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.

Repent & Believe, Part 15: How Important is It?

The foundational issue regarding gospel extremes centers on one’s understanding of what it means to repent and believe. How important is it? It could cost the very souls of men and women.

Dr. John Van Gelderen

On one occasion, a lady who operated a country/western radio station heard the gospel and expressed a desire to receive the Savior. However, the witness speaking with her, having adopted a lordship salvation position in reaction to easy-believism, maintained that the woman must discontinue operations at the station in order to be saved. Tragically, the woman responded by backing down from making a decision for Christ. Far better would it have been to see her trust Christ for salvation and then, on that basis, teach her to grow spiritually and deal with the lifestyle issue through the power of the Spirit. In this case, it was not a matter of the woman bringing up an issue or association she would cling to over salvation. Involvement with the radio station was made an issue to her as part of the object of dependence.

Believers must learn to declare the gospel—plus nothing, minus nothing.

The biblical balance of believe and repent reveals the importance of declaring the gospel to sinners in order to see people saved and then declaring the gospel to saints to see people grow. Sinners must hear of sin, judgment, credited righteousness based on the finished work of Christ, and the decision of faith/repentance. Saints, in turn, absolutely need to learn the truth of the Spirit-filled life. Maintaining this precision of emphasis will keep the evangel crystal clear when ministering both to sinners and to saints.


Dr. John Van Gelderen
Revival Focus

Site Publisher Addendum:

When a man [teaching Lordship Salvation] tries to carefully introduce verses about discipleship as though they are strictly evangelistic, remember that the Bible teaches that the lost must come to Christ for salvation and then follow after Him in discipleship. Salvation and discipleship are two very different things. We must not use verses intended to teach discipleship to try to lead a man to Christ. To do so creates confusion and frustration. The message becomes a gospel of faith, plus works…. Salvation has primarily to do with Jesus Christ as Savior; discipleship has primarily to do with Jesus Christ as Lord. Salvation is the new birth, a one-time event in which a man by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5) is saved from sin, death and Hell. Discipleship is a process, maturing and growing as a believer over a lifetime, “in grace, and [in] the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).  (In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation [Rev. & Expanded Edition] pp. 93-94)

Previous Articles in the Repent & Believe Series

Part Ten: The Clarity of Turning to Christ

Part Nine: Confusing Terminology: “Turn & Trust”

Part Eight: Confusing Terminology: “Turn from Sin”

Repent and Believe, Part 10: The Clarity of Turning to Christ

From In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, [Revised & Expanded Edition] the following excerpt from a foreword by Brother George Zeller appears,

“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.”

In his most recent article Dr. John Van Gelderen answers another error with Lordship Salvation’s interpretation of the Gospel.

Dr. Van Gelderen

In the New Testament, which provides the greatest precision on the doctrine of salvation, the emphasis of the wording is not on turning from sin. Rather, emphasis is properly placed on turning to Christ (for salvation from sin). The Christ child was named Jesus because “he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21), and individuals therefore must trust in Him to save them from their sins. This clarifies why the emphasis of the wording of the New Testament is turning to Christ for deliverance from sin and not turning from sin. The precision of emphasis maintains focus on the object of faith, Jesus the Savior, and steers clear of the subject of faith (you) somehow turning from your sin in your own power.

The New Testament says neither “turn from sin” nor “turn from sins.” It does not command one to “turn from your sin” or “turn from your sins.” A commentator likely authored phrases like these some years ago, and the lines have been commonly repeated ever since. The problem with such phraseology is that the aim, being foreign to the New Testament, obscures the otherwise sharp focus on turning to Christ.

Turning to Christ is primary and turning from sin is its corollary—but only when understood in the sense of turning to Christ for deliverance from sin. This focus involves recognizing sin as the awful problem and hell as the sobering consequence but keeps the solution Christ-centered, unmixed with man’s self-effort. This does not imply that sin need not be confronted, but that sin must be confronted so that the law as a tutor might point people to Christ. Sin must be presented as an unsolvable problem so that one can recognize the need for a miraculous salvation through Christ.

