Keswick theology

In lieu of yuehan coming back to the subject, I thought I would start a thread to find out what others here think of Keswick theology.

I have studied holiness teaching quite extensively the last 30 years, from the traditional one found before Azusa Street, post Azusa Holiness Pentecostalism, the Keswick one, and the teaching on holiness from the early church fathers.

I found there is a very definite dividing line from before Azusa and after and all the holiness teachings I can find are of the later sort.

The main division is around Romans 6:6:

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

It is over the word 'destroyed' and what exactly that means. Does it mean completely gone as in pre Azusa or does it mean 'subdued' as in Keswick teaching?

I think that very early Keswick teaching did teach eradication of the old man but then later it was pointed out that the Greek word should not be translated as destroyed but rather 'rendered useless'. But from there Keswick teaching emphasized 'For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death'. Here, the idea is that by the spirit we have a power (law at work) which COUNTERACTS the stirrings and machinations of the old self. Just as an airplane counteracts the law of gravity acting on it by a more powerful force enabled by the law of aerodynamic lift. This was very good teaching that refuted the then dominant holiness teaching that suggested a 'second blessing' whereby the 'root of sin' is eradicated and we can live sinless lives.

-Daniel

Thank you Daniel. I think there is a big problem here, in that people will have read the latter interpretation of the Greek and thought the matter has been settled, and looked at it no further. I think that the original understanding cannot be dismissed like that, when the early church believed the former and so throughout church history till modern times.

Even Greek scholars disagree vehemently on the various possibilities of understanding the language differences. I have faith in the early fathers because they were not too far away from the interpretations of the disciples coming down from the Apostles both in understanding the language and the culture.

Added to this is the very significant interest that scholars are showing regarding the subject, which seems to me to suggest it is not clear cut as stated. I also humbly add my own experience of the matter.

I guess a lot depends on how you see history unfolding. I have been greatly helped to see if what we have been taught is true or not by reading Eastern Orthodoxy historians. They after all, did not have a Reformation, an Enlightenment, revolutions and later modern developments as society grew more and more secular.

They have many manuscripts that we do not have and their theologians are much better trained than ours, who are indoctrinated into their various sects. The eastern ones studied philosophy as well and can spot that a mile away.

I would ask if people would give it another chance to prove itself.

Quote: This was very good teaching that refuted the then dominant holiness teaching that suggested a 'second blessing' whereby the 'root of sin' is eradicated and we can live sinless lives.

It doesn't matter what they say or not say. The only thing I would say is look at the pitiful condition of the church, since this so called "refuting".

God says: Ezk 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

You either agree with God and what he said or not. God says I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. Is God a Liar?

Acts 15:8-9 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

The Holy Ghost does not dwell in unclean heart, but when the temple of the heart has been purified, then and only then does he come.

If you require I can use reformed teaching to identify the heart with the "flesh"

Just adding a teaching form Ligonier Ministries (reformed teaching)

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/heart-of-the-problem

It is not what goes into a person that defiles him. It is what comes out of him ”” the corrupted streams that flow from a corrupted heart. "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone” (vv. 19”“20).

As has been well said, the heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart. Not the blood pumping vessel that is the concern of your cardiologist, but the seat of your personality that is the concern of the Gospel.

Jesus teaches us that there is something far more fundamental to our sinfulness than the actual sins we commit. Our sins do not make us sinful. Rather, we commit sins because, at the very center of our lives, we are sinful. Sin has invaded the inner recesses of our personalities.

This is essential information for spiritual health because it keeps us from misdiagnosing our real problem. So often we are quick to blame others for our failures and shortcomings. We even mask how we do this by employing the "if-only” rationale to excuse our sin. "If only I had been raised differently…I had a better job…you hadn’t provoked me…my husband would listen to me…my church were better….” The list is endless and usually contains genuinely flawed people and circumstances that are blameworthy.

But no circumstance, other person, or activity can ever justify my sin. I sin, Jesus said, because my heart is sinful. That is a shattering reality. But we must humbly face it if we want to be spiritually healed.

Reformed teaching clearly teaches -

I sin, Jesus said, because my heart is sinful.

