“KESWICK”—A Good Word or a Bad One? REVISITED

Evangelist John Van Gelderen has written a revised and expanded edition of the original edition of this article by the same name. I encourage all guests to read the article like a study. Move slowly through each paragraph, consider the history, the underlying theology, the answers to inaccurate accusations/misrepresentations and reasons for them, meditate on the Scriptural principals set forth. Dr. Van Gelderen says, “...derogatory slurs against this truth are not small matters.” This article concludes the short series on Keswick, which I hope has been helpful read for all concerned on either side of the debate. If you found this article helpful please consider sharing the link to it with a wide a circle of friends and acquaintances.

Occasionally I hear people use the label Keswick in a derogatory way. Yet others use the term quite positively. Someone who did not know the term would wonder if Keswick is a good word or a bad one. The issue, of course, is not the term, but what one means by the term.

Historical Background and Theology

Keswick is a beautiful town nestled in the Lake District of England. In 1875, a conference began there which continued annually as “The Keswick Convention.” Its original stated purpose was for the deepening of spiritual life. To accomplish this purpose, a definite theological position was taught—sanctification by faith, sometimes called holiness by faith.

The focus of the theology was on Christ as one’s life. This was sometimes called “The Higher Life,” or “The Deeper Life,” or “The Victorious Life.” Although in later years other ideas were sometimes attached to some of these labels in various sub-groups, their original usage was Christ-focused, and still remains so by the majority of those who use the terms.

In other words, the “Higher Life,” the “Deeper Life,” the “Victorious Life,” the “Spirit-filled Life,” the “Christ-Life” is not a new line of teaching. It is not a mere set of doctrines; it is not a set of motions; it is not a conference, a convention, or a movement—it is a Life. That Life is a Person, and His name is Jesus! Jesus is the “Higher Life.” Jesus is the “Deeper Life.” Jesus is the “Victorious Life.” How can it be otherwise? Sanctification, or holiness by faith, is simply accessing the “Holy Life” by faith. It is “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me” by “faith” (Gal. 2:20). Holiness by faith is accessing the Holy Life of Jesus to empower holy living and serving. It is becoming “partakers of His holiness” (Heb.12:10) through the impartation of His life, not a self-dependent attempt to imitate His life.

Keswick theology teaches that “progressive sanctification” does not mean an inevitable gradual sanctification, but rather that sanctification is accelerated by faith choices and is hindered by choices of unbelief. Obviously, the Holy Spirit keeps working, but believers are responsible to cooperate in faith for sanctification to progress according to God’s will. Keswick teaches that just as justification is by faith, so also sanctification is by faith. “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him” (Col. 2:6).

To help people understand how to “progress” in sanctification, Keswick emphasized a specific theme each of the five days of their convention: Sin (sin is the problem, both outer man sins and especially inner man sins), Provision (Christ is the answer through the cleansing power of His blood and the enabling power of His Spirit), Consecration (the access to Christ’s provision is through surrender to/dependence on Christ’s leadership and surrender to/dependence on Christ’s enablement), the Spirit-filled Life (surrender/faith accesses Christ’s Life—the Spirit-filled life for holiness and service), and Service (the whole point of sanctification by faith is to then serve by faith primarily in the declaration of the Gospel).

The Keswick Convention began in 1875 and continues to this day in England. However, as with many movements, eventually the original focus was lost so that today the Keswick Convention no longer truly represents its original purpose. The first two generations of Keswick (the first eighty years) held to the original theology. In other words, Keswick theology stayed largely true to its beginning from 1875 through the 1950s. During this time, Keswick guarded itself from the extremes of certain factions within the “Holiness Movement.” Ecclesiastically, however, Keswick began to weaken during the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the 1920s and 1930s. Their motto of “all one in Christ,” though a blessed truth in biblical proportion, set them up for potential compromise when this controversy came on the scene. This compromise eventually eroded their theology in significant ways by the 1960s. However, it should be noted that many other Keswick or Keswick-type meetings have stayed true to Keswick theology to this day.

First-generation Keswick included as speakers Evan Hopkins (who spoke annually for 39 years), F. B. Meyer (regular speaker from 1887 to 1925), Handley G. C. Moule (regular speaker from the mid-1880s to his death), G. Campbell Morgan, A. T. Pierson, A. J. Gordon, S. D. Gordon, R. A. Torrey, Andrew Murray, Hudson Taylor, Jonathan Goforth, and W. H. Griffith Thomas. Second-generation Keswick was led by W. Graham Scroggie, and included Donald Grey Barnhouse and J. Oswald Sanders.

Notice how familiar many of these names are and how they are esteemed even to this day. R. A. Torrey was so respected in his day that he was the editor of The Fundamentals. The Fundamentals contain 90 articles. Speakers associated with Keswick theology wrote at least 21% of these articles. Of the total number of authors used, at least 29% were associated with Keswick theology. This is a significant fact and shows that Keswick was mainstream in the beginnings of biblical fundamentalism. Therefore, Keswick was clearly considered “orthodox.” To denigrate Keswick is to denigrate the roots of fundamentalism.

I prefer to call Keswick theology “revival theology,” although there is a sense in which revival theology is broader than sanctification by faith. When one is awakened to the need to access the indwelling Life of Christ by faith and begins to appropriate that Life for the steps of obedience, personal revival occurs. Personal revival is a restoration to spiritual life—the Life of Christ in you accessed by faith as the animating power to your personality. This doctrine did not begin in 1875 with Keswick. It began in the New Testament (John 10:10, 14-16; Rom. 6-8; II Cor. 3:5,17-18; 9:8; Gal. 2:20; 3:1-5,14; Eph. 3:17; 5:18; Phil. 1:21; Col. 1:27; 3:4). Even in corporate revival this is what occurs to the individuals involved. This is revival theology! In fact, in The Flaming Tongue, J. Edwin Orr’s account of the early twentieth-century revivals which affected at least 57 nations, Orr repeatedly documents that Keswick-type conferences were used of God to either ignite revival fire or to greatly fuel it.

In the work entitled Five Views of Sanctification, J. Robertson McQuilken wrote the Keswick view, and John Walvoord wrote the Augustinian-Dispensational view. After each author presented his view, he then had opportunity to respond to the other views. Essentially, McQuilken maintained no real difference between the Keswick view and the Augustinian-Dispensational view, and Walvoord maintained no real difference between the Augustinian-Dispensational view and the Keswick view. Dispensational theology is broader than just sanctification, whereas Keswick deals primarily with sanctification. But on sanctification, Keswick theology is Dispensational theology embraced by many today.

Inaccurate Accusations

Over the years I have come across several inaccurate accusations against Keswick theology.

Passivity

Some accuse Keswick of passivity. This is probably because Keswick emphasizes resting in Christ. However, the emphasis is not to sit back and do nothing, but rather trust to obey. It is obedient faith, and, therefore, believing obedience. Resting in Jesus involves the due diligence of faith-filled (resting) obedience (labor) as stated by the Apostle, “Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.” This is not mere “labour,” but “labour” that is trusting in “his working.” The emphasis is not idle passivity, but active cooperation—the cooperation of surrendering to the Spirit’s leadership and depending on His enablement. This is walking in the Spirit, which obviously involves steps, not quietistic passivity. But the steps are steps of faith, not the mere motions of flesh-dependent activity. This is what brings “rest unto your souls” (Matt. 11:29), for as one preacher said, “When you yoke up with Jesus, He carries the load!”

Keswick denounces performance-based sanctification or “struggle theology,” which is flesh-dependence in an effort to live the Christian life. Sanctification by works is just as wrong as justification by works (Gal. 3:1-3). You do not get justified by faith, and then get sanctified by struggle. Sanctification is also by faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” (Heb.11:6). Obviously there are struggles in life, but flesh-dependence for frustrated Christian living is an unnecessary struggle. Faith for victory means you are depending on the victorious life of Christ to enable you to obey. It is not a matter of you trying to live the Christian life (hollow motions), it is a matter of trusting the indwelling Christ to enable you for the steps of obedience (empowered motions). So victory without trying does not mean victory doing nothing; it means victory with trusting. True faith is not an inward, “navel-gazing,” self-focus; it is focusing rather on Christ, the true object of faith, that He might express His very Life through yours. To accuse Keswick theology of passivity is simply not accurate.

Subjectivism

Occasionally Keswick theology is labeled derogatorily as being too subjective. This is probably because of Keswick’s emphasis on the reality of the Holy Spirit. However, Keswick emphasizes the subjective reality of the Spirit, based on the objective boundaries of the Word. The emphasis is by no means the Spirit without the Word. Nor is it the Word without the Spirit. Rather, it is the Word and the Spirit. The Spirit without the Word is delusion leading to strange fire. The Word without the Spirit is deadness leading to no fire. But the Word and the Spirit is dynamic leading to true Holy Spirit fire.

Interestingly, Robert Thomas rightly deals with the dangerous subjectivism of evangelicals in his book called Evangelical Hermeneutics. He names many names in the evangelical world that he considers guilty of true subjectivism. But when he seeks to show a right approach, he often quotes J. Robertson McQuilken as handling matters biblically. McQuilken, who wrote several helpful books, is the writer of the Keswick view of sanctification in Five Views of Sanctification, which we noted earlier. Keswick teaches the subjective reality of the Holy Spirit based on the Word, not subjectivism which leaves the scriptural foundation. To accuse Keswick of subjectivism reveals an inaccurate understanding of Keswick teaching.