Acts 26:20 says, “Repent and turn to God.” Here, the Greek verb epistrepho (turn) combines with the prepositional phrase “to God” to provide an explanation of the first word, repent. “Turn to God” also supports the understanding of repentance being, in essence, the same as faith. And, the use of epistrepho (turn) is a key to understanding the scriptural emphasis of repentance.

Twice, epistrepho is used explicitly with the concept of “from” in dealing with turning from the wrong object of dependence: “turn from these vanities [idols] unto the living God” (Acts 14:15), and “turned to God from idols” (1 Thess. 1:9). In addition, epistrepho is used once with “from” in conveying the idea of turning from the realm of darkness: “turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God” (Acts 26:18). The word darkness reveals the deception (wrong way of thinking) that results from the influence of the father of lies. The three times where the word turn is used in salvific contexts with the word from, the wording is not turning from sin(s). To turn from a wrong object of dependence/wrong way of thinking is quite different than to turn from sin(s). The difference highlights the difference between the object of faith versus the subject of faith (you).

However, the verb epistrepho is repeatedly used in salvific contexts explicitly with the concept of “to” in focusing on Christ as the Savior: “turned to the Lord” (Acts 9:35), “turned unto the Lord” (Acts 11:21), “turn . . . unto the living God” (Acts 14:15), “turned to God” (Acts 15:19), “turn . . . to light . . . unto God” (Acts 26:18), “turn to God” (Acts 26:20), “turn to the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:16), “turned to God” (1 Thess. 1:9), “returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25).

The explicit repeated emphasis of the scriptural usage of epistrepho is turning to the Lord. This observation is an overwhelming, objective fact. Of these nine occurrences, seven use epistrepho with the preposition epi (Acts 9:35; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19; 26:18, 20; 1 Pet. 2:25) and two with the preposition pros (2 Cor. 3:16; 1 Thess. 1:9). The predominant usage of epi, which often means “upon,” emphasizes that the turn of epistrepho in salvific contexts is a “turn of trust upon the Lord.”

The focus of repentance is turning to Christ, which is essentially faith. Using turn, the descriptive word for repent, demonstrates again that faith and repentance are two sides to one coin. In fact, the narrative in Acts 11:21 uses epistrepho to define the word believe: “a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.” (The word for and (kai) is not in the Greek; therefore, the phrase “turned unto the Lord” explains the word believe.)

When the Holy Spirit convicts a man of sin, he recognizes that sin (the root of his own sins) is an offense to a holy God. When the Holy Spirit convicts a man of judgment, he recognizes that hell is the just consequence for his sin(s). When the Holy Spirit convicts a man of righteousness, he realizes his inability to meet God’s standard of absolute perfection and his desperate need for the righteousness of Christ. At that point, man clearly sees that he cannot turn (cease) from his sin(s) or do anything of merit that is acceptable to a holy God, and, therefore, must turn to Christ to deliver him from sin and hell. This is biblical repentance. We must keep the message crystal clear by keeping the focus on Christ.

Sin must be dealt with as the problem. Hell must be addressed as the consequence. But Christ alone must be presented as the solution. Wording matters.

Next week we will discuss the nature of the turn.


Dr. John Van Gelderen

Revival Focus

Related Reading

Lordship Salvation: A Misuse of Scripture, 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

Site Publisher’s Addendum

“Lost man cannot turn from sin, but he can turn to God to deliver him from the penalty and power of sin (Romans 6).  Classic 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). Repentance for salvation, as Lordship advocates view it, is defined as the sinner’s willingness to stop sinning in thought and deed, and to start obeying. The problem with this view is the emphasis is wrongly put on a change in personal behavior, not a change of mind toward God where the emphasis should be.” (In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 128).

Repent and Believe, Part 9: Confusing Terminology: “Turn and Trust”

Dr. John Van Gelderen

Although well-intentioned, confusing terminologies regarding salvation need to be honed to keep the gospel message crystal clear. To add something to the definition of repent, making repentance more than a turning to Christ (believing in Jesus) for salvation from sin and hell, is to confuse the gospel. If repentance means more than a turning to Christ for salvation from sin and judgment, salvation would be by works. But salvation is not by works (Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:10-11; Titus 3:5). Therefore, repent must mean a turning to Christ for salvation from sin and judgment. Sin is the problem, but not sinning is not the solution—Jesus is.

