Growth in grace,
holiness, and obedience, is a growing like unto Christ; and nothing else is so.
. . .
first of these is the life, vigor, and effectual acting of all grace in us.
This is an inseparable consequent and effect of a view of his glory. Whilst we
enjoy it, we live; nevertheless not we, but Christ lives in us, exciting and
acting all his graces in us. This is that which the apostle instructs us in;
while “we behold his glory as in a glass, we are transformed into the same
image, from glory to glory,” 2 Corinthians 3:18—that is, whilst by faith we
contemplate on the glory of Christ as revealed in the gospel, all grace will
thrive and flourish in us towards a perfect conformity unto him. For whilst we
abide in this view and contemplation, our souls will be preserved in holy
frames, and in a continual exercise of love and delight, with all other
spiritual affections towards him. It is impossible, whilst Christ is in the eye
of our faith as proposed in the Gospel, but that we shall labor to be like him,
and greatly love him. Neither is there any way for us to attain unto either of
these, which are the great concernments of our souls—namely, to be like unto
Christ, and to love him—but by a constant view of him and his glory by faith;
which powerfully and effectually works them in us. All the doctrinal knowledge
which we have of him is useless, all the view we have of his glory is but
fancy, imagination, or superstition, which are not accompanied with this transforming
power. And that which is wrought by it, is the increase and vigor of all grace;
for therein alone our conformity unto him does consist. Growth in grace,
holiness, and obedience, is a growing like unto Christ; and nothing else is so.
. . .
This
transforming efficacy, from a spiritual view of Christ as proposed in the
Gospel . . . [is] the life of religion . . . there must be a view of Christ and
his glory, to cause us to love him, and thereby to make us conformable or like
unto him . . . [which] is by our beholding his glory by faith, as revealed in
the Gospel, and no otherwise. . . . [S]o, unto our stability in the profession
of the truth, an experience of the efficacy of this spiritual view of Christ
transforming our souls into his own likeness, is absolutely necessary. . . .
[T]he beholding of Christ is the most blessed means of exciting all our graces,
spiritualizing all our affections, and transforming our minds into his
likeness. . . . [I]t is a real experience of the efficacy that there is in the
spiritual beholding of the glory of Christ by faith, as proposed in the Gospel,
to strengthen, increase, and excite all grace unto its proper exercise, so
changing and transforming the soul gradually into his likeness, which must
secure us against all [sinful] pretences[.] . . .
transforming efficacy, from a spiritual view of Christ as proposed in the
Gospel . . . [is] the life of religion . . . there must be a view of Christ and
his glory, to cause us to love him, and thereby to make us conformable or like
unto him . . . [which] is by our beholding his glory by faith, as revealed in
the Gospel, and no otherwise. . . . [S]o, unto our stability in the profession
of the truth, an experience of the efficacy of this spiritual view of Christ
transforming our souls into his own likeness, is absolutely necessary. . . .
[T]he beholding of Christ is the most blessed means of exciting all our graces,
spiritualizing all our affections, and transforming our minds into his
likeness. . . . [I]t is a real experience of the efficacy that there is in the
spiritual beholding of the glory of Christ by faith, as proposed in the Gospel,
to strengthen, increase, and excite all grace unto its proper exercise, so
changing and transforming the soul gradually into his likeness, which must
secure us against all [sinful] pretences[.] . . .