Second Blessing

Some accuse Keswick of second blessing theology. But this shows great ignorance of both true second blessing theology and Keswick theology. Second blessing theology speaks of receiving a once-for-all second blessing which puts one on a new stage never to fall back to the former stage. Keswick speaks of alternating between two conditions of either walking in the flesh or walking in the Spirit. It is not once for all. Second blessing theology demands a “second” event. Keswick teaches that you were given the whole package at salvation and that you can access the whole blessing immediately (and some do), but that many, because of a lack of understanding, do not until later. Even then, it is not a second blessing, but a second, and a third, and a fourth, and so on. Second blessing theology says that you receive something you did not yet have. Keswick theology teaches that you, by faith, access your first blessing! However, when one has not accessed the provision of the indwelling Christ for quite some time, when he does so, it may seem like a second blessing, even though technically it is not. This explains why some early Keswick writers used the terminology of second blessing (which confuses matters today), but they did so only in the sense that I have described above, which is different from true second blessing theology.

Sinless Perfectionism

I suppose this charge comes because Keswick theology emphasizes the victorious life of Christ. The provision for victory is perfect. It has to be—His name is Jesus! But Keswick makes clear that we still live in the “body of sin” (Rom. 6:6). The focus of Keswick is not that you cannot sin, but that you are able not to sin because of the indwelling Christ. Keswick makes clear that tragically Christians sin. Yet it teaches that the focus should not be on being defeated, but rather on victory in Christ by faith. The provision of the indwelling Christ is perfect, but our consistent access of that perfect provision is sadly imperfect.

This is quite different from a Wesleyan position. There is no such thing as a Wesleyan/Keswick position. Rather, there is a Dispensational/Keswick position. To accuse Keswick theology of sinless perfectionism is simply not being honest with the facts of Keswick teaching.

Let Go, and Let God

Sadly, this phraseology has had various aberrant concepts attached to it in recent decades. Therefore, I do not use this phrase. However, its original usage in the early Keswick era was simply to “let go” of self-will and self-dependence, and “let God” by yielding to God’s will in God-dependence. It represents the words of the Lord Jesus “Whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it” (Luke 9:24). While it is understandable that the aberrations of this phrase must be clarified, it is sad that the original God-centered and ultimately Christ-centered meaning of the phrase is being denigrated by some as well.

Reasons for the Attack

Several reasons for the criticism of Keswick theology are observable.

Misinformation

Amazingly, I have been in various settings where speakers had just taught Keswick/Deeper Life theology and then said, “Now I’m not talking about Keswick,” or, “I’m not talking about the Deeper Life.” This shows that they do not really know what the labels actually mean, but are likely functioning off of hearsay and concepts which have been attached to the terms Keswick or Deeper Life by their critics. First impressions are mind-setting. Someone “bent their ear,” or they read the critics of Keswick without actually reading the Keswick authors themselves. Then, when they criticize the term Keswick or its related terms, they are shooting themselves in the foot because they are undermining what they themselves teach. Obviously this is unintentional, but still it is harmful to that which they believe.

Thoroughgoing Calvinism

Not all proclaimed-Calvinists clash with Keswick, but those of a thoroughgoing system often do. Keswick emphasizes man’s responsibility of faith (sanctification by faith). Some Calvinists claim this is man-centered. But how can God-dependence theology be man-centered? Faith is not a work; it is dependence upon the Worker. The inspired Word says, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him” (Rom. 4:5). Therefore, faith is the opposite of works. Faith says, “I can’t, but God can,” and so depends upon God. The focus of true faith is, of necessity, on God, who is the object of faith. This is undeniably God-centered.

The clash is between inevitable faith (thorough-going Calvinism) and responsible faith (Keswick). Does progressive sanctification just inevitably occur for every true child of God, or can it be hindered by unbelief and accelerated by faith? Keswick claims the latter. Interestingly, responsible faith (Keswick) also clashes with the misfocused faith of unfettered choice (thorough-going Arminianism). Responsible faith means you are responding to the convincing work of the Spirit based on God’s Word. It is not unfettered choice, nor is it inevitable. It is a true responsibility.

When I hear or read what some Calvinists claim that Keswick teaches, I’m amazed at the inaccuracy. Perhaps some read the critics of Keswick and not Keswick authors themselves. Others may perhaps read Keswick authors but do so with such bias that they do not read what the authors are actually saying. The outcome is major misrepresentation.

Personal Defeat

Some may attack Keswick because they supposedly “tried it, and it didn’t work” for them. However, the problem is not with the provision of the indwelling Christ, but with either a misunderstanding of truth or a misapplication of surrender.

Some people misunderstand faith, what it is, and how it operates. Like a triangle with three sides, faith must involve the three parts of the soul of man (mind, affections, will), or it is not true faith. The mind must understand the foundation of truth revealed in God’s Word. The affections must be affected (convinced) by what is understood. Then the will must engage in God-dependence based on Spirit-convincement of the reality of God’s words. Regarding sanctification by faith, it seems to me that some may attempt to move from mere intellectual understanding to a choice of the will without actually being convinced by the Spirit of the truth involved. This would “short-circuit” the process because it would not be real faith. It would be wishful thinking rather than convinced confidence. When this is the case, some may conclude, “I tried it, and it didn’t work.” However, when the Holy Spirit illumines truth, the convincement leads to genuine faith – which always works.

Others misapply surrender/faith. They may not have given their all to Christ, trusting Him to take it. Or they may not have taken His all to them, trusting Him to give it.

For those who “tried it and it didn’t work,” the problem is not with the truth of the provision of the indwelling Christ which may be accessed by faith. Yet it is always easier to blame something other than yourself.

Satanic Attack

Satan attacks revival truth! He is the master deceiver. Revival theology (Keswick) threatens his turf. Much of the controversy is stirred up by his deceptions. When you understand that Keswick-type conferences were used to ignite revival fires or fuel them in the early twentieth-century revivals, it is no wonder that Satan has attacked Keswick theology in order to prevent another great wave of revival blessing.

Conclusion

Obviously, an article which is brief in its nature cannot deal with all the details of the present confusion around the word Keswick. May I suggest that you read the Keswick authors, and let them speak for themselves. Their writings have been blessed of God to point many to Christ and the Word, away from self and the world, which gloriously passes the tests of 1 John 4. Read G. Campbell Morgan’s The Spirit of God, Evan Hopkins’ The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life, J. Elder Cummings’ Through the Eternal Spirit, Handley G. C. Moule’s Practicing the Promises and his treatment of Romans 6-8 in his commentary on Romans, F. B. Meyer’s many books, W. H. Griffith Thomas’ treatment of Romans 6-8 in his commentary on Romans, A. J. Gordon’s writings, A. T. Pierson’s works, and so forth. Steven Barabas quotes from many Keswick authors in his book entitled So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Keswick Convention.

So, is Keswick a good word or a bad one? If you mean sanctification by faith, thus accessing the victorious life of Christ, that is gloriously good! However, I prefer to use the label “revival theology.” The issue, of course, is not a label, but truth.

The Christian life is not merely a set of doctrines. It is not merely a set of moral actions. Unsaved moralists have that. The Christian life is a life—a person—and His name is Jesus! Jesus Christ is the Christian Life. Therefore, Jesus Christ is the only one who can live the Christian life. But when you were born again, Christ, the Christian life Himself, moved into you —to impart to you His life. He lives in you so that you, yet not you, but Christ in you, can live the Christian life. When you got saved, Christ moved in—to live His life, not yours! But this is not automatic. As you received Christ by faith, you also must walk by faith one step at a time (Col. 2:6). This is accessing the eternal life of Christ as the abundant life in Christ. This is sanctification by faith. Ultimately, this is revival reality.

For those of us who believe the theology of “Christ in you accessed by faith,” the derogatory slurs against this truth are not small matters. Jesus is the Victorious Life, the Higher Life, the Deeper Life, the Spirit-filled Life, the Revived Life, the Hidden Life,—the Christ-Life! To us, when holiness by faith—the Holy Life accessed by faith—is attacked, the attack is ultimately on the indwelling Life of Christ.

I published this article in a shorter form in Revival magazine, Issue Five, 2006. The only significant changes in this present publication are expansions. Since 2006, the term revival theology has taken hold. My hope was that this would avoid any unnecessary confusion which surrounded the word Keswick. However, I have discovered that, in some cases, the attack simply switched to the term revival theology. This indicates that the issue is not what terminology you choose to use, but rather the truth behind the terms. It is becoming more apparent that the real problem for some is “ye do always resist the Holy Spirit.” The real tension point for some is “the offense of the cross.” The cross repudiates self in both justification by works and sanctification by works. Furthermore, not only does the cross repudiate the works of the flesh (self-indulgence), the cross repudiates the work of the flesh (self-dependence). The cross demands “not I, but Christ” (Gal. 2:20). The heart of Keswick theology is accessing this Holy Life of Jesus by faith, nothing less, nothing more.