Martin Luther came to see this and it caused him to say, "I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals.”

Sin is not yet purged from the Christian’s heart, though one day it will be. But its power is broken so that, by faith in Christ, we can pursue real holiness from the inside out.

----------------------

They come to the correct conclusion, "Sin is not yet purged from the Christian’s heart" however I diverge from Reformed teaching, "though one day it will be" they hope one day to be free, when will that day be?

What I see in scripture something different: I see sin Purged from the Christians heart, in fact it's a new heart, a clean heart, free from filthiness and Idols.

God promises to cleanse us, give a new clean heart, to pour out his Spirit on us a cause us to obey and do them

Ezk 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

What is the issue the heart

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

A new heart also will I give you, this is mind blowing I admit, but has said he he will give us a new heart.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Then we will be empowered to walk in his law and do them.

28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

God will be our God and we will be his people, no longer self willed and independent of him.

29 I will also save you from all your uncleanness: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.

Saved from all uncleanness..

I don't want to pursue holiness - I WANT TO BE HOLY and God has promised he will do it, not for my sake but his.

//I don't want to pursue holiness - I WANT TO BE HOLY and God has promised he will do it, not for my sake but his.//

Amen to this.

Colin I have been searching for the post of yours that refuted my endorsement of Jessie Penn-Lewis and gave this link?

https://faithsaves.net/welsh-revival/

I said it was from a Reformed position but went on to read further and must thank you for something so useful to me.

Because it is opposing the whole of the Welsh Revival it is especially useful as I find that information from anti sources, although usually full of misconceptions, are often very well researched and in this case I may have to recant my views on JPL. The site is quoting newspapers and independent sources and the revival was much more complicated than I had previously thought, having just read from one or two approaches.

It seems she was far more engulfed in Pentecostalism than I thought, although I still believe that she had become the scapegoat of some of it - the Finished Work Pentecostals.

I still remain the same on my estimation of Evan Roberts even more so after that site. Thanks.

BrendaM

Thanks

God loves you, Jesus loves you, and I also love you.

Colin

Love you too brother.

Let me throw something out there to chew on. Look at the words used throughout Rom. 6 for "sin". They are all nouns with one exception, and that is in verse 15. To me, this is important. All of us were born into a thing called sin. This thing called sin had dominion over us and ruled our lives. Jesus came to destroy this thing, this sin (the noun) that had dominion over us and controlled us. It's dominion is broken. We died to this noun called sin. The body of sin, the thing called sin, was defeated where we were concerned. So, in verse 15, we are told, and I will give my own paraphrase. Shall we commit actions of sin now because we are no longer under the law? God forbid. Since you are no longer under captivity to the body of sin, you no longer have to give in to sin and be ruled by it.

But this is not automatic. We still fight against the flesh. We must learn to walk after the Spirit instead of walking after the flesh. And it takes a daily walk with God to do this. Paul deals with this infirmity of the flesh in verse 19 of Romans 6. He says that since we are no longer slaves to sin (the noun), we need to stop yielding our flesh to sinful things, but instead yield to righteousness and live holy lives.

By the way. I realize that we are born into sin and that sin rules us until we are born again. But I have often wondered. Can anyone give a passage of scripture that ever talks about a "sin nature" either before or after being born again? My point in the question is this. I wonder sometimes if we have not defined the sin nature in a way that scripture does not define it and then have read it into verses where it might not actually exist? Again, I believe that we are born slaves to sin and that it is our nature to sin, because we are born into sin. I also believe that the Christian has been set free from the body of sin (sin the noun) that ruled over him before he was born again. I want to make that clear. But what of the term "sin nature" and the image of these words that we might read into certain passages when it might not be there in reality.

Travis, a good subject.

Along with the ECF's I do not believe that we were born sinners, and the biblical proof of that is weak, resting mainly on one verse which some have pointed out has the meaning that Davids' mother conceived him in a state of sinning herself, not that all men were born that way.

Isaiah 64:6 says: For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Even secular psychologists say that around the age of four, there is a dividing line in children, whereby they can be tested to see it they lie or not and they found that under fours generally do not whereas after four, they do.

