BJU’s Soteriology: “Turn From Their Sins,” for Salvation

In a previous article, BJU: It’s a Question of Doctrine1 we introduced a discussion of a section in the current BJU Position Statements, which we will examine in a moment. In the Question of Doctrine article our concern was primarily with a chapel message by BJU president Dr. Steve Pettit.  Statements made such as the following were considered.

“What is the race? It is the whole of the Christian life of faith…. When you start [the race] in faith you need to run and finish in faith…. The race has to be faithfully run to the finish, there is justification, sanctification and a glorification. If you lose, if you don’t finish you lose everything, you lose your soul.”

We demonstrated Dr. Steve Pettit teaching the same element of Calvinistic theology (Perseverance of the Saints) as John Piper, R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur and Kevin DeYoung.

Today, we turn our attention more fully to the current BJU Position Statements: Calvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology under the subsection, With Regard to the Doctrine of Soteriology.2 In paragraph one this statement appears,

“God offers this salvation freely to all men who are willing to repent and turn from their sins (Acts 3:19, 17:30) and place their full faith and trust in the atonement Christ made by His finished work on the Cross (Luke 24:46–48, Heb. 9:11–15, 10:10–14).” [bold added]

Does God condition salvation on a lost man’s willingness, “to repent and turn from their sins?”  “Lordship Salvation” is an interpretation of the gospel which requires faith in Christ, plus commitment of life, to stop sinning and start obeying in “exchange” for salvation. Here is John MacArthur, on Lordship Salvation’s message to the lost.

“The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer…It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God’s righteousness.” (Dr. John MacArthur: An Introduction to Lordship Salvation.)

“Seeking the Lord is important, calling upon Him is critical, but so is forsaking wicked ways and unrighteous thoughts. It is impossible to talk about seeking the Lord without talking about turning from sin. It is impossible to talk about turning to the Lord without turning away from iniquity and wickedness. Clearly, this is an essential in the gospel message…. If you’re going to receive the Lord and the salvation He brings, you’re going to have to straighten out…. Salvation comes to those who turn from sin to God.” (The Doctrine of Repentance, Sermon- April 3, 2005) 

“The gospel call of Jesus was a call to forsake sin as much as it was a summons to believe in Him. It was a call to turn from sin.” (The Call to Repentance, Sermon- January 24, 1988)

Dr. Ernest Pickering

John MacArthur is stating what he believes to be God’s plan for the salvation of lost mankind.  MacArthur is stating Lordship’s indispensable condition that must be met if a lost man is to receive “eternal life” and the “forgiveness” of sins. That condition is the lost man “must turn from sin” to receive the gift of eternal life and ultimately enter heaven. Dr. Ernest Pickering recognized John MacArthur's teaching was a departure from the biblical plan of salvation. 

“MacArthur laments, ‘Contemporary Christendom too often accepts a shallow repentance that bears no fruit’ (p. 96). This theme recurs over and over again in the book. The recommended cure for this malady is to require more of the seeking sinner than the Bible requires. Instead of ‘merely’ believing on the finished work of Christ the inquiring soul must also be willing to have Christ as Lord over every area of his life. It seems evident upon an examination of this thesis that those who espouse it are adding something to the gospel that is not in the Scriptures.” (Ernest Pickering, Lordship Salvation: An Examination of John MacArthur’s Book, The Gospel According to Jesus.)

Brother George Zeller wrote, “The unsaved person is told that if he does not turn from sin, surrender, have a willingness to obey, fulfill the demands of discipleship, etc., then he cannot be saved. Sadly, the focus is turned away from the all sufficient, finished work of Christ which is the sinner’s only resting place.”3

From Brother Zeller’s article, John MacArthur’s Position on the Lordship of Christ we read,