Dr. John R. Van Gelderen
Revival Focus Ministries

Lifting the Curtain on Keswick

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Today is one of the rare occasions I am linking1 to a blog outside my circle of recommended sites. I refer to the Systematic Theology Matters blog hosted by Dr. Mark Snoeberger. The topic under discussion there is Keswick, which is under an article titled, Total Depravity and the Gospel the subject of the last article here written by Dr. John Van Gelderen. Please refer to, “Keswick” A Good Word or a Bad One?2

In the Total Depravity... thread I recognized an opportunity to engage elements of the article that are helpful, as well as address elements that needed some attention. In my opinion, the difference in the debate around Keswick simply boils down to an “inevitable” view of faith versus a responsible faith.

I have been talking to individuals who are long time students of Keswick theology, individuals who are intimately familiar with the history as well.  The comments you will find at the Systematic Theology Matters blog, which I am reposting here in the order I submitted them there, stem from those discussions.  My goal is to present information to: 1) Lift the curtain on Keswick for those who are unfamiliar with it; 2) To help all persons gain a proper understanding of Keswick; 3) To clear up areas of misunderstanding.

Following is the series of comments in the order I posted them at Brother Snoeberger’s blog. Most address a particular portion of his main article. Others are interactions with him in the thread itself.

Kind regards,


Lou Martuneac

#1 From my limited understanding of Keswick I still think I know enough to say that Keswick men would track with you on certain elements of this article. Where they would part company is over what I believe you are suggesting is the inevitability of growth. The Keswick believes in growth (sanctification) of the redeemed, but hindrance to growth that can and does exist (carnality, unconfessed sin...) must be biblically resolved. I don't think there is a quick fix that guarantees the process of growth, but the opportunity and supernatural aid for growth is certainly infused at the moment of justification, regeneration.

#2 Thanks for the reply. If I am following you and getting my train of thought on the same rails I don't think Keswick teaches some kind of near absolute passivity. We are instructed to run the race, press toward the mark, strive. Instead Keswick emphasizes removing the barriers that hinder growth, lay aside every weight and the besetting sin... . Apart from Him we can do nothing; grieve not the Spirit.... The Bible does tell us how to restore fellowship with the Lord (1 Jn. 1:9) the fellowship we hinder and break because of our own sin. As we consider justification, sanctification and our eventual glorification all of them are ultimately provided by Him and through Him when we once as lost, depraved sinners came to Him in faith believing who He is and what He did to provide our salvation.

#3 To claim that Keswick was born out of Wesleyan holiness is a logical fallacy. It is like claiming that Reformed Theology was born out of Catholicism. J. C. Pollock who wrote The Keswick Story notes the Keswick theologians (Moule, Hopkins) kept Keswick theology within biblical boundaries so that Keswick was protected from the shipwreck of the holiness movement.

#4 Next, regarding the claim that Keswick teaches believers are a “passive channel” is just not so. The men I speak to have read thousands of pages of Keswick authors (much more than I have) and they assure me that they have not seen that taught. Keswick teaches sanctification by faith, not self-dependence. But it is an active faith that trusts to obey. This does not negate the need to act. It simply points up the need to trust (ask / take) before you act. To just act is self-dependence. To just trust is really not trusting; it is easy-believism in sanctification. To trust to obey is God-dependence, accessing Spirit-enablement (Rom. 5:2).

#5 Regarding the claim that Keswick teaches a “status change only” in salvation is again simply not true. Day Two of the Keswick progression highlights “Provision.” The emphasis is on all that God provided in regeneration - the new man joined to the indwelling Christ, etc. It’s just that Keswick maintains this provision must be accessed by faith or you live below your provision. But the point is Keswick teaches a glorious provision as the foundation for that faith. The difference simply boils down to an “inevitable” view of faith versus a responsible faith.

#6 Keswick, in a nutshell, emphasizes repeated steps of faith to access the indwelling Christ.3 Why would anyone knock this focus? (Heb. 11:6; Heb. 12:2).

One’s view of faith is at the bottom of the whole Keswick-Calvinism debate.

Footnotes:
1) For Dr. Snoeberger’s complete article and our thread discussion please go to Total Depravity and the Gospel.

2) A revised and expanded version of Dr. Van Gelderen’s article on “Keswick” will appear here at IDOTG in the very near future.

3) Dr. Van Gelderen deals with the final comment in his new book The Faith Response.

Archival Series: “Keswick,” A Good Word or a Bad One?

Ev. John Van Gelderen

Occasionally, I hear people use the label “Keswick” in a derogatory way. Yet others use the term quite positively. Someone who did not know the term would wonder if “Keswick” is a good word or a bad one. The issue, of course, is not the term, but what one means by the term.

Historical Background and Theology

Keswick is a beautiful town nestled in the Lake District of England. In 1875, a conference began there which continued annually as “The Keswick Convention.” Its original stated purpose was for the deepening of spiritual life. To accomplish this purpose a definite theological position was taught—sanctification by faith, sometimes called holiness by faith.

The focus of the theology was on Christ as one’s life. This was sometimes called “The Higher Life” or “The Deeper Life” or “The Victorious Life.” Although in later years other ideas were attached to some of these labels, their original usage was Christ-focused.

In other words, the “Higher Life,” the “Deeper Life,” the “Victorious Life,” the “Spirit-filled Life,” the “Christ-Life” is not a new line of teaching. It is not a mere set of doctrines; it is not a set of motions; it is not a conference, a convention, or a movement—it is a Life. That Life is a Person, and His name is Jesus! Jesus is the “Higher Life.” Jesus is the “Deeper Life.” Jesus is the “Victorious Life.” How can it be otherwise? Sanctification or holiness by faith is simply accessing the “Holy Life” by faith. It is “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me…by faith” (Gal. 2:20). Holiness by faith is accessing the Holy Life of Jesus to empower holy living and serving. It is becoming “partakers of His holiness” (Heb.12:10), not imitators.

Keswick theology teaches that “progressive sanctification” does not mean an inevitable gradual sanctification, but rather that sanctification is accelerated by faith choices and is hindered by choices of unbelief. Obviously, the Holy Spirit keeps working, but believers are responsible to cooperate in faith for sanctification to progress according to God’s will. Keswick teaches that just as justification is by faith, so also sanctification is by faith.

To help people understand how to “progress” in sanctification, Keswick emphasized a specific theme each of the five days of their convention: Sin (sin is the problem, both outer man sins and especially inner man sins), Provision (Christ is the answer through the cleansing power of His blood and the enabling power of His Spirit), Consecration (the access to Christ’s provision is through surrender, by yielding to Christ’s leadership, and faith, by depending on Christ’s enablement), the Spirit-filled Life (surrender/faith accesses Christ’s Life—the Spirit-filled life for holiness and service), and Service (the whole point of sanctification by faith is to then serve by faith primarily in the declaration of the Gospel).

The Keswick Convention began in 1875 and continues to this day. However, as with many movements, eventually the original focus was lost so that today the Keswick Convention no longer truly represents its original purpose. The first two generations of Keswick (the first eighty years) held to the original theology. In other words, Keswick theology stayed largely true to its beginning from 1875 through the 1950s. During this time Keswick guarded itself from the extremes of certain factions within the “Holiness Movement.” However, ecclesiastically, Keswick began to weaken during the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the 1920s and 1930s. Their motto of “all one in Christ” set them up for compromise when this controversy came on the scene. This compromise eventually eroded their theology in significant ways by the 1960s.

First-generation Keswick included as speakers Evan Hopkins (who spoke annually for 39 years), F. B. Meyer (regular speaker from 1887 to 1925), Handley G. C. Moule (regular speaker from the mid-1880s to his death), G. Campbell Morgan, A. T. Pierson, A. J. Gordon, S. D. Gordon, R. A. Torrey, Andrew Murray, Hudson Taylor, Jonathan Goforth, and W. H. Griffith Thomas. Second-generation Keswick was led by W. Graham Scroggie, and included Donald Grey Barnhouse and J. Oswald Sanders.

Notice how familiar many of these names are and how they are esteemed even to this day. R. A. Torrey was so respected in his day that he was the editor of The Fundamentals. The Fundamentals contain 90 articles. Speakers associated with Keswick theology wrote at least 21% of these articles. Of the authors used, at least 29% were associated with Keswick theology. This shows that Keswick was mainstream in the beginnings of Biblical Fundamentalism. Therefore, Keswick was clearly considered “orthodox.” To denigrate Keswick is to denigrate the roots of Fundamentalism.

I prefer to call Keswick theology “revival theology.” When one is awakened to the need to access the indwelling Life of Christ by faith and begins to appropriate that Life for the steps of obedience, personal revival occurs. Revival is a restoration to spiritual life—the Life of Christ in you accessed by faith as the animating power to your personality! This doctrine did not begin in 1875 with Keswick. It began in the New Testament (John 10:10, 14-16; Rom. 6-8; II Cor. 3:5,17-18; 9:8; Gal. 2:20; 3:1-5,14; Eph. 3:17; 5:18; Phil. 1:21; Col. 1:27; 3:4). This is revival theology! In fact, in The Flaming Tongue, J. Edwin Orr’s account of the early twentieth-century revivals which affected at least 57 nations, Orr repeatedly documents that Keswick-type conferences were used of God to either ignite revival fire or to greatly fuel it.

In the work entitled Five Views of Sanctification, J. Robertson McQuilken wrote the Keswick view, and John Walvoord wrote the Augustinian-Dispensational view. After each author presented his view, he then had opportunity to respond to the other views. McQuilken said there is no real difference between the Keswick view and the Augustinian-Dispensational view. Also, Walvoord said there was no real difference between the Augustinian-Dispensational view and the Keswick view. Dispensational theology is broader than just sanctification, whereas Keswick deals primarily with sanctification. But on sanctification, Keswick theology is Dispensational theology embraced by many today.