[I]f we grow
weak in our graces, unspiritual in our frames, cold in our affections, or
negligent in the exercise of them by holy meditation, it is evident that
[Christ] is at a great distance from us, so as that we do not behold his glory
as we ought. If the weather grow cold, herbs and plants do wither, and the
frost begins to bind up the earth, all men grant that the sun is withdrawn, and
makes not his wonted approach unto us. And if it be so with our hearts, that
they grow cold, frozen, withering, lifeless, in and unto spiritual duties, it
is certain that the Lord Christ is in some sense withdrawn, and that we do not
behold his glory. We retain notions of truth concerning his person, office, and
grace; but faith is not in constant exercise as to real views of him and his
glory. For there is nothing more certain in Christian experience than this is,
that while we do really by faith behold the glory of Christ, as proposed in the
Gospel, the glory of his person and office, as before described, and so abide
in holy thoughts and meditations thereof, especially in our private duties and
retirements, all grace will live and thrive in us in some measure, especially
love unto his person, and therein unto all that belongs unto him. Let us but
put it to the trial, and we shall infallibly find the promised event. Do any of
us find decays in grace prevailing in us—deadness, coldness, lukewarmness, a
kind of spiritual stupidity and senselessness coming upon us? Do we find an
unreadiness unto the exercise of grace in its proper season, and the vigorous
acting of it in duties of communion with God, and would we have our souls
recovered from these dangerous diseases? Let us assure ourselves there is no
better way for our healing and deliverance, yea, no other way but this
alone—namely, the obtaining a fresh view of the glory of Christ by faith, and a
steady abiding therein. Constant contemplation of Christ and his glory, putting
forth its transforming power unto the revival of all grace, is the only relief
in this case[.]
weak in our graces, unspiritual in our frames, cold in our affections, or
negligent in the exercise of them by holy meditation, it is evident that
[Christ] is at a great distance from us, so as that we do not behold his glory
as we ought. If the weather grow cold, herbs and plants do wither, and the
frost begins to bind up the earth, all men grant that the sun is withdrawn, and
makes not his wonted approach unto us. And if it be so with our hearts, that
they grow cold, frozen, withering, lifeless, in and unto spiritual duties, it
is certain that the Lord Christ is in some sense withdrawn, and that we do not
behold his glory. We retain notions of truth concerning his person, office, and
grace; but faith is not in constant exercise as to real views of him and his
glory. For there is nothing more certain in Christian experience than this is,
that while we do really by faith behold the glory of Christ, as proposed in the
Gospel, the glory of his person and office, as before described, and so abide
in holy thoughts and meditations thereof, especially in our private duties and
retirements, all grace will live and thrive in us in some measure, especially
love unto his person, and therein unto all that belongs unto him. Let us but
put it to the trial, and we shall infallibly find the promised event. Do any of
us find decays in grace prevailing in us—deadness, coldness, lukewarmness, a
kind of spiritual stupidity and senselessness coming upon us? Do we find an
unreadiness unto the exercise of grace in its proper season, and the vigorous
acting of it in duties of communion with God, and would we have our souls
recovered from these dangerous diseases? Let us assure ourselves there is no
better way for our healing and deliverance, yea, no other way but this
alone—namely, the obtaining a fresh view of the glory of Christ by faith, and a
steady abiding therein. Constant contemplation of Christ and his glory, putting
forth its transforming power unto the revival of all grace, is the only relief
in this case[.]
Some will say,
that this must be effected by fresh supplies and renewed communications of the
Holy Spirit. Unless he fall as dew and showers on our dry and barren
hearts—unless he cause our graces to spring, thrive, and bring forth
fruit—unless he revive and increase faith, love, and holiness in our souls—our
backsliding will not be healed, nor our spiritual state be recovered. . . . And
so it is. The immediate efficiency of the revival of our souls is from and by
the Holy Spirit. But the inquiry is, in what way, or by what means, we may
obtain the supplies and communications of him unto this end. This the apostle
declares in [2 Corinthians 3:18]: We, beholding the glory of Christ in a glass,
“are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even by the Spirit of
the Lord.” It is in the exercise of faith on Christ . . . that the Holy Spirit
puts forth his renewing, transforming power in and upon our souls. This,
therefore, is that alone which will retrieve Christians from their present
decays and deadness. . . . [The] remedy and relief [of a] . . . dead [and] dull
. . . condition . . . is, to live in the exercise of faith in Christ Jesus.