MacArthur defines REPENTANCE as turning from your sins (Faith Works, p. 74). He also teaches that true repentance “inevitably results in a change of behavior” (Faith Works, p. 75). But is not TURNING FROM SINS a CHANGE OF BEHAVIOR? Is MacArthur confusing the RESULTS of repentance with REPENTANCE itself? Is not he confusing the FRUITS with the ROOT? MacArthur is more accurate when he says, “true repentance involves a change of heart and purpose (Faith Works, p. 75). The inner change will produce an outward change.4

Dr. John Van Gelderen wrote,

Jesus said, “They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:31-32). Sick people do not turn from their sickness to a physician. If they could turn from sickness, they would no longer need a physician. Rather, sick people turn to a physician for deliverance from their sickness. Similarly, sinners must turn to Christ, the Great Physician, for deliverance from their sin and its consequence.5

A lost man cannot turn from sin, but he can turn to God to deliver him from the penalty and power of sin (Romans 6). Lordship Salvation contends that repentance is turning from sin(s) or the resolve to turn from sins. Repentance is viewed as a commitment to discipleship and fruit bearing. Scripture has a better answer. The Bible teaches that the Savior saves “the ungodly” (Rom. 5:6) in their sin, and believers from the power of sin (Rom. 6:1-ff; Gal. 5:16). (In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, p. 128)

Lordship Salvation is a works based, man-centered message that conditions the gift of eternal life on an upfront commitment to change behavior and perform the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) of a disciple that should be the result of a genuine conversion. Calling on the lost to “turn from their sins” for salvation is to condition salvation on behavior, not believing. That is works salvation!

We have looked at everything above to get to this,

The BJU Position Statement on soteriology is virtually identical to John MacArthur’s  

definition of Lordship Salvation.

BJU’s Position Statement says God “offers…salvation freely,” and this is true. By conditioning what God offers “freely” upon the willingness of a sinner to “turn from their sins” BJU’s Statement corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

Historically BJU never allowed the teaching of, let alone publish an official position statement legitimizing Lordship Salvation. In fact, BJU had in years past utterly rejected Lordship Salvation.6

Is it possible BJU unwittingly stumbled into the trap of Lordship Salvation not realizing that is where they have positioned the university’s soteriology? Or has the university officially accepted the “Lordship Salvation” interpretation of the gospel? 

If Dr. Steve Pettit and the BJU administration reject Lordship Salvation they will surely retract and revise the BJU Position Statement we have highlighted here. Otherwise, and tragically, we’re left to conclude that BJU has become a welcoming place for Lordship Salvation.

LM

Related Reading:
An Analysis of BJU's Position Paper on Calvinism, Arminianism & Reformed Theology

Footnotes:

1) BJU: It’s a Question of Doctrine

2) BJU Position Statements: Calvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology

3) In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, p. xi.)

4) John MacArthur’s Position on the Lordship of Christ

5) Repent and Believe, Part 8: Confusing Terminology: “Turn from Sin.”

6) A Review of Walter Chantry’s “Today’s Gospel” by Dr. Stewart Custer

Bob Jones University: It’s a Question of Doctrine

Dr. Steve Pettit

Today I am drawing your attention to a chapel message given at Bob Jones University (BJU) by its president Dr. Steve Pettit. The message was preached in BJU’s chapel on January 26, 2015.  Following are excerpts transcribed from the recorded message.

“What is the race? It is the whole of the Christian life of faith….  (4:15) When you start [the race] in faith you need to run and finish in faith…. (6:35) The race has to be faithfully run to the finish.” (10:15) Dr. Pettit goes on to say there is, “justification, sanctification and a glorification.” (11:12) Then, however, he said this, “If you lose, if you don’t finish you lose everything, you lose your soul.” (11:40)

Later in the message he references Old Testament saints from Hebrews 11 saying, “These Old Testament saints received God’s approval, they all died in faith, they were loyal, they persevered in their faith.” (19:10) He said, “If you run and don’t win then you are truly the biggest losers.” (21:35)

“We run the race, we cross the finish line, and so what’s the prize? What is the award? Well, there are different viewpoints.  Some would have the viewpoint that the awards are crowns in Heaven. But as I read the book of Hebrews and see the whole gist of the book and the flow of the book, I don’t believe its referring to crowns in Heaven. I think it is referring to Heaven itself.” (22:10) 