Inaccurate Accusations

Passivity

Some accuse Keswick of passivity. This is probably because Keswick emphasizes resting in Christ. However, the emphasis is not to sit back and do nothing, but rather trust to obey! The emphasis is not idle passivity, but active cooperation—the cooperation of surrendering to the Spirit’s leadership and depending on His enablement. This is walking in the Spirit, which obviously involves steps, not quietistic passivity. But the steps are steps of faith, not the mere motions of flesh-dependent activity. This is what brings rest, for when you yoke up with Jesus, He carries the load!

Keswick denounces “struggle theology,” which is flesh-dependence in an effort to live the Christian life, because works-sanctification is just as wrong as works-justification (Gal. 3:1-3). You do not get justified by faith, and then get sanctified by struggle. Sanctification is also by faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb.11:6). Obviously there are struggles in life, but flesh-dependence for frustrated Christian living is an unnecessary struggle. Faith for victory means you are depending on the victorious Life of Christ to enable you to obey. It is not a matter of you trying to live the Christian life (hollow motions), it is a matter of trusting the indwelling Christ to enable you for the steps of obedience (empowered motions). So victory without trying does not mean victory doing nothing; it means victory with trusting. True faith is not an inward, “navel-gazing,” self-focus; it is focusing rather on Christ, the true object of faith, that He might express His Life through yours. To accuse Keswick theology of passivity is simply not accurate.

Subjectivism

Occasionally Keswick theology is labeled derogatorily as being too subjective. This is probably because of Keswick’s emphasis on the reality of the Holy Spirit. However, Keswick emphasizes the subjective reality of the Spirit based on the objective boundaries of the Word. The emphasis is by no means the Spirit without the Word. Nor is it the Word without the Spirit. Rather, it is the Word and the Spirit. The Spirit without the Word is delusion leading to strange fire. The Word without the Spirit is deadness leading to no fire. But the Word and the Spirit is dynamic leading to true Holy Spirit fire.

Interestingly, Robert Thomas rightly deals with the dangerous subjectivism of evangelicals in his book called Evangelical Hermeneutics. He names many names in the evangelical world who are guilty of true subjectivism. But when he seeks to show a right approach, he often quotes J. Robertson McQuilken as handling matters biblically. McQuilken, who wrote several helpful books, is the writer of the Keswick view of sanctification in Five Views of Sanctification, which we noted earlier. Keswick teaches the subjective reality of the Holy Spirit based on the Word, not subjectivism which leaves the scriptural foundation. To accuse Keswick of subjectivism reveals an inaccurate understanding of Keswick teaching.

Second Blessing

Some accuse Keswick of second blessing theology. But this shows great ignorance of both true second blessing theology and Keswick theology. Second blessing theology speaks of receiving a once-for-all second blessing which puts one on a new stage never to fall back to a former stage. Keswick speaks of alternating between two conditions of either walking in the flesh or walking in the Spirit. It is not once for all. Second blessing theology demands a “second” event. Keswick teaches you were given the whole package at salvation and that you can access the whole blessing immediately (and some do), but that many because of a lack of understanding do not until later. Even then it is not a second blessing, but a second, and a third, and a fourth, and so on. Second blessing theology says that you receive something you did not yet have. Keswick theology teaches that you by faith access your First Blessing! Some early Keswick writers used the terminology of second blessing (which confuses matters today), but they do so only in the sense that I have described above, which is different from true second blessing theology.

Sinless Perfectionism

I suppose this charge comes because Keswick theology emphasizes the Victorious Life of Christ. Obviously, He is perfect. But Keswick makes clear that we still live in the “body of sin” (Rom. 6:6). The focus of Keswick is not that you cannot sin, but that you are able not to sin because of the indwelling Christ. Keswick makes clear that tragically Christians sin, but that the focus should not be on being defeated, but rather on victory in Christ by faith. The provision of the indwelling Christ is perfect, but our consistent access of that perfect provision is sadly imperfect. This is quite different from a Wesleyan position. There is no such thing as a Wesleyan/Keswick position. Rather, there is an Augustinian-Dispensational/Keswick position. To accuse Keswick theology of sinless perfectionism is simply not being honest with the facts of Keswick teaching.

Reasons for the Attack

Misinformation

Amazingly, I have been in several settings where speakers had just taught Keswick theology and then said, “Now I’m not talking about Keswick,” or, “I’m not talking about the Deeper Life.” This shows that they do not really know what the labels actually mean, but are functioning off of hearsay and concepts which have been attached to the term “Keswick” by the critics of Keswick. First impressions are mind-setting. Someone “bent their ear,” or they read the critics of Keswick without actually reading the Keswick authors themselves. Then, when they criticize the term Keswick, they are shooting themselves in the foot because they are undermining what they themselves taught. Obviously this is unintentional, but it still is harmful to that which they believe.

Thoroughgoing Calvinism

Not all proclaimed Calvinists clash with Keswick, but those of a thoroughgoing system often do. Keswick emphasizes man’s responsibility of faith (sanctification by faith). Some Calvinists claim this is man-centered. But how can God-dependence theology be man-centered? This is a clash between inevitable faith (Calvinism) and responsible faith (Keswick). Does progressive sanctification just inevitably occur for every true child of God, or can it be hindered by unbelief and accelerated by faith? Keswick claims the latter. Interestingly, responsible faith (Keswick) also clashes with the misfocused faith of unfettered choice (Arminianism). Responsible faith means you are responding to the convincing work of the Spirit based on God’s Word. It is not unfettered choice, nor is it inevitable. It is a true responsibility.

When I hear or read what some Calvinists claim Keswick teaches, I’m amazed at the inaccuracy. Perhaps some read the critics of Keswick and not Keswick authors themselves. Others may perhaps read Keswick authors but do so with such bias that they do not read what the authors are actually saying. The outcome is major misrepresentation.

Personal Defeat

Some may attack Keswick because they supposedly tried it, and it did not work for them. However, the problem is not with the provision of Christ, but with a misunderstanding of truth or a misapplication of surrender and faith. Some are not truly surrendering (giving up) their sin; they just don’t like their guilt. Some may have misunderstandings regarding faith, what it is and how it works. If you have a besetting sin or are ineffective in service, it is always easier to blame something other than your own responsible choices.

Satanic Attack

Satan attacks revival truth! He is the master deceiver. Revival theology (Keswick) threatens his turf. Much of the controversy is stirred up by his deceptions. When you understand that Keswick-type conferences were used to ignite revival fires or fuel them in the early twentieth-century revivals, it is no wonder that Satan has attacked Keswick theology in order to prevent another great wave of revival blessing.

Conclusion

Obviously, an article which is brief in its nature cannot deal with all the details of the present confusion around the word Keswick. May I suggest that you read the Keswick authors themselves. Read G. Campbell Morgan’s The Spirit of God, Evan Hopkins’ The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life, J. Elder Cummings’ Through the Eternal Spirit, Handley G. C. Moule’s Practicing the Promises and his treatment of Romans 6-8 in his commentary on Romans, F. B. Meyer’s many books, A. J. Gordon’s writings, A. T. Pierson’s works, and so forth. Steven Barabas quotes from many Keswick authors in his book entitled So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Keswick Convention.

So, is Keswick a good word or a bad one? If you mean sanctification by faith thus accessing the victorious Life of Christ, that is gloriously good! However, I prefer to use the label “revival theology.” The issue, of course, is not a label, but truth.

Jesus Christ is the only one who can live the Christian life! Jesus is the Christian Life. But He lives in you so that you, yet not you, but Christ in you can live the Christian life! When you got saved, Christ moved in—to live His life, not yours! But this is not automatic. As you received Christ by faith, you also must walk by faith one step at a time (Col. 2:6). This is accessing the eternal Life as the abundant Life. This is sanctification by faith. Ultimately, this is revival reality.

For those of us who believe the theology of “Christ in you accessed by faith,” the derogatory slurs against this truth are not small matters. Jesus is the Victorious Life, the Higher Life, the Deeper Life, the Spirit-filled Life, the Revived Life, the Hidden Life,—the Christ-Life! To us, when holiness by faith—the Holy Life accessed by faith—is attacked, the attack is ultimately on the indwelling Life of Christ.


Evangelist John R. Van Gelderen

Originally published 31 October 2007. Reprinted by permission of Revival Focus Ministries, formerly Preach the Word Ministries.

Please continue to Lifting the Curtain on Keswick

You may print the PDF and/or e-mail this article from the Baptist College of Ministry web site.

Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet

After over three years of active participation at Sharper Iron (SI) on the morning of June 8, 2009 I resigned my membership from the site. From this blog (IDOTG) I announced publicly that I dropped my membership at SI.1 I also notified the SI leadership in SI threads, via e-mails and private messages that I was quitting SI with immediate effect. Shortly after resigning from SI I opened a new blog titled, Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet. Since its opening there have been about 15 articles posted in the Iron Skillet on well known disconcerting issues and practices at the SI site.