This himself assures us of, John 15:4, 5, “Abide in me, and I in you. As the
branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can
ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth
in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can
do nothing.”
that this must be effected by fresh supplies and renewed communications of the
Holy Spirit. Unless he fall as dew and showers on our dry and barren
hearts—unless he cause our graces to spring, thrive, and bring forth
fruit—unless he revive and increase faith, love, and holiness in our souls—our
backsliding will not be healed, nor our spiritual state be recovered. . . . And
so it is. The immediate efficiency of the revival of our souls is from and by
the Holy Spirit. But the inquiry is, in what way, or by what means, we may
obtain the supplies and communications of him unto this end. This the apostle
declares in [2 Corinthians 3:18]: We, beholding the glory of Christ in a glass,
“are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even by the Spirit of
the Lord.” It is in the exercise of faith on Christ . . . that the Holy Spirit
puts forth his renewing, transforming power in and upon our souls. This,
therefore, is that alone which will retrieve Christians from their present
decays and deadness. . . . [The] remedy and relief [of a] . . . dead [and] dull
. . . condition . . . is, to live in the exercise of faith in Christ Jesus.
This himself assures us of, John 15:4, 5, “Abide in me, and I in you. As the
branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can
ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth
in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can
do nothing.”
There is a
twofold coming unto Christ by believing. The first is that we may have
life—that is, a spring and principle of spiritual life communicated unto us
from him: for he is “our life,” Colossians 3:4, and “because he liveth, we live
also,” John 14:19. Yea, it is not so much we that live, as he liveth in us,
Galatians 2:19, 20. And unbelief is a not coming unto him, that we may have
life, John 5:40. But, secondly, there is also a coming unto him by believers in
the actual exercise of faith, that they may “have this life more abundantly,”
John 10:10; that is, such supplies of grace as may keep their souls in a
healthy, vigorous acting of all the powers of spiritual life. And as he
reproacheth some that they would not come unto him that they might have life,
so he may justly reprove us all, that we do not so come unto him in the actual
exercise of faith, as that we might have this life more abundantly.
twofold coming unto Christ by believing. The first is that we may have
life—that is, a spring and principle of spiritual life communicated unto us
from him: for he is “our life,” Colossians 3:4, and “because he liveth, we live
also,” John 14:19. Yea, it is not so much we that live, as he liveth in us,
Galatians 2:19, 20. And unbelief is a not coming unto him, that we may have
life, John 5:40. But, secondly, there is also a coming unto him by believers in
the actual exercise of faith, that they may “have this life more abundantly,”
John 10:10; that is, such supplies of grace as may keep their souls in a
healthy, vigorous acting of all the powers of spiritual life. And as he
reproacheth some that they would not come unto him that they might have life,
so he may justly reprove us all, that we do not so come unto him in the actual
exercise of faith, as that we might have this life more abundantly.
(2.) When the
Lord Christ is near us, and we do behold his glory, he will frequently
communicate spiritual refreshment in peace, consolation, and joy unto our
souls. We shall not only hereby have our graces excited with respect unto him
as their object, but be made sensible of his acting toward us in the
communications of himself and his love unto us. When the Sun of Righteousness
ariseth on any soul, or makes any near approach thereunto, it shall find
“healing under his wings”—his beams of grace shall convey by his Spirit holy
spiritual refreshment thereunto. For he is present with us by his Spirit, and
these are his fruits and effects, as he is the Comforter, suited unto his
office, as he is promised unto us.
Lord Christ is near us, and we do behold his glory, he will frequently
communicate spiritual refreshment in peace, consolation, and joy unto our
souls. We shall not only hereby have our graces excited with respect unto him
as their object, but be made sensible of his acting toward us in the
communications of himself and his love unto us. When the Sun of Righteousness
ariseth on any soul, or makes any near approach thereunto, it shall find
“healing under his wings”—his beams of grace shall convey by his Spirit holy
spiritual refreshment thereunto. For he is present with us by his Spirit, and
these are his fruits and effects, as he is the Comforter, suited unto his
office, as he is promised unto us.