“Now, there’s almost a dilemma that immediately arises up.  Fact is I’ve already had some statements on this to me. Because it almost gives the impression that you’re saying that you can lose your salvation, and I have not really said that at all. What I would like to say is…God’s people have to continue in the faith. They must persevere because perseverance is the testimony of the reality of your faith.” (23:30) 

“It’s almost like you have two rails as you’re running down this road, this Christian life.  One is I’m saved, but the other one is I’m not saved yet. I’m not in glory. It’s like you could say it this way, ‘I am in the race, but I have to keep on running, I’m not saved yet, I’m not in glory’.” (25:45)1 For the complete sermon audio see footnotes.

At the time a number of pastors were genuinely concerned with the message content and contacted Dr. Pettit about it.  With what did their concern lie?  For example Dr. Pettit said, “If you lose, if you don’t finish you lose everything, you lose your soul.” (11:40)  That theme is common among the advocates of Calvinism. For example,

John Piper

“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 Does Jesus Demand of the World, pp. 160, 211.

“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.)

“Not only is holiness the goal of your redemption, it is necessary for your redemption…. we are commanded to be holy, saved to be holy, and, in fact, we must be holy if we are to inherit eternal life.” (Kevin DeYoung, The Hole in Our Holiness, pp. 26, 30 italics his, bold mine.)

Dr. Pettit was teaching Calvinism’s 5^th point of TULIP, which is “Perseverance of the Saints.”  That a saint will persevere, will finish the race faithfully, he will not fail. Steve Pettit’s message is virtually identical to that of Piper, Sproul, DeYoung cited above and MacArthur’s below. 

“The doctrine of the believer’s security is tied to the believer’s persevering faith…. the most important element in all the range of salvation doctrines is this issue of the perseverance of the saints.  It is, in the end, what makes salvation salvation because it is forever…. Any idea of salvation that leaves out security is a distortion of the truth.  And any idea of security that leaves out perseverance is a distortion of the truth.” (John MacArthur, “Perseverance of the Saints,” Part 2. September 5, 2004.)

“The doctrine of perseverance is the doctrine that believers persevere. . . . It is not at all that they will be saved irrespective of the [sic] their perseverance or their continuance, but that they will assuredly persevere. Consequently the security that is theirs is inseparable from their perseverance.” (John MacArthur, “Perseverance of the Saints.” The Master’s Seminary Journal4, no. 1 (Spring 1993): 5-24.)

What we’ve read means, “Perseverance is [being] articulated as the only way to ensure ‘final salvation’, i.e., glorification.” (In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 273.) Does what we’ve considered thus far make Dr. Pettit a “5-point Calvinist?”  It does not! Like any other man only he can answer as to whether or not he accepts or rejects any of Calvinism’s five points (TULIP).

Here I would like to examine a portion of the current BJU Position Statements: Calvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology. Under the subsection, With Regard to the Doctrine of Soteriology, paragraph one, this statement appears, “God offers this salvation freely to all men who are willing to repent and turn from their sins (Acts 3:19, 17:30) and place their full faith and trust in the atonement Christ made by His finished work on the Cross (Luke 24:46-48, Heb. 9:11-15, 10:10-14).”

An essential feature of Lordship Salvation’s interpretation of the gospel is encapsulated in that single sentence. Lordship’s gospel demands of the sinner faith in Christ, plus commitment of life, to turn from (stop) sinning and start obeying in “exchange” for salvation.   