In a brand new series of articles in the Iron Skillet we have been demonstrating that SI, contrary to its claims, does NOT exist on behalf of or for the advancement of authentic Fundamentalism. Instead SI (the majority of its leadership) has primarily operated the site and directed their personal efforts to the advancement of so-called “conservative” evangelicalism.

In a series of new comments at SI one poster named DonP is insisting that authentic, historic fundamentalism is embodied in the current day so-called “conservative” evangelical movement. If that is true then we are to accept that John Piper’s embrace of Rick Warren and Al Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration exemplify what contemporary fundamentalism has become. SI has, furthermore, begun to allow for elements of “New” evangelical thinking to be voiced from its front page. (See the controversial article from August 5, Church Planting Thirty Years Later by Pastor Steve Davis.)

“Now, Steve’s [Davis] view of the creation account is a lesser issue, but with the same approach. If the Genesis literal day creation is valid, but also other views are also valid, then that’s also OK if God will accept that. The problem is He won’t. He [God] doesn’t intend to teach both. He wrote a clear account as part of a historical statement and expects us to accept it. Or was God having fun and being unclear and expecting us to have fun guessing as to what He really meant…. New alternate theories are now set forth. Creation science is advocated by scientists with highly regarded credentials. On this one issue alone Steve advocates theory, approach and doubt, that is an unacceptable compromise of scripture.”

Allow me to direct your attention to the complete article in the Iron Skillet. Please continue to,

SI and New Evangelical Reasoning Once you finish the article please pay special attention to my concluding comments. Additional articles from the Iron Skillet blog include:

SI, “YOU LIE!”

SI Gang-Tackles “Doc” Clearwaters!

“SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Facade & Veneer Is Stripped Away

I Had to Ask: Does This Sharpen Me?


LM

In September 2010 I published Sharper Iron Sizzles In and Over the Iron Skillet. I heartily recommend it as further reading on the issues with and at SI.

Footnotes:
1) Cancelled My Membership at SI

Calvinism, Religion and Worldliness

Dear Guests of IDOTG: Today, I welcome back Kevin Lane with his new article for your consideration. Kevin will be available to interact with you in the discussion thread.

We are especially subject to believing we can become like God through effort and religion so as to be acceptable in His sight. It was exactly this that the Serpent tempted Adam and Eve with in the Garden and so also the very delusion man’s fallen sinful nature tries sell each of us even to this day. Our pride has a mantra that progresses from false hope to true destruction: You can be like God; you are like God; you don’t need God to save you.

The Serpent cloaks his diabolic plot to use our effort and religion against us with partial truths and logical arguments built on false premises. The plot is truly terrifying because while it strokes our deluded egos it sets us up against God’s true goodness and justice. Do not be deceived, the plot is so complex and pervasive that God spends most of the Bible exposing it, and showing how He alone has defeated it. Even in defeat though, we have a faithful enemy; he is always on the prowl for who he can share his defeat with. He is much too cunning to try to drag us to Hell, instead he baits us to walk along with him to destruction.

When Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness they covered themselves, like the Seraphim do. (Isaiah 6) One might think they were doing well because they covered themselves out of humility. Yet God showed them that He Himself must cover them if it is to be meaningful. The Jews found that they could achieve the appearance of godliness through obeying the 613 rules, regulations and commands found in the Law & the Prophets. Yet God called them white washed tombs. They looked clean on the outside but inwardly they were desperately wicked (Matt. 23:27). A Tax Collector and a Pharisee each went to the Temple to pray. The Tax Collector saw his desperate need of God to have mercy on him, but the Pharisee had confidence in how good he was, and even thanked God for this goodness. The Tax Collector went home justified, but the Pharisee remained in his sin (Luke 18:9-14). The Church at Galatia began to feel that the righteousness received by faith was not enough. They thought they had to add effort to ensure God’s acceptance. They were warned to account any who teach this foolish false gospel as deserving severe judgment, as if any such wretched preacher is cursed. The Church at Laodicea believed they were rich and needed nothing. Yet the Lord wrote to them explaining their great need of the riches only He can provide. The Lord told them that He stands at the door knocking (even knocking Beloved do you hear?) desiring to come in to that assembly to dine with those who would receive from Him (Rev 3:14-22).

In each recorded instance the people were trying to honor God through effort and while they had an appearance of godliness they actually ended up worldly in ways they may not have even been aware of. Instead of experiencing God’s acceptance they suffered rebuke and correction. Please let this sink in; all of these people were trying to do the right thing toward God. They all feared Him, loved Him and wanted to honor Him. They all thought their religion and effort would mean they could be like God, some of them thought they were like God, and some of them didn’t think they needed His mercy anymore.

Calvinism, as expressed by the acrostic TULIP* and as espoused by modern preachers such as Dr. John Piper is born out of these same good things: a fear of God, a love of God and the desire to honor God. Even so, it fails as miserably as all the efforts we read about in the Bible did. It actually builds a system of religion and effort that ultimately leads away from godliness instead of toward it.

Let’s consider that Calvinism, in its practical sense, is fundamentally concerned with how people bring God glory. God is said to be orchestrating every instance of history to bring Himself glory and we have no actual say in our part of His sovereign plan. It is explained that any choice made by a person to serve God would violate His sovereignty, because all things are by His decree alone. Decree is actually a very accurate rendering for the word grace in the Calvinistic understanding that salvation is “by grace.” It is said the sinner is used to bring God glory through his/her judgment and subsequent eternal punishment while the saint is used through obedience and good works. Logically, since God is orchestrating every instance of history, it is said that one can evaluate which part of God’s program one is on through evaluating how one is bringing glory to God. Are you characterized by sin that will be judged and punished, or are you characterized by righteousness? This is how Calvinism is practically applied in the lives of those who are taught it: look at yourself and evaluate.

Space here, and time to write fail to give me opportunity to demonstrate fully the worldliness that this leads to but I can point to three things immediately. These ought inform our understanding, and demonstrate the fact of Calvinism leading to worldliness:

1. The un-Christ-like dialogue from Calvinists. Instead of discussion leading to edification, Calvinists seem most concerned with how everyone “misrepresents” Calvinism. Google returns about 225,000 results for searching the terms “Calvinism/Misrepresent” at the time of this writing;

2. The overt, and uncorrected worldly nature of the so-called Young Restless and Reformed; 1and

3. The continued examples of lacking desire to be absolutely sure of what the Scriptures truly say, vss. what one’s current theology says.

The fact established (as much as space allows), we are left with the question: “Why?” Why did all these people who desired to honor God in the Bible only end up more worldly through practicing a religion designed to honor God? Why does Calvinism, a theological system most concerned with God’s glory, actually tend to make so many who follow it more worldly?

Because, the eyes of the follower are turned toward his or her own self in religious exercises. Even though the person is honestly seeking to honor God, they are looking at their own self in a continuous practice.

Consider that the Gospel, as presented in the Scriptures, has us look at and examine Christ’s work on the Cross on our behalf (1 Cor. 15:1-11). The Lord explained this truth in detail to Nicodemus. The Lord told him that one must look toward the Cross, our sin judged and paid for, just like Israel in the wilderness had to look at the serpent raised up in order for them to be saved. As we will see, this is to be the Christian’s continuous practice; not inward looking but looking toward the Cross.

In Fail-Safe for Fallacy2 I used the example of how learning to perform a challenging figure-8 maneuver on a motorcycle by looking over my shoulder to where I wanted the bike to go as an illustration to help explain the Christian walk. So long as I tried to steer through the maneuver I would fail every time, just like everyone else on the same safety course did. When I was taught to simply look where I needed to go, then it just worked without effort. The truth of what I was taught is played out in accident avoidance, and sadly non-avoidance every day. Those who stare at pot-holes and light poles end up hitting them… while those who look toward safety do not.

Various teachings from Calvinists will have the believer look for signs of or tendencies toward goodness in his or her self. This goodness is then used to give assurance of salvation. It is commonly explained that this goodness does not earn one’s salvation, but it does give assurance that we are on God’s program for saints, not his program for sinners. We are told if it can’t be seen the salvation does not exist.

Yet if we look for goodness in ourselves we will find what we think is goodness. Not only is this how man’s pride works (Prov. 20:6) it is also a symptom of Confirmation Bias.3 We will take confidence in our false view of ourselves, and such will become the foundation of our faith – see I’m on God’s good plan! Anytime the reality of who we are sneaks into view and we fear, we look again to see if we can see any sign of “God working in our lives,” and when we think we do our fears are quelled again, at least for a little while. All the time we will spend looking at our selves and each time we find the goodness we are looking for we will thank God for that goodness and feel confident.

Does this sound familiar? Does this sound like the Tax Collector or the Pharisee to you?

When we focus on our performance we get dull in our sight and thinking through studying the counterfeit instead of the Original. We lose proper perspective and so lower our standards from perfection that is Christ to some “tendency towards goodness” or “desire for goodness.” I’ve heard it preached many times “People, it’s not about perfection it’s about direction! Are you going in the right direction?” Are you kidding me? Beloved, it IS about perfection. We are without hope except we have the perfect righteousness of Christ, no matter how good we think we perform and that perfection is only attainable by faith alone. (Philippians 3)

This is the root of why religious systems like Calvinism do not lead people toward godliness. A person believes that Christ’s provision can save them, but the actual foundation for their life is how they perceive God working in their lives. This is where they get their assurance. Not that He faithfully will accept all who depend on His provision on the Cross, but that He will only accept those who persevere to the end of their life.