Many love to
walk in a very careless, unwise profession. So long as they can hold out in the
performance of outward duties, they are very regardless of the greatest evangelical
privileges—of those things which are the marrow of divine promises—all real
endeavors of a vital communion with Christ. Such are spiritual peace,
refreshing consolations, ineffable joys, and the blessed composure of
assurance. Without some taste and experience of these things, profession is
heartless, lifeless, useless; and religion itself a dead carcass without an
animating soul. The peace which some enjoy is a mere stupidity. They judge not
these things to be real which are the substance of Christ’s present reward; and
a renunciation whereof would deprive the church of its principal supportments
and encouragements in all its sufferings. It is a great evidence of the power
of unbelief, when we can satisfy ourselves without an experience in our own hearts
of the great things, in this kind of joy, peace, consolation, assurance, that
are promised in the Gospels. For how can it be supposed that we do indeed
believe the promises of things future—namely, of heaven, immortality, and
glory, the faith whereof is the foundation of all religions—when we do not
believe the promises of the present reward in these spiritual privileges? And
how shall we be thought to believe them, when we do not endeavor after an
experience of the things themselves in our own souls, but are even contented
without them? But herein men deceive themselves. They would very desirously
have evangelical joy, peace, and assurance, to countenance them in their evil
frames and careless walking. And some have attempted to reconcile these things,
unto the ruin of their souls. But it will not be. Without the diligent exercise
of the grace of obedience, we shall never enjoy the grace of consolation. . . .
walk in a very careless, unwise profession. So long as they can hold out in the
performance of outward duties, they are very regardless of the greatest evangelical
privileges—of those things which are the marrow of divine promises—all real
endeavors of a vital communion with Christ. Such are spiritual peace,
refreshing consolations, ineffable joys, and the blessed composure of
assurance. Without some taste and experience of these things, profession is
heartless, lifeless, useless; and religion itself a dead carcass without an
animating soul. The peace which some enjoy is a mere stupidity. They judge not
these things to be real which are the substance of Christ’s present reward; and
a renunciation whereof would deprive the church of its principal supportments
and encouragements in all its sufferings. It is a great evidence of the power
of unbelief, when we can satisfy ourselves without an experience in our own hearts
of the great things, in this kind of joy, peace, consolation, assurance, that
are promised in the Gospels. For how can it be supposed that we do indeed
believe the promises of things future—namely, of heaven, immortality, and
glory, the faith whereof is the foundation of all religions—when we do not
believe the promises of the present reward in these spiritual privileges? And
how shall we be thought to believe them, when we do not endeavor after an
experience of the things themselves in our own souls, but are even contented
without them? But herein men deceive themselves. They would very desirously
have evangelical joy, peace, and assurance, to countenance them in their evil
frames and careless walking. And some have attempted to reconcile these things,
unto the ruin of their souls. But it will not be. Without the diligent exercise
of the grace of obedience, we shall never enjoy the grace of consolation. . . .