“This is what Jesus meant when He spoke of taking up one’s own cross to follow Him. And that is why he demanded that we count the cost carefully. He was calling for an exchange of all that we are for all that He is. He was demanding implicit obedience—unconditional surrender to His lordship.” (Dr. John MacArthur: The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith, p. 202. Italics added)

Dr. John Van Gelderen explained why it is confusing to tell sinners they need to turn from their sins,

“Jesus said, ‘They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance’ (Luke 5:31-32). Sick people do not turn from their sickness to a physician. If they could turn from sickness, they would no longer need a physician. Rather, sick people turn to a physician for deliverance from their sickness. Similarly, sinners cannot turn from their sin(s) to Christ. If they could, they would not need a Savior. Sinners must turn to Christ, the Great Physician, for deliverance from their sin and its consequence.”2

Dr. Ernest Pickering (1928-2000) recognized Lordship Salvation as a departure from the biblical plan of salvation. Following are two excerpts from Dr. Pickering’s review of John MacArthur’s original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus.

“John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt.... We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same.... But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel.”

“One of the chief objections to the notion of ‘lordship salvation’ is that it adds to the gospel of grace. It requires something of the sinner which the Scriptures do not require. The message of salvation by grace proclaims to the sinner that they may receive eternal life by faith alone whereas the message of ‘lordship salvation’ tells sinners they must be willing to give up whatever is in their life that is displeasing to God.” (Ernest Pickering, Lordship Salvation: An Examination of John MacArthur’s Book, The Gospel According to Jesus.)

Lordship Salvation demands a commitment of one’s life, and a promise of surrender to the lordship of Christ in an up-front exchange for the reception of salvation (justification). Calvinism’s perseverance is keeping that promise, but if you fail, “if you don’t finish you lose everything, you lose your soul.” (Steve Pettit: What Does it Mean to Run the Race?)

Teaching that a soul, justified by faith, must perform the good works expected of a born again believer, throughout his lifetime to inherit eternal life (glorification) in Heaven at death is works salvation. That is “Lordship Salvation.”3

When Dr. Pettit told the BJU student body “If you lose, if you don’t finish you lose everything, you lose your soul” his message essentially left one of two conclusions for the students. First, although you have been justified, born again by faith in Jesus Christ, if you do not run the race of sanctification faithfully until death, you do not enter Heaven, you never see glorification.  Second, you were never saved in the first place.

The chapel sermon we’ve considered was not given by a mere guest speaker.  This was Dr. Steve Pettit, the president of BJU, teaching an element of Calvinism.  The BJU Position Statement legitimizes an integral part of Lordship Salvation.  This is a very serious matter because, “Lordship Salvation tears at the very heart of the gospel; it corrupts ‘the simplicity that is in Christ’ (2 Cor. 11:3), it is a man-centered message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).” (In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 49.)

Calvinism and Lordship Salvation has made inroads into schools and churches that aforetime rejected this teaching. When a university president and that school's position statement bring elements of Calvinism and Lordship Salvation to the student body one might wonder if those teachings have been adopted as acceptable or possibly official doctrinal positions of the university.

The BJU Student Handbook (2018-2019) states, “The BJU Creed highlights the fundamentals of the faith. Based on these essentials, we strive to maintain unity among the student body. In the interest of this unity and in love and respect for each other, there is to be no proselytizing based on theological interpretations, such as Calvinism and Arminianism.” (p. 8). Yet BJU president Steve Pettit was preaching Calvinism’s Perseverance of the Saints, “proselytizing Calvinism,” if you will, to the student body.

What Should you, as a Parent or Pastor, Do?

If you have questions, ask. You may reach out to Dr. Pettit, Dr. Horn or any Bible faculty to ask what their position(s) are on Calvinism, Lordship Salvation, Reformed/Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. You might ask, “Which of the 5-points of Calvinism (TULIP) or Doctrines of Grace, do you accept as legitimate or reject?” Ask their view of each of the 5-points in turn: Total Inability, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. You should also ask,

• Do you believe regeneration comes before belief or at the moment of saving belief?
• Is faith the fruit of regeneration or is regeneration the fruit of faith?
• Explain why the Bible says Christ will preserve you in Jesus Christ (Jude 1) and God will keep you from falling (Jude 24), but the only use of perseverance refers to praying for the saints Eph. 6:18?  
  