“There is no doubt that Jesus saw a measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation.... What God will require at the judgment is not our perfection, but sufficient fruit to show that the tree had life-in our case, divine life.” (John Piper, What Jesus Demands From the World, pp. 160, 221.)

“Endurance in faith is a condition for future salvation. Only those who endure in faith will be saved for eternity.” R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown, p. 198.)

It would seem that this would inspire a godly life, but what it does is force a person to continuously re-define what righteousness is, and how it is manifest in order that one can find a spurious assurance. Calvinism becomes the person’s identity, and hope and then they are trapped and the true downward spiral begins. Effort spent in endless arguments with anyone who dares to question Calvinism is only matched by deeper and deeper studying of the theology and refusal to consider any attempted correction. Instead of becoming more Christ-like, the person becomes combative, harsh, and often resorts to hero worship of various popular Calvinist preachers.

The fallen nature’s mantra resounds as they find confidence in things other than the Cross alone: You can be like God, you are like God, you don’t need God’s mercy.

However, when we instead of looking at ourselves look upon the Christ crucified for our sins we behold absolute pure perfection. There is no level of performance that can offer assurance when compared with His perfect standard, leaving us to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that we need His mercy and grace. When the Apostle Paul went to the most worldly assembly of truly saved people noted in the Bible, the Church at Corinth, he set out to know NOTHING among them except Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2). It was his solution to get them to look again at the Cross, not themselves. Their doubts about a future hope, their worldliness, their religion - all of it, was to be solved by looking at the Cross. Their only instruction to look at themselves was in defense of Paul’s apostleship, not their salvation and growth.

Beloved the whole of Scripture tells us to surrender the struggle to become good enough for God to accept us and to instead be still and know that He is God (Psalm 46). We are told not to be like the work animal that must be bridled and bound but instead willingly come sit and learn from God (Psalm 32). We are told to have assurance because God said it, not because we have responded in a particular way (Gen. 15:6). We are told that we ungodly sinners are justified through faith apart from any works (Romans 4, Eph 2:8-9).

Calvinism would have you find assurance in your submission to the Lordship of Christ and by seeing that you have continued in good works. An entire religious system of outward performance and effort is laid on the believer’s shoulders. (Of course the performance is said to be God’s work, so any who tire of keeping up with expectations feel shame for it.) We are however warned that on the day of Judgment many will approach God confidently, assured of their salvation, because they have emphatically called Him “Lord, Lord” and done wondrous works in His name.

The Lord sends such people away to the Lake of Fire. They didn’t have assurance in His finished work alone, they found it in their continued works; their religion, their efforts to please Him. He will call their religion the practice of lawlessness. I wonder how worldly these people will have been, having found confidence by looking at their performance? Can one look at himself, see that he is going the right direction, and not be satisfied that at least to some extent he is “good enough”?

Beloved, look toward the splendor of the Cross where God demonstrated His love for us. It is through the Cross we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. If you must look at yourself; judge yourself guilty and trust that guilt is paid for at the Cross, then get on with it. Any other practice leads to religion that leads to worldliness and judgment.


Kevin Lane
On My Walk

*TULIP: T- Total Inability; U- Unconditional Election; L- Limited Atonement; I- Irresistible Grace; P- Perseverance of the Saints

FOOTNOTES:
1) Young, Restless and Reformed

2) Fail-Safe for Fallacy (Kindle edition for $0.99)

3) Confirmation Bias

Is That The Voice of a “Proud [SI] Fundamentalist?”

Today, at Sharper Iron (SI) site publisher Aaron Blumer has posted a new article in which he attempts to portray himself and SI as if he and the site are loyal and long time friends of historic, balanced Fundamentalism. It is beyond question that from its inception SI has been at best lukewarm toward Fundamentalism and most often hostile toward it and those who post there that have identified with Fundamentalism.

In recent history SI moderators and some of the more aggressive angry former YFs have been especially hostile toward members many of whom finally quit SI such as: Ps. Marc Monte, Brain Ernsberger, Evangelist Dwight Smith, Lance Ketchum, et. al. When these men sought to defend some principle of or assault against their Fundamentalism conviction(s) they were each set upon by what might be best described as mob action with SI moderators in the lead.

This irrefutable pattern at SI, the greatest source of frustration and members quitting the site has been over the bent and bias of SI and especially its moderators actions toward self-identified Fundamentalists (who also reject the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism) who take opposing views to certain favored persons and positions at SI.

IMO, Aaron’s article is reactionary and political in nature. Reactionary because of a growing awareness that SI is biased and plays favorites with personalities, doctrinal positions and fellowships. Political because SI attempts to persuade readers that SI is and always has been for and on behalf of historic, balanced Fundamentalism.

On Friday, August 5 an article was posted at SI that has stirred yet another contentious debate. That debate disintegrated into another example of SI moderators (Jim Peet, SusanR) and Aaron Blumer gang-tackling certain men posting in the thread that were taking legitimate exception to elements of the article. The author Steve Davis was also quite hostile toward several who posted, but he was not approached by moderators for his harshness.

On Aug. 5 Aaron posted a comment (#6) in the article by Steve Davis

“Then you have guys like me who would never have considered naming a church ‘independent fundamental...’ in the first place. And a couple decades later, I'm not far from the same place I started.”1

Is That the Voice of a “Proud [SI] Fundamentalist?”

 A man, “who would never have considered naming a church ‘independent fundamental’.”

I am not sure what more anyone needs to know to be convinced that the SI site publisher/owner cannot be considered a friend of historic Fundamentalism. He has stated that he would never include “fundamental” as part of the name for a church he would pastor? IMO, it is impossible to be honest on SI’s About SI page claiming that SI is friendly and/or positive toward Fundamentalism with the leadership openly reluctant to even be identified with the term, “fundamental.”

SI is NOT a fundamentalist place, nor a place for fair and open discussions of how the fundamentalist sees the world. SI is in fact a place where fundamentalism is ignored by the leadership and/or routinely vilified, redefined and skewered by the SI moderators when someone attempts to post on behalf or in defense of Fundamentalism. The Steve Davis discussion thread under his article Church Planting Thirty Years Later  is the latest and one of the starkest examples of SI moderator aggression toward those who took an opposing view to Pastor Davis’s legitimizing theories of creation, other than a literal 6 day creation, and non-cessation of the Charismatic sign gifts.

The actions of SI moderators and the numerous articles at SI’s front page, its Forums and Blogroll evidence the truth that SI is primarily hostile toward Fundamentalism. The actions of SI’s moderates have historically been biased and hostile toward participants that attempt to define and defend Fundamentalist principles. SI moderators, including Aaron Blumer have gang-tackled Fundamentalists at SI who have attempted to address and/or criticize articles or personalities that attempt to redefine, besmirch, demonize chip away at Fundamentalism's high-water mark: biblical separation, ecclesiastical and personal.

For two years I have been challenging Aaron Blumer to produce even one article from the many hundreds of front page articles at SI that is thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and edifying to Fundamentalists. To reiterate, the qualifier has always been to produce an article from the SI front page that is “thoroughly positive.”

Today, Aaron has offered two articles that he must believe meets the test to produce a SI front page article that is thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and edifying for Fundamentalists. The first he offers is his own article, I Learned it From Fundamentalists. I answered that article at length the day Aaron published it, which was in March 2010. The article appears at the SI: In the Iron Skillet blog and I encourage you to read it there. Please see, Aaron Blumer: “I Learned it From Fundamentalists”

Aaron negates the value of his Learned It... article by equating what he learned of Fundamentalism by saying he could have learned the same things in the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. No objective individual who knows the primary differences between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism would suggest he could have learned the principles and application of authentic biblical separation from the evangelicals.

In 2010 Aaron Blumer at the site defined SI this way,

“The site has four thousand members (several hundred active) who identify with conservative evangelicalism of the fundamentalist variety.”

Acknowledging SI as a site for those who identify with conservative evangelicalism was most truthful description of SI to date. Aaron, however, pulled that statement when I: 1) Challenged his cooking the membership count books to reflect 4,000 members SI 3.0 did not have, and 2) Brought to his attention that he had affirmed that SI is for and about the advancement of the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism.

Aaron’s second offering is, Why Stay in Fundamentalism?

My heart goes out to Joe and to his family because it’s evident to me that he or someone in his family (or both) has suffered something very painful at the hands of fundamentalists. (In the talk, Joe doesn’t target Fundamentalism by name but clearly includes it under the “high-control groups” label.) Whether what was painful was also wrong I’m not in a position to know, but it’s certainly possible.

“Suffered…at the hands of fundamentalists?” And we are to take this as a thoroughly positive article on behalf Fundamentalism and edifying for Fundamentalists? Hardly!

Furthermore, in 2007, under pressure from Joe Zichterman, SI took down all articles that it had posted on Zichterman’s departure from Fundamentalism for the Willow Creek church. I was also contacted by Joe and asked to remove my article on his departure, I refused. You can read that article today at this blog with an added section in the thread about his contacting me to remove the article. Please refer to, The Joe Zichterman Issue

I would, furthermore, like for Aaron to produce that article from the SI site or the SI 2.0 archive. Is it still open, and accessible or was it taken down as the others on Joe Zichterman were at SI in 2007?