It is peculiarly
in the view of the glory of Christ, in his approaches unto us, and abiding with
us, that we are made partakers of evangelical peace, consolation, joy, and
assurances. These are a part of the royal train of his graces, of the reward
wherewith he is accompanied. “His reward is with him.” Wherever he is
graciously present with any, these things are never wanting in a due measure
and degree, unless it be by their own fault, or for their trial. In these
things does he give the church of his loves, Song of Solomon 7:12. “For if any
man,” saith he, “love me, I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him,”
John 14:21—“yea, I and the Father will come unto him, and make our abode with
him,” verse 23; and that so as to “sup with him,” Revelation 3:20—which, on his
part, can be only by the communication of those spiritual refreshments. The
only inquiry is, by what way and means we do receive them? Now, I say this is
in and by our beholding of the glory of Christ by faith, 1 Peter 1:8, 9. Let
that glory be rightly stated . . . the glory of his person, his office, his
condescension, exaltation, love, and grace; let faith be fixed in a view and
contemplation of it, mix itself with it, as represented in the glass of the
gospel, meditate upon it, embrace it, and virtue will proceed from Christ,
communicating spiritual, supernatural refreshment and joy unto our souls. Yea,
in ordinary cases, it is impossible that believers should have a real prospect
of this glory at any time, but that it will in some measure affect their hearts
with a sense of his love; which is the spring of all consolation in them. In
the exercise of faith on the discoveries of the glory of Christ made unto us in
the Gospel, no man shall ever totally want such intimations of his love, yea,
such effusion of it in his heart, as shall be a living spring of those
spiritual refreshments, John 4:14; Romans 5:5.[3]
in the view of the glory of Christ, in his approaches unto us, and abiding with
us, that we are made partakers of evangelical peace, consolation, joy, and
assurances. These are a part of the royal train of his graces, of the reward
wherewith he is accompanied. “His reward is with him.” Wherever he is
graciously present with any, these things are never wanting in a due measure
and degree, unless it be by their own fault, or for their trial. In these
things does he give the church of his loves, Song of Solomon 7:12. “For if any
man,” saith he, “love me, I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him,”
John 14:21—“yea, I and the Father will come unto him, and make our abode with
him,” verse 23; and that so as to “sup with him,” Revelation 3:20—which, on his
part, can be only by the communication of those spiritual refreshments. The
only inquiry is, by what way and means we do receive them? Now, I say this is
in and by our beholding of the glory of Christ by faith, 1 Peter 1:8, 9. Let
that glory be rightly stated . . . the glory of his person, his office, his
condescension, exaltation, love, and grace; let faith be fixed in a view and
contemplation of it, mix itself with it, as represented in the glass of the
gospel, meditate upon it, embrace it, and virtue will proceed from Christ,
communicating spiritual, supernatural refreshment and joy unto our souls. Yea,
in ordinary cases, it is impossible that believers should have a real prospect
of this glory at any time, but that it will in some measure affect their hearts
with a sense of his love; which is the spring of all consolation in them. In
the exercise of faith on the discoveries of the glory of Christ made unto us in
the Gospel, no man shall ever totally want such intimations of his love, yea,
such effusion of it in his heart, as shall be a living spring of those
spiritual refreshments, John 4:14; Romans 5:5.[3]
Such declarations were by no
means an exception, centuries before the invention of the Keswick theology, in
the Biblically-based piety of Owen and vast numbers of like-minded Christians. He wrote elsewhere:
means an exception, centuries before the invention of the Keswick theology, in
the Biblically-based piety of Owen and vast numbers of like-minded Christians. He wrote elsewhere:
The . . . daily
exercise of faith on Christ as crucified . . . is the great fundamental means
of the mortification of sin in general, and which we ought to apply unto every
particular instance of it. This the apostle discourseth at large, Romans
6:6-13. “Our old man,” saith he, “is crucified with Christ, that the body of
sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” Our “old
man,” or the body of sin, is the power and reign of sin in us. These are to be
destroyed; that is, so mortified that “henceforth we should not serve sin,”
that we should be delivered from the power and rule of it. This, saith the
apostle, is done in Christ: “Crucified with him.” It is so meritoriously, in
his actual dying or being crucified for us; it is so virtually, because of the
certain provision that is made therein for the mortification of all sin; but it
is so actually, by the exercise of faith on him as crucified, dead, and buried,
which is the means of the actual communication of the virtue of his death unto