Close:
This is hard because we love BJU and all it has contributed over the years. Seeing what has happened to many of our schools (Pillsbury, TTU, Calvary, Clearwater, Northland4) is disappointing. Dr. Pettit’s message, “What Does it Mean to Run the Race” may signal a shift in the doctrinal stance of BJU. It pains us greatly that circumstances dictate an article like this could even be written.  It would, however, be a pity for pastors and families sending their young people to BJU thinking it is the same as it once was for them if it is not, if the university has changed.

LM

Related Reading:
An Analysis of BJU's Position Paper on Calvinism, Arminianism & Reformed Theology

Footnotes:

1) For the complete recorded sermon, see- What Does it Mean to Run the Race?

2) Repent and Believe, Part 8: Confusing Terminology, “Turn from Sin.”

3) A Summary of Lordship Salvation

Defined briefly: Lordship Salvation is a position on the gospel in which “saving faith” is considered reliance upon the finished work of Jesus Christ. Lordship views “saving faith” as incomplete without an accompanying resolve to ‘forsake sin’ and to ‘start obeying.’ Lordship’s ‘sine qua non’ (indispensable condition) that must be met to fully define ‘saving faith,’ for salvation, is a commitment to deny self, take up the cross, and follow Christ in submissive obedience. In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 48.

4)  NIU Closes  Pillsbury, TTU & Northland  Closure of Calvary Baptist Seminary

KESWICK—A GOOD WORD OR A BAD ONE? Part Three: Reasons for the Attack

Dr. John Van Gelderen

What lies behind the criticism of Keswick theology? In this article, we will cover some key factors that fuel objections and cause some problems for those seeking the truth.

 

Basic Misinformation
Amazingly, I have been in some settings where a speaker taught the truths of Keswick/Deeper Life theology and immediately followed by saying, “Now, I’m not talking about Keswick; I’m not talking about the Deeper Life.” Such a contradiction indicates that one is largely unaware of the history and the meaning of the labels and likely is functioning from hearsay and charges of unorthodoxy that critics have attached to Keswick and Deeper Life. First impressions are mind-setting. Someone bent their ear. They read or listened to critics of Keswick without reading Keswick authors themselves, and now, joining in the criticism, they unwittingly attack and undermine their own teaching. The damage done is unintentional but is still harmful to that which they believe.

 

Thoroughgoing Calvinism
Though not all Calvinists clash with Keswick, those of a thoroughgoing system often do. Keswick emphasizes man’s responsibility of faith. One of the major descriptions of Keswick is sanctification by faith. Some Calvinists claim that a faith emphasis is a man-centered emphasis, but how can God-dependence be man-centered? Faith is not a work; it is dependence upon the worker—God. 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 for thorough-going Calvinism and the responsible faith of Keswick. Does progressive sanctification just happen, inevitably occurring for every true child of God, or can it be hindered by unbelief and accelerated by faith? Keswick insists on the latter. Interestingly, Keswick’s promotion of responsible faith also clashes with the misfocused faith of unfettered choice that is advanced by thoroughgoing Arminianism. Responsible faith means you are responding to the Spirit’s convincing work, based on God’s Word. It is neither unfettered choice nor inevitable. It is a true responsibility.

 

When I hear or read some Calvinists claims regarding Keswick teaching, I’m amazed at the inaccuracy. Certainly, some such commentators have limited their study to criticisms of Keswick without spending significant time with primary sources. Others have indeed read the Keswick authors—albeit, with a crippling bias that blinds them to the clear facts and arguments championed by those authors. Assessments offered from this perspective muddy the waters and perpetuate misrepresentations that obscure important truths made plain in Keswick teaching.

 

Personal Defeat
For some, the refrain is, “Tried it—didn’t work.” But, is an apparent application failure an indictment of Keswick theology, a problem with the provision of the indwelling Christ, or something no more complicated than a misunderstanding of truth or a misapplication of surrender?