The history of SI is one of open hostility toward Fundamentalism and certain persons from the history of Fundamentalism. One of the most stark examples was the 2009 three part series by Dr. Kevin Bauder in which he besmirched and demonized the legacy of both Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and Dr. John R. Rice. SI moderators and Aaron Blumer happily published those articles and joined Bauder in the free-for-all at SI to lambaste those men and any in the threads who attempted to speak for or on behalf of them. Especially memorable is the way in which SI moderators and Aaron gang-tackled and their manhandling of Missionary John Himes, grandson of John R. Rice. See- Kevin Bauder: A Call for His Removal From the Platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship. There was also SI’s publishing Kevin Bauder’s inflammatory, Let's Get Clear on This. Please see, Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations

For what must be the few left participating at SI who are Fundamentalists by conviction, with Bible reasons for identifying oneself as a Fundamentalist, should seriously consider departing SI entirely. For three years I tried to present a voice of reason and conviction for the best of what Fundamentalism can be for the lurkers. Maybe you are there for the same reason. After three years of being ridiculed, vilified and gang-tackled by SI moderators and the angry former yf’s that dominate the threads I had had enough and quit SI on my own terms in June 2009.

Since its inception SI has (its moderators in particular) intimidated, gang-tackled, run off and/or demeaned… virtually every caring Fundamentalist that once did or might have participated in discussions there. That pattern continues today. Then, of course, SI has been allowing for the propagation of aberrant theology. Case in point Steve Davis postulating teachings such as: that beyond a literal six day creation there are valid theories, and that the signs and wonders movement is valid today.

Any church or college that identifies with Fundamentalism that is considering or presently financially supporting SI through advertising might seriously reconsider supporting a site that is hostile toward Fundamentalism from its front page, Forums, Filings and Blogroll. Is it a sound investment of the Lord’s resources to direct funds into a sight that, among other disconcerting issues, has been one of the most aggressive conduits for the tearing down of Fundamentalism’s high-water mark, which is: fidelity to authentic biblical separatism?


LM

1) Aaron Blumer Friday, August 5, Comment 6, Church Planting Thirty Years Later

For more on the “pseudo- fundamentalism” of SI please see my secondary blog, Shaper Iron: In the Iron Skillet:
“SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Facade & Veneer Is Stripped Away

“The facade that SI exists for and on behalf of Fundamentalism has never been a credible claim. With the latest article at SI [Aug. 5], an open attack on Fundamentalism written by a self-described former Fundamentalist, any legitimacy of the SI statement has been stripped away.”

New Article Today:
“SI May Fit the Description of Being ‘PSUEDO- FUNDAMENTALIST’”

SI’s Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Off Another

He’s Leaving Fundamentalism

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him,” (Proverbs 26:4).

Once in a while we will hear about a preacher who has announced that he is “leaving Fundamentalism.” This is never good news, and it provokes several questions. It also calls for a response from those who are wiser.

The book of Proverbs contains in its twenty-sixth chapter two precepts in consecutive verses that seem to contradict each other. Verse 4 tells us not to answer a fool according to his folly, and verse 5 tells us to go ahead and answer a fool according to his folly. Of course these divinely-inspired wise sayings do not contradict each other but instead present two legitimate responses to a fool’s folly. One way to respond to folly is to reject the very premises upon which a fool’s statements are based, “lest thou also be like unto him.” The other way is to accept for argument’s sake the wrong premises of the fool and then turn his foolishness back on him. We find examples of both these approaches in the recorded words of Jesus responding to inquirers and critics. We also find both approaches in the New Testament epistles. The first approach, not to answer a fool according to his folly, is the right one for dealing with the “leaving-Fundamentalism” kind of foolishness.

Now nobody has a right to call someone else a fool. The Lord made this clear in Matthew 5:21-22. However, His point was not that there is no such thing as a fool. Very many Bible passages describe fools. He was saying that nobody has a right to say to his brother, “Thou fool,” because everybody plays the fool from time to time. Even the human writer of the Proverbs played the fool. So we do not have the right to belittle others by calling them fools. However we have occasions to rebuke folly and hope to recover people from it.

There is folly in “leaving Fundamentalism,” and we ought to examine it in the light of the wisdom of God. What shall we say to such an announcement, whether it comes from a preacher, from a young man entering the ministry, or from a Christian family leaving a church?

So What?
First of all, let us recognize the veiled pride in such an announcement, and respond by saying, “So what?” Why is it important for us all to know that this person is making such a change in his life and ministry? What great consequences will result from his change and his announcement, and why should the Christian world sit up and take notice? Perhaps we have made too much of the unhappy defections from the truth we have witnessed in the past. Perhaps some immature souls are attracted to such things because of the attention it brings to those who commit them. But defection from the truth is no new, cataclysmic event. It is as old as the story of Demas. Defections happen, but they do not hinder the truth.

“For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth,” (2 Corinthians 13:8).

“There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD,” (Proverbs 21:30).

“The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect. The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations,” (Psalm 33:10-11).

Defections only hurt the defectors, and those who pay attention to them. If a believer for conscience sake must leave an organization, withdraw approval from a ministry or a minister, stop cooperating with somebody, or take some stand, let him simply do it, and not say things to cast reflection on Fundamentalism, a legitimate spiritual movement, “lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” (Acts 5:39). One man’s “leaving Fundamentalism” will do no harm to Fundamentalism itself.

Doing What?
We wonder what the brother means by saying he is “leaving Fundamentalism.” Although there is a human religious movement called the Fundamentalist, and also distinct movements legitimately labeled Fundamentalist, Fundamentalism itself is not a human movement, but rather a divine truth. A hundred years ago there was a grass-roots uprising in the evangelical American denominations to oppose the infiltration and influence of Liberal theology in their churches. Those who joined the protest were called Fundamentalists. They spoke out based on the premise that Christianity is not defined by a certain spirit, or by certain experiences, or by a certain way of living, or even by the teachings of Jesus as they apply to society, but rather by certain fundamental doctrines. These doctrines are the tenets of the Gospel, as spelled out in First Corinthians 15 and other New Testament scriptures. They are not only truths to be believed, but also the pillars on which Christianity stands. The Fundamentalist insists that the doctrines of the Gospel (including the authority of the Bible, the deity of Christ, His blood atonement, His bodily resurrection, and justification by faith alone) are fundamental to Christianity. In other words, without all of them, religion is not Christianity. Machen correctly contrasted Christianity and Liberalism. Something that is fundamental to something else is essential to it. Fundamentalism is the insistence that the fundamentals of the faith are fundamental to the faith.

It is the scriptural approach to dealing with heretics who have “crept in unawares,” according to Jude 3 and 4). We are to “earnestly contend” with them. We are to reject them from the Christian family, and refuse them Christian recognition (Titus 3:10-11). Evangelicals believe in the pillars of the Gospel, but not all of them insist that these doctrines are fundamental (essential) to the Gospel. Those who do are properly called Fundamentalists. Evangelicals who are willing to recognize Liberals as 
Christians are not Fundamentalists. Years ago “New Evangelicals” began saying that although they believe in the tenets of the Gospel, they recognize that some true Christians do not accept them all. This is why the New Evangelicalism refused the label “Fundamentalist.”

Men and movements are properly defined by their actions as well as their words. We are to “walk in the truth” (Second John 4 and Third John 3 and 4). Evangelicals who treat Liberals (who by definition reject certain of the fundamentals) as Christians by yoking with them in denominations, ministerial associations, evangelistic efforts, public declarations, and joint services are not Fundamentalists even if they will argue with you about it (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). Fundamentalism is the dividing of light from darkness, and is nothing but a good thing. Is that what our disillusioned brethren are leaving?

Now, as we have noted, there is a movement correctly labeled Fundamentalist. However it is not the monstrosity invented and mislabeled by academia and media. About twenty years ago, anti-religious teachers and writers began calling the conservative wing of any religion “fundamentalist.” The P.B.S. broadcast a series of programs on what they called “fundamentalism,” which according to these shows is basically a mental illness. They diagnosed Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, Hindu fundamentalism, and Islamic fundamentalism as a mindset of fear, suspicion, anti-intellectualism, hatred, and fanaticism. It is and was an unfair and untrue definition of an historic and specifically Christian movement in the United States. Now the media calls the violent radicals of Islam “fundamentalists.” In a strictly historic sense, there is no such thing as Islamic fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a distinctly Christian movement. The new and popular way of defining Fundamentalism is intellectually dishonest.

It is also dishonest to define Fundamentalism by just one of its many fellowships or networks. The Fundamentalist movement of the early twentieth century has evolved and splintered into many diverse but truly fundamentalist movements. Some who think they are “leaving Fundamentalism” are actually disassociating themselves from one grouping of Fundamentalists. Their mistake is understandable because some such groups try to define Fundamentalism itself as their own group (see the warning in Luke 9:49-50). What are you saying when you say you are “leaving Fundamentalism”? Do you mean that you are quitting a fellowship, or renouncing a Bible college, or disagreeing with a church or ministry? If that is what you mean, just make the break you need to make (according to Ephesians 5:11), and don’t give the impression that you are leaving the truth of the Gospel and of separation to the Gospel. There is nothing wrong with Fundamentalism, although the men who have espoused it have been flawed, and the human movements that have promoted it have sometimes gone astray. The men and organizations you have defined as “Fundamentalism” are not what you are calling them. Fundamentalism is a far greater thing.