So man becomes a sinner although born innocent, obviously with the help of the enemy of our souls through temptation, and takes on his nature of rebellion. Adam's story repeated for all. The enemy now has rights over him and that is the price Jesus paid to save him from that domain to bring him back into the kingdom of God.

The man, with his co-operation and agreement of being crucified with Christ, can enter into the death with Christ and is raised with Him to newness of life. It is stark, one kingdom for another. Everything in scripture is black or white. We are saved or we are sinners. It never says we are gradually saved. A tree can produce only the fruit of its type.

The yielding to the flesh in this state is not the same as previously when sin held sway. It is to go back to reliance on ones own strength even very pious flesh. We can do the right things for the wrong reason and one wrong reason is our God given instincts, say to eat when God had said 'fast' which is one of the temptations of Jesus. The hard thing is that we are not usually aware that we are doing that so we must 'watch and pray' because operating in the flesh will lead us to sin and then we are out of the kingdom.

ps

"Nahash was an Ammonite king (1 Samuel 11:1). Speculation suggests that David’s mother had been married to Nahash when she bore the half-sisters and then later became the second wife of Jesse. Further speculation implies that David’s mother was not yet married to Jesse when she became pregnant””that perhaps she was still married to Nahash when she conceived David."

https://www.gotquestions.org/David-mother.html

The ECF's believed it to be true that she was not married to Davids' father at conception.

Hey Twayneb,

The issue of whether a Christian has one righteous nature or two natures (an old sinful nature, and a new righteous nature) has tremendous implications for how we view ourselves and our experience of sanctification doctrine.

If one were to carefully scrutinize the usage of the word "nature" in the New Testament (2 Peter 1:4, Ephesians 2:3), the Scriptures seem to affirm that we are either by nature "children of wrath" or "partakers of the divine nature". Either way, there are no verses which directly substantiate the view that a Christian has two natures, much less having a "sinful nature". Our old man has already been crucified and buried with Christ.

Of course, we still have to contend with sin in the flesh, but neither sin nor flesh define who we truly are. We do not deny the existence of these things, but they are totally detached from our true identity ”“ which is why it's possible for the Christian to no longer live under the dominion of sin (Romans 6:14).

We are new creations, with one righteous nature ”“ and a large part of our sanctification revolves around appropriating our true identity in Christ. On this point, I believe the modern grace preachers (Joseph Prince, Andrew Farley) are much clearer than some of the old Keswick participants.

Resources on Christians having one nature:

https://www.acc.edu.au/podcast/andrew-farley/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk81hfQwtAU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwzYi0wz-6g

"But this is not automatic. We still fight against the flesh. We must learn to walk after the Spirit instead of walking after the flesh. And it takes a daily walk with God to do this. Paul deals with this infirmity of the flesh in verse 19 of Romans 6. He says that since we are no longer slaves to sin (the noun), we need to stop yielding our flesh to sinful things, but instead yield to righteousness and live holy lives.”

Amen Travis:

"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
For the desire of the flesh is against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, in order to keep you from doing whatever you want.” (Galatians 5:-16,17)

Also , I believe that Romans 7 was written to Christians. Before I was saved I could sin without any since of guilt or shame. After I was born again, I was convicted of my sin, yet there were still besetting sins that I would fall back into, but I hated my sin, and the day of my deliverance did come. Praise God! An unregenerate sinner cannot say:
"For I joyfully delight in the law of God in my inner self [with my new nature],”
(Romans 7:22) Amplified

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwzYi0wz-6g

I don't think it is as simple as that yuehan, and besides this method of 'mind over matter' or that we can change reality by our thoughts is new-ageism. This idea got me nearly losing my faith ie just remember who you are in Christ.

If we are are really walking in the Spirit, then it is as easy as pie. "His yoke is easy and His burden is light" is the truth.

Hi yuehan

Quote: The issue of whether a Christian has one righteous nature or two natures (an old sinful nature, and a new righteous nature.

We must consider how we are made.

1 Thess 5:23 means "all of us." When Paul prays, "may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless," he means, "your whole being."

Spirt and Soul and Body.