First, we must take care to understand faith, what it is and how it operates. Like a triangle with three sides, faith involves all three parts of the soul of man (the mind, affections, and will), otherwise 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 being convinced by the Spirit of the truth involved. This short-circuits the process because it would not involve real faith. It would be wishful thinking rather than convinced confidence. When this is the case, one might look back and conclude that trying out Keswick just didn’t work. However, when the Holy Spirit illumines truth, His convincement leads to genuine faith—and that always works.

 

With surrender/faith properly applied, ones give all to Christ, trusting Him to take it. One also takes His all, trusting Christ to give it. A failure to give all or to take all is, therefore, a misapplication that in no wise invalidates accessing the provision of the indwelling Christ by faith. In such a case, maintaining that Keswick doesn’t work merely shifts blame away from the individual. Pinning responsibility on the teaching may be convenient and easy, but masking the truth behind the situation ultimately helps no one.

 

Satanic Attack
Satan hates and attacks revival truth! Keswick revival theology threatens his turf. He is the master deceiver, and much of the controversy is stirred up through his deceptions. Remembering that Keswick-type conferences were used to ignite and fuel revival fires in the early twentieth century, it should not be a surprise then to discover that Satan continues attacks on Keswick theology in order to prevent another great wave of revival blessing.

 

Conclusion
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, and away from self and the world (which gloriously passes the tests of 1 John 4). Where to start? There are many good options:

• G. Campbell Morgan – 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 – Practicing the Promises (and his commentary on Romans chapters 6-8)
• F. B. Meyer’s many books
• Andrew Murray’s writings
• W. H. Griffith Thomas’ treatment of chapters 6-8 in his commentary on Romans
• A.J. Gordon’s writings
• A.T. Pierson’s works

Steven Barabas quotes many Keswick authors in his book, So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Keswick Convention. If you want to understand Keswick and the differences from other theologies, this book clearly demonstrates the contrast.

 

So, what about the term Keswick? Is it a good word or a bad one? If you mean sanctification by faith thus accessing the victorious life of Christ, that is gloriously good! Personally, I prefer using the label “revival theology,” mindful that the primary issue is, of course, not a label but truth.

 

The Christian life is not merely a set of doctrines, nor just an array 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. When you were born again, Christ, the Christian life Himself, moved into you to impart His life to you. 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 on the individual level.

 

For those who believe the theology of “Christ in you accessed by faith,” derogatory slurs and full-blown attacks 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! 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, and my hope was that using this would avoid unnecessary confusion surrounding the word Keswick. However, I have discovered some cases where attacks simply switched targets, aiming no longer at Keswick but at revival theology instead. This indicates that the issue does not center on terminology, but rather on the truth behind the terms. It is becoming more apparent that the real problem for some is “ye do always resist the Holy Spirit,” and the point of tension 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), it 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 Van Gelderen

Revival Focus

 

KESWICK—A GOOD WORD OR A BAD ONE? PART TWO: INACCURATE ACCUSATIONS

We will continue now with Part Two of Dr. John Van Gelderen's series Keswick- A Good Word or a Bad One?

 

Dr. John Van Gelderen

Last week, we discussed the historical background and theology of Keswick. In our day, the orthodoxy that Keswick was once accorded has been replaced in many minds because of misunderstandings and a wealth of misinformation. Several critical charges have been leveled against it, but an examination of the supposed errors will show the inaccuracy of the accusations.

 

Passivity

Some have argued that Keswick promotes passivity, probably because the theology emphasizes resting in Christ. However, this resting is not to be understood as encouragement to sit back and do nothing. It is a call to 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 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).

 

Keswick confronts a performance-based sanctification or “struggle theology” that advocates flesh-dependence to live the Christian life. Sanctification by works is just as wrong as justification by works (Gal. 3:1-3). You are not justified by faith and then sanctified through struggle. Sanctification, like justification, is 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 (engaging in hollow motions); it is trusting the indwelling Christ to enable you for necessary steps of obedience (making for empowered motions). Victory without trying does not mean victory from doing nothing. It is victory with trusting. True faith is not an inward self-focus, but rather, a focus on Christ, the true object of faith, that He might express His very life through your life. Because an expression of His life is necessarily an active, obedient walk, the accusation of Keswick theology promoting passivity is simply not accurate.