Too Bad!
Whatever the people are doing who are “leaving Fundamentalism,” it is bad. “Leaving Fundamentalism” inevitably means backing off from policies and principles that have characterized those who stood most faithfully for the Bible in our lifetime. The mainline denominations have not stood for the Bible or the Christian faith. Broad evangelicalism has not really stood for the Truth, although they work to spread it. Fundamentalism is contending for the faith, and good men have paid a great price to follow it. The ministries and crusades of men like Torrey, Riley, Shields, Ketchum, Jones, McIntire, Vick, and Clearwater ought to be honored and appreciated by all who love the truth. What a man is leaving if he leaves Fundamentalism is something he should not leave.

In some cases he is rejecting separatism in some form of its application. Let everyone beware who considers abandoning Biblical separation. It is a scriptural principle, and walking away from any policy that has been based upon it should not be done without considerable study and seeking of counsel. Just because a non-separatist challenges separatist policies does not mean that his criticisms are valid. Our spiritual forefathers had amazing insights, and none of their policies or practices should be discarded lightly.

In some cases he is rejecting personal separation while holding on to some degree of ecclesiastical separation. Men who are doing this want to call themselves “historic fundamentalists,” pointing out that the original Fundamentalists fought over such cardinal doctrines as the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, and the Inerrancy of Scripture, and not over such comparatively small issues as dress, music, drink, amusements, and Bible versions. They like to label those who do fuss over these issues “old-time fundamentalists,” using the label in a condescending manner. They like to label issues of personal separation (holy living) as “non-issues” because the Fundamentalists of 1910-1930 never wrote about them. But the scripture says that there are kinds of behavior which “become [are becoming or suitable to] sound doctrine” (review the epistle to Titus). Early Fundamentalists did not argue for modest dress, but what did their women wear? They did not denounce sensual music in church, but what kind of music did they use? They did not make an issue over English translations, but what version of the Bible did most of them use almost all the time? Because they did not preach sermons on these issues does not mean that the original Fundamentalists would have gone along with the horrible changes in practice that the past hundred years have brought into the churches. And these smaller issues actually do relate to the great issues, and are legitimate matters of concern.

In some cases the defector is parting from evidence of carnality in some of the Fundamentalists he has known. But Fundamentalism should not be rejected because Fundamentalists need revival. Tell us what you mean. Surely you do not mean that you are giving up truth because men who have taught it have been found to be less than spiritual all the time. Many Fundamentalists are sincere and holy people, although some have been found to be less than so. Fundamentalism should not be abandoned just because Fundamentalists need revival.

In some cases, the one making the change has come to view certain issues in ways contrary to his former views. But he is not really “leaving Fundamentalism.” However, he may be making the big mistake of abandoning the wisdom of the godly of former days and jumping to conclusions that are wrong. Paul warned the Corinthians not to take lightly the issue of male and female hair-length and head-covering because the change in policy some wanted to make was contrary to the “custom” of the “churches of God” (1 Corinthians 11:1-16). We are not to “despise [belittle]…the church of God” (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) or its customs. Give the views of Fundamentalists and the practices of the Fundamentalist churches the benefit of the doubt.

Fundamentalism has a wonderful future because it is based on the truth of the Bible. Nobody should leave it now for any reason. If Bible-loving people will yield their lives to the truths they believe, we will see a revival sweeping the family of God all over the world. Don’t leave. Kneel and pray with us as we seek the blessing and power of the God of our fathers!

Dr. Rick Flanders, Evangelist
Revival Ministries

Site Publisher Addendum:
This article by Dr. Flanders could not have been more timely. On Friday (8/5) at Sharper Iron (SI) an article was published on SI’s front page. The publication of this article ends the discussion and removes any lingering doubt that SI is hostile toward historic, balanced Fundamentalism. Following is a brief excerpt from one pastor commenting on the SI article.

“I am still struggling to see the publishable value of this article….If you are going to leave the ‘IFB’ orbit, just go ahead and do it. But do it quickly. Do whatever it is that you think God has called you to do. However, leaving in this manner makes you look a bit ugly and even desirous to take as many people with you as possible. Go do the missiological work that you have done and for which you have trained, but please stop writing to us, if you are no longer among us.” (David Marriott)

For more reaction from the SI thread and commentary please continue to the Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet blog for, “SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Façade & Veneer is Stripped Away

UPDATE (8/8 10am)
Aaron Blumer links to the Iron Skillet blog article above from the controversial Steve Davis article at SI. Please continue to “SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Façade & Veneer is Stripped Away for my reaction to his comment at and link from SI.

Dr. MacArthur, “Reforming” Is Not The Answer. Repentance Is!

From his Grace to You blog Dr. John MacArthur laments what has become of the so-called “young, restless and reformed [Calvinists],” (YRR). John MacArthur is telling the YRR to “grow up…settle down.” In his introductory article, Grow Up. Settle Down. Keep Reforming: Advise for the Young, Restless, Reformed MacArthur wrote,

“[The YRR,] “cannot be genuinely ‘Reformed’ and deliberately worldly at the same time. The two things are inconsistent and incompatible. To embrace the world’s fashions and values—even under the guise of being ‘missional’—is to make oneself God’s enemy (James 4:4).”

In my previous article1 I demonstrated how John MacArthur shares in the culpability for having contributed to the worldliness among the YRR, which he now laments and admonishes them for. Since the initial article Dr. MacArthur has posted the second in his Grow Up series with additional installments to follow. With the research assistance of Brother Ken Silva of the Apprising Ministries blog2 I was directed to the following video at You Tube titled, JMac RAP.3 John MacArthur agreed to participate with and appear in this video.


Dr. MacArthur admonishes the YRR for being “deliberately worldly,” when it is he who has in part lead them there through his own personal examples of worldliness. MacArthur’s college, seminary and through Rick Holland’s annual CCM/Rock concert Resolved young people are being taught that it’s acceptable, that it’s even desirable to be worldly.

In his first admonition to the YRR MacArthur wrote, “There is even a surge of interest in Jonathan Edwards.” Dr. Peter Masters had it exactly right when he noted what the reaction of Edwards would be to how John MacArthur and Rick Holland through Resolved have besmirched his (Edwards’) Resolutions.

One of the vaunted new conferences is called Resolved, after Jonathan Edwards’ famous youthful Resolutions (seventy searching undertakings). But the culture of this conference would unquestionably have met with the outright condemnation of that great theologian.

Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr John MacArthur’s pastoral staff [Rick Holland], gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship. Young people are encouraged to feel the very same sensational nervous impact of loud rhythmic music on the body that they would experience in a large, worldly pop concert, complete with replicated lighting and atmosphere.... Worldly culture provides the bodily, emotional feelings, into which Christian thoughts are infused and floated. Biblical sentiments are harnessed to carnal entertainment. (Pictures of this conference on their website betray the totally worldly, showbusiness atmosphere created by the organisers.)4

The organisers of Resolved’s totally worldly, showbusiness atmosphere are Rick Holland and John MacArthur. In MacArthur’s opening Grow Up article he wrote, “We still have a lot of reforming to do. And let’s face it: the besetting sin of young Calvinists is a brash failure to come to grips with that reality.”

“We have a lot of reforming to do?” Dr. MacArthur, may I ask: Are you speaking of “reforming” as if being a better Calvinist will make a less worldly Calvinist? In my opinion, the theology of Calvinism (a theology with which I disagree entirely) has nothing to do with the worldliness that has infected the YRR. Could Dr. MacArthur possibly be telling the YRR to reform their lives and cut the worldliness from out of it? Wouldn’t Dr. MacArthur understand that if reforming the life could have worked it would have worked a long time ago?

No, Dr. MacArthur, “reforming” is not the answer, Repentance is!

Dr. MacArthur “reforming” won’t solve anything. Begin by biblically REPENTING! Start with yourself! Repent of the “deliberate worldliness” in your own ministry. Demonstrate biblical repentance by rooting out the “deliberate worldliness” you have introduced into, tolerated and allowed for in your own ministry. Call a halt to the “deliberate worldliness” in entertainment at Resolved. Only through a demonstration of personal repentance can you hope to have any credibility with the YRR when and if you will call on them to repent.

To the YRR Dr. MacArthur wrote, “To embrace the world’s fashions and values—even under the guise of being ‘missional’—is to make oneself God’s enemy (James 4:4).” Dr. MacArthur has propagated and embraced the world’s fashion and values. He as well as many of his ministerial friends in the leadership of T4G/TGC have made the world’s fashions fashionable to a whole generation of young people. Their example, the example set by leadership among the so-called “conservative” evangelicals has lead many in the younger generation to make themselves into and behave as God’s enemy. Repent!


LM

1) Has John MacArthur Promoted the Creation of the Young, Restless & Reformed Who, “Embrace the World’s Fashions and Values?”

2) Apprising Ministries

3) A source who has a son who attending the Master’s seminary indicates the JMac RAP was a video from a recent talent show. It seems it was part of the “Spring Sing 2010 at the Master’s College.” It is reported that MacArthur, furthermore, appeared in additional videos for the same contest. JMac RAP finished in 2nd place.

4) The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness

For another video example that typifies the worldliness John MacArthur has fostered and encouraged among young people under his watch care see, Master’s College Medley- Kids at a Church

For Related Reading:
The RAP on Mark Dever