Therefore, as noted in the last article, repentance is turning to Christ for deliverance from sin and its consequences. This keeps Christ alone in sharp focus. It’s this critical focus that is obscured when using the terminology “turn from sins” which we noted conveys the idea of “stop sinning” (works). That flawed phrase, however, is not the lone misrepresentation that threatens the clarity of the gospel. We need to consider another example of similarly confusing terminology.

To say one must “turn and trust” to be saved, can mislead and confuse because it conveys not a single step, but instead, a two-step condition for salvation. This implication differs greatly from what Jesus said when He declared, “Repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15).

We have seen that “repent” and “believe” are essentially the same, though different in emphasis. The two emphases are observable by this rare use of both words as the condition for salvation in Mark 1:15, but the sameness is seen through the fact that Jesus said repent and believe the gospel. The gospel is that Jesus is the payment for the problem and penalty of sin and is applied through faith (1 Cor. 15:1-11). The way Jesus used this phrase means “Change your thinking by transferring your dependence based on the gospel.” In other words, “Exchange your dependence.” This conclusion is also supported by the way the terms are used in multiple contexts as we have demonstrated in the last few articles.

The common usage of “turn and trust” implies two conditional steps. The word turn (something we will look at more closely in the next article) is the descriptive word for repent. Without the proper emphasis of “turning to Christ” (i.e., believing), the word turn can be misunderstood as works. If trust is one’s moment of salvation (John 6:47), then what is turn? The key is clarifying that the turn is the volitional trust in Christ for salvation from sin and hell. One’s abandonment to Christ as Savior is the moment of repenting and believing the gospel. The turn to Christ is not reformation but rather the turn of trust for deliverance from the problem and penalty of sin. Repentance is entirely an internal issue. In this sense there is a turn, but it is a turn of trust, not works. This must be kept clear when articulating the gospel.

The choice to turn to Christ as Savior is belief. The choice to not turn to Christ is unbelief. Practically speaking, the only sin that keeps a person out of heaven is unbelief, not depending on Christ. In John 16:9, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit convicts the world “of sin, because they believe not on me.” Certainly, sins reveal the root issue of the sin of unbelief. Yet the real issue is one’s object of dependence, whether that is of the religious type or the irreligious. Every sin can be forgiven through faith in Jesus except the sin of not depending on Jesus as one’s Savior.

The focus must always be on Christ, who is the sole object of dependence, whether the terminology employed is faith or repentance. In Acts 20:21, Paul described his ministry as “testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” His focus regarding the twin terminologies of repentance and faith was on the object of dependence. The focus of repentance as well as the focus of faith is on Christ as the answer to man’s sin problem. Repentance properly understood is Christ-centered.

In the next article we will demonstrate that the scriptural usage of the word turn is the turn of trust in Christ alone. The evidence is overwhelming.


Dr. John Van Gelderen
Revival Focus

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

Today we continue with a series published by Dr. John Van Gelderen at his Revival Focus site.  Dr. Van Gelderen in this article is providing a biblical answer to misconceptions often being advanced by the teachers of the works based interpretation of the gospel known as “Lordship Salvation.”

 

Some explain repentance in a way that suggests ceasing from sin or a personal reformation. Without further clarification, phrases like “turning from sin,” “turning from sins,” or the expanded version, “turning from sin(s) and turning to Christ,” are used to describe repentance. However, the emphasis of this terminology is on turning from sin, and that stress can be confusing and misleading.

 

With the primary emphasis on turning from sin (or sins), such an attempt to define repentance could be understood as “to turn from committing sins,” or plainly, “to stop sinning.” Mention this to an unsaved person whose natural, human tendency is toward self-dependence and it would follow that the person’s thinking would embrace works (doing whatever is necessary for sinning to cease) as the means of salvation. Does not “turning from sin(s),” offered without clarification, sound like reformation? But we need to be clear; salvation is not by works.