 

Subjectivism
Keswick has also been branded as too subjective, most likely due to the emphasis placed on the reality of the Holy Spirit. However, Keswick theology 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 resulting in no fire. But the Word and the Spirit is dynamic and leads to true Holy Spirit fire.

 

Interestingly, Robert Thomas rightly deals with the dangerous subjectivism of evangelicals in his book Evangelical Hermeneutics. He names many in the evangelical world whom he considers guilty of true subjectivism, but, when highlighting a proper, biblical handling of matters, he regularly quotes J. Robertson McQuilken—author of several helpful books and the Keswick contributor to Stanley N. Gundry’s compilation, Five Views of Sanctification. The teaching of Keswick stresses the subjective reality of the Holy Spirit based on the Word and not the subjectivism that forsakes a scriptural foundation. Thus, to accuse Keswick of subjectivism reveals an inaccurate understanding of Keswick teaching.

 

Second Blessing

Keswick theology is sometimes equated with second blessing theology. This, however, shows great ignorance of both true second blessing theology and Keswick.

 

Second blessing theology speaks of receiving a once-for-all second blessing which puts one on a new stage, never to fall back to one’s former stage. Keswick speaks of alternating between two conditions, walking in the flesh and walking in the Spirit, and does not promote any once-for-all shift. Second blessing theology demands a “second” event. Keswick insists you were given the whole package at salvation and can access the whole blessing immediately. (Note that while some enjoy immediate access to the blessing in its entirety, others have had access deferred due to a lack of understanding.) Receiving something not previously possessed is at the heart of second blessing theology. Keswick teaches that you, by faith, access your first blessing!

 

For one who has yet to access the provision of the indwelling Christ (or who hasn’t done so for quite some time), the point of accessing His provision may seem like a second blessing, though technically it is not. This explains why some early Keswick writers described matters using terms like second blessing. It has proven an unfortunate choice of words that confuses matters today, but clearly these authors sought only to illustrate the situation of believers coming to understand the wealth of their provision. They did not intend to support a second blessing view at odds with their own. What Keswick describes is simply the possibility of being re-vived. For a more extensive treatment of this phrase, please refer to a previous article, Second Blessing or Second Rest.

 

Sinless Perfectionism
I suppose this charge comes because Keswick theology emphasizes the victorious life of Christ. The provision for victory is perfect. It must 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 our focus should not be on the defeat, but rather on victory in Christ by faith. The provision of the indwelling Christ is perfect, but our consistent access of that provision is sadly imperfect. To accuse Keswick theology of sinless perfectionism is simply not being honest with the facts of Keswick teaching. The blog article Sinless Perfection versus Sinless Provision offers more information on this point.

 

Let Go and Let God
Sadly, this phraseology has had various aberrant concepts attached to it in recent decades, and therefore, I personally do not use the 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. This is faith. 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 the aberrations should be refuted, it is sad that the original God-centered and ultimately Christ-centered meaning of the phrase is denigrated by some as well. More on this matter is available in another article, Let Go and Let God.

 

Next week, we will conclude the series, examining some reasons for the inaccurate accusations.

 

 

John Van Gelderen

Revival Focus



Please continue to the third installment of the series

For Related Reading see, Reformed Theology vs. Keswick Theology

KESWICK—A GOOD WORD OR A BAD ONE? PART ONE: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND THEOLOGY

Today we’re beginning a series written and published by Dr. John Van Gelderen.  His series appears at his Revival Focus site and is being happily reprinted here by permission.

Dr. John Van Gelderen

Occasionally, I hear people use the label Keswick in a derogatory fashion. Yet others use the term quite positively. Hearing something of these widely ranging opinions, someone unfamiliar with the term might wonder whether this word Keswick denotes something good or something bad. The issue, of course, is not the term but what is meant by the term. This present three-part series is an adaptation of the original article Keswick: A Good Word or a Bad One? and its follow-up Keswick: A Good Word or a Bad One? Revisited. After focusing on the historical background and theology in this first article, we will address inaccurate accusations made against Keswick theology and then conclude the series with a consideration of reasons behind the attacks.