us for that end. Herein are we said to be dead and buried with him; whereof
baptism is the pledge. So by the cross of Christ the world is crucified unto
us, and we are so to the world, Galatians 6:14; which is the substance of the
mortification of all sin. There are several ways whereby the exercise of faith
on Christ crucified is effectual unto this end: —
exercise of faith on Christ as crucified . . . is the great fundamental means
of the mortification of sin in general, and which we ought to apply unto every
particular instance of it. This the apostle discourseth at large, Romans
6:6-13. “Our old man,” saith he, “is crucified with Christ, that the body of
sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” Our “old
man,” or the body of sin, is the power and reign of sin in us. These are to be
destroyed; that is, so mortified that “henceforth we should not serve sin,”
that we should be delivered from the power and rule of it. This, saith the
apostle, is done in Christ: “Crucified with him.” It is so meritoriously, in
his actual dying or being crucified for us; it is so virtually, because of the
certain provision that is made therein for the mortification of all sin; but it
is so actually, by the exercise of faith on him as crucified, dead, and buried,
which is the means of the actual communication of the virtue of his death unto
us for that end. Herein are we said to be dead and buried with him; whereof
baptism is the pledge. So by the cross of Christ the world is crucified unto
us, and we are so to the world, Galatians 6:14; which is the substance of the
mortification of all sin. There are several ways whereby the exercise of faith
on Christ crucified is effectual unto this end: —
(1.) Looking
unto him as such will beget holy mourning in us: Zechariah 12:10, “They shall
look on me whom they have pierced, and mourn.” . . . A view of Christ as
pierced will cause mourning in them that have received the promise of the
Spirit of grace and supplication there mentioned. And this mourning is the
foundation of mortification. It is that “godly sorrow which worketh repentance
to salvation not to be repented of,” 2 Corinthians 7:10. And mortification of
sin is of the essence of repentance. The more believers are exercised in this
view of Christ, the more humble they are, the more they are kept in that
mourning frame which is universally opposite unto all the interests of sin, and
which keeps the soul watchful against all its attempts. Sin never reigned in an
humble, mourning soul.
unto him as such will beget holy mourning in us: Zechariah 12:10, “They shall
look on me whom they have pierced, and mourn.” . . . A view of Christ as
pierced will cause mourning in them that have received the promise of the
Spirit of grace and supplication there mentioned. And this mourning is the
foundation of mortification. It is that “godly sorrow which worketh repentance
to salvation not to be repented of,” 2 Corinthians 7:10. And mortification of
sin is of the essence of repentance. The more believers are exercised in this
view of Christ, the more humble they are, the more they are kept in that
mourning frame which is universally opposite unto all the interests of sin, and
which keeps the soul watchful against all its attempts. Sin never reigned in an
humble, mourning soul.
(2.) It is
effectual unto the same end by the way of a powerful motive, as that which
calls and leads unto conformity to him. This is pressed by the apostle, Romans
6:8-11. Our conformity unto Christ as crucified and dead consists in our being
dead unto sin, and thereby overthrowing the reign of it in our mortal bodies.
This conformity, saith he, we ought to reckon on as our duty: “Reckon ye
yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin;” that is, that you ought so to be, in
that conformity which you ought to aim at unto Christ crucified. Can any
spiritual eye behold Christ dying for sin, and continue to live in sin? Shall
we keep that alive in us which he died for, that it might not eternally destroy
us? Can we behold him bleeding for our sins, and not endeavor to give them
their death-wound? The efficacy of the exercise of faith herein unto the
mortification of sin is known unto all believers by experience.
effectual unto the same end by the way of a powerful motive, as that which
calls and leads unto conformity to him. This is pressed by the apostle, Romans
6:8-11. Our conformity unto Christ as crucified and dead consists in our being
dead unto sin, and thereby overthrowing the reign of it in our mortal bodies.
This conformity, saith he, we ought to reckon on as our duty: “Reckon ye
yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin;” that is, that you ought so to be, in
that conformity which you ought to aim at unto Christ crucified. Can any
spiritual eye behold Christ dying for sin, and continue to live in sin? Shall
we keep that alive in us which he died for, that it might not eternally destroy
us? Can we behold him bleeding for our sins, and not endeavor to give them
their death-wound? The efficacy of the exercise of faith herein unto the
mortification of sin is known unto all believers by experience.