In Heb 4:12 the author is highlighting the unmatched power of the Word of God. It is so uniquely powerful that it can even pierce "the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow," and discern "the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

Spirit and Soul and Body.

When you got born again, your Spirit was made new.
Quote: Of course, we still have to contend with sin in the flesh, but neither sin nor flesh define who we truly are.
That is a correct statement, but what is the Flesh?
Let's look at the works of the flesh; Paul speaks about the works of the flesh.

Gal 5:19”“21 speaks of the works of the flesh, saying they are "evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these."

Where do these works of the flesh come from? Jesus gives us the answer.

Matt 15:18-20 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.

As has been well said, the heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart. Not the blood pumping vessel that is the concern of your cardiologist, but the seat of your personality that is the concern of the Gospel.

Jesus teaches us that there is something far more fundamental to our sinfulness than the actual sins we commit. Our sins do not make us sinful. Rather, we commit sins because, at the very center of our lives, we are sinful. Sin has invaded the inner recesses of our personalities.

What is the heart?

"Heart" (Hebrew lebab/leb [b'bel], Gk. kardia [kardiva]) occurs over one thousand times in the Bible, making it the most common anthropological term in the Scripture. It denotes a person's center for both physical and emotional-intellectual-moral activities;

Heart ”“ your mind, your will, and emotions.

I appeal to you, therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Paul is speaking to Christians in Rome (Brothers) he says be transformed by the renewal of your mind. (Heart)

Paul is speaking to Ephesians Christians

Ephesians 4:22-24 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Let me ask put off the old self; be renewed in the spirit of your minds (heart) and put on the new self.

In your mind, your will and emotions, (Heart) Christ must be put on.

That is why Paul says I am crucified with Christ, because his mind, will and emotions were renewed.

Well I've had the chance to re-read War on the Saints as it has been a long time, 35 years or so, and this time through a different lens.

That web site on JPL was laughable with its inacuracies. It made her sound like a silly uneducated manipulative, greedy woman and nothing is further from the truth as l found in reading her again.

It is a wonderful tool for those have travelled the holiness path and she gave me some insight on an area where l may have allowed passitivity in.

She was not, as l feared, affected like Roberts by the signs and wonders craze, and remained a Wesleyan Holiness preacher. She was very discrete when she briefly mentioned tongues, and l am sure she believed in foreign languages.

The book was obviously written by her, with Roberts being a model for her warnings. He himself confessed he had been under the influence of demons.

The site though is excellent in giving information about the happenings in the very short revival. Apparently, the aftermath has been noted by quite a few as a disaster.
.

Jessie Penn-Lewis, I have been reading some things about Jesse that concern me - one of these things is Spirit writing, which she says to have written under while in this trance like state.

I see this mentioned in some of the so-called Charismatic teachers. Madame Guyon claimed to be able to do the same thing.

I also see that she was buried in a graveyard, "the Friends" (Quaker) Burial Field at Reigate; this would tell me she wasn't a faithful Wesleyan Holiness preacher but a Quaker.

Hopefully, when everyone gets over me on the other thread, we can start to get into some of this.

Colin

Have you read WOTS? Then you would get to know her from source. I don't see anything in her book about trance writing.

Her theology was basically Wesleyan/Keswick with many insights of George Fox. At the start Quakers were orthodox (small o) but gradually mostly became liberal.

Have you actually read Barclay's Apology, which shows what the early Quakers believed, as he was one of them, or even George Fox?

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to buried in a grave yard if her relatives being Quaker were buried there. There are evangelical and 'born again' Quakers to this day.

You should always read from source.

"The counterfeit of the presence of God, is mainly felt upon the body and by the physical senses, in conscious 'fire' 'thrills' etc. The counterfeit of the 'Presence' in the atmosphere is felt in the body as 'breath' 'wind' etc whilst the mind is passive or inactive.

The person affected by this counterfeit 'presence' will be moved automatically to action he would not perform of his own will and with all of his faculties in operation. He may not even remember what he has done under the 'power' of this 'presence' just as a sleep walker knows nothing of his actions when in that state.

The inaction of the mind can often be seen by the vacant look in the eyes' (WOTS p307 Jessie Penn-Lewis)