 

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.

 

Commonly referred to as the Higher Life, Deeper Life, or Victorious Life, the focus of the theology is on Christ as one’s life. In later years, various sub-groups attached other/additional ideas to some of the labels. However, the original intent was Christ-focused, and this singular emphasis is still championed by a majority of those continuing to use these terms.

 

Thus, the Higher Life, Deeper Life, Victorious Life, Spirit-filled Life and Christ-Life do not constitute a new line of teaching and do not stand as a mere set of doctrines or motions. The matter is neither a conference nor convention, and it is not a movement. It is a life—and that life is a person. 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 lives 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” through the impartation of His life in the place of any self-dependent attempt to imitate His life (Heb.12:10).

 

Keswick theology teaches that “progressive sanctification” does not mean an inevitable, gradual sanctification, but rather that sanctification is accelerated by faith choices and 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 is sanctification by faith. “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him” (Col. 2:6).

 

From the convention’s beginnings, a specific theme was emphasized for each of the conference’s five days, and this was designed to help hearers understand how to “progress” in sanctification. In order, the daily addresses covered:

1. Sin (sin is the problem—both outer man sins and especially inner man sins)
2. Provision (Christ is the answer through the cleansing power of His blood and the enabling power of His Spirit)
3. Consecration (the access to Christ’s provision is through surrender to/dependence on Christ’s leadership and surrender to/dependence on Christ’s enablement)
4. Spirit-filled Life (surrender/faith accesses Christ’s Life—the Spirit-filled life for holiness and service)
5. 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, the original focus was lost over time, and today the convention no longer truly represents its original purpose. The first two generations of Keswick (roughly eighty years) held to the original theology. In other words, Keswick theology stayed largely true to its beginning 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. (The convention’s 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.) By the 1960s, compromise eventually eroded their theology in significant ways. However, it should be noted that many other Keswick or Keswick-inspired meetings have stayed true to original Keswick theology, even to this day.

 

The first-generation of Keswick included Evan Hopkins (who spoke at the annual convention for 39 years), F.B. Meyer (a regular speaker from 1887 to 1925), Handley G.C. Moule (a participant from the mid-1880s until 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 the number of familiar names and consider the esteem we have for these men, even to this day. R.A. Torrey was so respected that he was chosen as a leading editor of The Fundamentals, an early 20^th century collection of articles penned by orthodox scholars. Almost 30% of the authors writing for The Fundamentals were speakers associated with Keswick, and their contributions made up more than a fifth of the 90 articles in the series. This is a significant fact and shows that Keswick was mainstream at the beginning of biblical fundamentalism and the countering of theological liberalism. Therefore, Keswick was clearly considered “orthodox” at its inception and in the stand against the rise of liberalism, and 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) and can be traced throughout church history. 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 early twentieth-century revivals affecting at least 57 nations, Orr repeatedly documents that Keswick-type conferences were used of God to either ignite revival fire or greatly fuel it.

 

In the work Five Views of Sanctification, J. Robertson McQuilken presents the Keswick view on sanctification, John Walvoord offers an Augustinian-Dispensational approach to the matter, and both men take the opportunity to comment on other views. Essentially, McQuilken maintains there is no real difference between the Keswick and Augustinian-Dispensational views, and similarly, Walvoord maintains no real difference between the Keswick view and his own. Dispensational theology is broader than sanctification (which is Keswick’s primarily concern), but regarding this specific issue, Keswick theology equates to the Dispensational theology embraced by many today.

 

Next week we will address some of the inaccurate accusations that have been leveled against Keswick theology.

 

 

John Van Gelderen

Continue to Part Two: Inaccurate Accusations
For further reading see the original article at Revival Focus.