(3.) Faith
herein gives us communion with him in his death, and unites the soul unto it in
its efficacy. Hence we are said to be “buried with him into death,” and to be
“planted together in the likeness of his death,” Romans 6:4, 5. Our “old man is
crucified with him,” verse 6. We have by faith communion with him in his death,
unto the death of sin. This, therefore, is the first grace and duty which we
ought to attend unto for the mortification of sin.[4]
herein gives us communion with him in his death, and unites the soul unto it in
its efficacy. Hence we are said to be “buried with him into death,” and to be
“planted together in the likeness of his death,” Romans 6:4, 5. Our “old man is
crucified with him,” verse 6. We have by faith communion with him in his death,
unto the death of sin. This, therefore, is the first grace and duty which we
ought to attend unto for the mortification of sin.[4]
The precious Biblical truths set
forth by Owen are by no means the peculiar prerogative of Keswick theology, since
he wrote of them centuries before the Higher Life entered into the world. Owen’s declarations that the “efficacy of the
exercise of faith . . . unto the mortification of sin is known unto all
believers by experience” illustrate the indubitable historical fact that the
necessity of faith for sanctification is by no means a Keswick distinctive.
forth by Owen are by no means the peculiar prerogative of Keswick theology, since
he wrote of them centuries before the Higher Life entered into the world. Owen’s declarations that the “efficacy of the
exercise of faith . . . unto the mortification of sin is known unto all
believers by experience” illustrate the indubitable historical fact that the
necessity of faith for sanctification is by no means a Keswick distinctive.
See here for this entire study.
[1] Barabas’s
lengthy bibliography includes nothing at all by Thomas Adams, Archibald
Alexander, Richard Baxter, Joseph Bellamy, Andrew or Horatius Bonar, Thomas
Boston, Charles Bridges, John Broadus, Thomas Brooks, Anthony Burgess, Jeremiah
Burroughs, John Calvin, B. H. Carroll, Thomas Chalmers, Stephen Charnock, R. L.
Dabney, John Dod, Thomas Doolittle, Ebenezer or Ralph Erskine, Jonathan
Edwards, John Flavel, Samuel H. Ford, William Gadsby, Thomas Goodwin, William
Gouge, William Gouge, J. R. Graves, James Haldane, Robert Hawker, Thomas
Hooker, Charles Hodge, Balthasar Hubmaier, John Angell James, Buell H. Kazee,
Benjamin Keach, F. W. Krummacher, D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Thomas Manton, Robert
Murray McCheyne, Matthew Meade, D. L. Moody, George Mueller, Asahel Nettleton,
John Newton, J. I. Packer, J. M. Pendleton, J. C. Philpot, Arthur Pink, William
Reid, John R. Rice, A. T. Robertson, Samuel Rutherford, Richard Sibbes, Charles
Spurgeon, Solomon Stoddard, Gilbert Tennent, R. A. Torrey, Robert Traill,
Thomas Vincent, Thomas Watson, Francis Wayland, George Whitfield, Thomas
Wilcox, Octavius Winslow, or many others with valuable compositions on
sanctification or Christian devotion and piety.
lengthy bibliography includes nothing at all by Thomas Adams, Archibald
Alexander, Richard Baxter, Joseph Bellamy, Andrew or Horatius Bonar, Thomas
Boston, Charles Bridges, John Broadus, Thomas Brooks, Anthony Burgess, Jeremiah
Burroughs, John Calvin, B. H. Carroll, Thomas Chalmers, Stephen Charnock, R. L.
Dabney, John Dod, Thomas Doolittle, Ebenezer or Ralph Erskine, Jonathan
Edwards, John Flavel, Samuel H. Ford, William Gadsby, Thomas Goodwin, William
Gouge, William Gouge, J. R. Graves, James Haldane, Robert Hawker, Thomas
Hooker, Charles Hodge, Balthasar Hubmaier, John Angell James, Buell H. Kazee,
Benjamin Keach, F. W. Krummacher, D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Thomas Manton, Robert
Murray McCheyne, Matthew Meade, D. L. Moody, George Mueller, Asahel Nettleton,
John Newton, J. I. Packer, J. M. Pendleton, J. C. Philpot, Arthur Pink, William
Reid, John R. Rice, A. T. Robertson, Samuel Rutherford, Richard Sibbes, Charles
Spurgeon, Solomon Stoddard, Gilbert Tennent, R. A. Torrey, Robert Traill,
Thomas Vincent, Thomas Watson, Francis Wayland, George Whitfield, Thomas
Wilcox, Octavius Winslow, or many others with valuable compositions on
sanctification or Christian devotion and piety.
As
for historic Baptist works in particular, in addition to the absence of the
Baptists in the list above, and with the sole exception of the theological
liberal F. B. Meyer, concerning whom one can note the chapter in this
composition dedicated to him, the only work in Barabas’s bibliography by a
Baptist published before 1900 is by Alvah Hovey, who wrote against the Higher
Life in his “Higher Christian Life Examined,” Studies in Ethics and Religion, Boston, 1892. While it was appropriate for Barabas to focus
most of his reading on specifically Keswick works in light of his subject
matter, before making statements such as:
“One has
to go back to the book of Acts for a parallel to the exaltation of the Holy
Spirit found in the meetings at Keswick” (pg. 38, So Great Salvation), or “the most widely-held view of
sanctification” among Christians “is that it is to be gained through our own
personal efforts . . . sanctification by works . . . mere moral processes to
overcome sin” (pgs. 74-75, Ibid), he
would have done well to have performed much more extensive reading in the
history of evangelical Christian spirituality.
for historic Baptist works in particular, in addition to the absence of the
Baptists in the list above, and with the sole exception of the theological
liberal F. B. Meyer, concerning whom one can note the chapter in this
composition dedicated to him, the only work in Barabas’s bibliography by a
Baptist published before 1900 is by Alvah Hovey, who wrote against the Higher
Life in his “Higher Christian Life Examined,” Studies in Ethics and Religion, Boston, 1892. While it was appropriate for Barabas to focus
most of his reading on specifically Keswick works in light of his subject
matter, before making statements such as:
“One has
to go back to the book of Acts for a parallel to the exaltation of the Holy
Spirit found in the meetings at Keswick” (pg. 38, So Great Salvation), or “the most widely-held view of
sanctification” among Christians “is that it is to be gained through our own
personal efforts . . . sanctification by works . . . mere moral processes to
overcome sin” (pgs. 74-75, Ibid), he
would have done well to have performed much more extensive reading in the
history of evangelical Christian spirituality.
[2] E. g., “J.I. Packer’s . . . earliest personal Christian
experience [was] marked by frustration with Keswick piety then liberation
through the influence of John Owen” (pg. 181, The Theology of the Christian Life in J. I. Packer’s Thought, D. J.
Payne). Note that while elements of
Packer’s doctrine of Christian sanctification are superior to those of Keswick,
his theology as a whole contains serious errors.
experience [was] marked by frustration with Keswick piety then liberation
through the influence of John Owen” (pg. 181, The Theology of the Christian Life in J. I. Packer’s Thought, D. J.
Payne). Note that while elements of
Packer’s doctrine of Christian sanctification are superior to those of Keswick,
his theology as a whole contains serious errors.
[3] Pgs. 146-154, Meditations
and Discourses Concerning the Glory of Christ, in His Person, Office, and Grace,
John Owen.
and Discourses Concerning the Glory of Christ, in His Person, Office, and Grace,
John Owen.
[4] Pgs. 36-37, A
Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and Grace, John Owen. Note that in Owen’s day “virtue” meant
“power,” as it does, at times, in the Authorized Version (Mark 5:30).
Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and Grace, John Owen. Note that in Owen’s day “virtue” meant
“power,” as it does, at times, in the Authorized Version (Mark 5:30).
Recent Comments