 

Someone once mused, “If repent means turning from sins, why did Jesus die?” Christ died to save man from his sins because man cannot deal with his sins on his own. The terminology of turning from sin(s) sounds too much like “not sinning” or “doing good.” Those who truly believe in salvation by grace through faith and yet use these words obviously do not intend to convey to an unsaved person the inherent works-based message of this terminology. Therefore, the meaning of repentance must be articulated more clearly.

 

In the sense of turning from sin as the problem leading to hell, repentance is the point of trust when one turns to Christ (who is life) for deliverance from sin (which is death). But if one defines repent as “turning from sin(s)” without clarifying that the issue is turning to Christ for salvation from sin because man cannot deal with sin on his own, it could be misunderstood and potentially misleading. It may imply to someone that the turn would be actions (works). The articulation of the decision of repentance must not in any way feed man’s natural bent toward a meritorious salvation.

 

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.

 

This clarification does not imply that sin should be downplayed. It must be addressed. But the purpose for doing so must be kept clear. Sin must be recognized as the problem, but not sinning is not the solution—Jesus is. Christ must be recognized as the solution. This combination of understanding leads to repentance, which in salvation is turning to Christ for deliverance from sin and its consequence.

 

In two weeks, we will demonstrate that the wording of Scripture is not “turning from sin(s),” but “turning to Christ.” But before addressing that emphasis, we will consider another common instance of confused terminology in part 9 next week.

 

 

Dr. John Van Gelderen

 

Repent & Believe, Part 8

Site Publisher’s Addendum:

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, Revised & expanded Edition, p. 128.)

 

Avoid the dangerous error of taking what should be the result of salvation and making it the requirement for salvation: It is because I am saved that I surrender to His Lordship (Rom. 12:1-2). It is because I am saved that I turn from sin and begin to learn what it means to live unto righteousness (1 Pet. 2:24). It is because I am saved that I follow Him in willing obedience (1 John 2:3-5). It is because I am saved that I agree to the terms of discipleship and begin to learn all that discipleship involves (Luke chapter 14).  (In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, Revised & Expanded Edition, p. 289.)

 

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). Lordship Salvation sets upon the sinner’s path to Christ a stumbling block. Lordship Salvation makes rough and uncertain God’s simple plan of salvation. (In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, Revised & Expanded Edition, p. 49.)

Dr. John Van Gelderen: Q&A Saints & Disciples

One of the most egregious errors from the advocates of Lordship Salvation (LS) is confusing the distinct doctrines of salvation and discipleship.   

“Those who hold to Lordship Salvation blur the biblical distinction between salvation and discipleship by interpreting the following passages as though they are the evangelistic blue print for salvation: Luke 9:23-24; Luke 14:26-27; Mark 8:34,” (In Defense of the Gospel: Revised & Expanded Edition, p. 78).

Dr. John Van Gelderen hosts a Q&A forum at his Revival Focus website. Earlier this month he addressed a question that addresses the doctrine of discipleship.

 

Dear Dr. Van Gelderen,

John 8:30-31 As he spake these words, many believed on him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Can one be a saint, but not a disciple? It seems there are at least a couple passages (John 8:30-32, John 15:7-8) that indicate being a disciple is tied to works (the verses about taking one’s cross could also be included). Given “salvation by grace alone through faith alone”, it seems we are forced to conclude either (a) one can be a saint without being a disciple, or (b) works/obedience/discipleship are to be considered an *evidence* of true faith.

In typing this question, I decided to look up the words in the NT, and it appears that “disciple/mathetes” appears in the Gospels & Acts 268 times, and 0 times after Acts. While the term “saint/hagios” (when used to refer to believers) appears 60 times after Acts, and only 1 time in Matthew, and 4 times in Acts. If they are distinct terms, it seems odd that “disciple” doesn’t appear after Acts.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Thanks and God Bless.

Dr. Van Gelderen’s Answer,

Thank you for your perceptive question and thoughts. They open the door to a wonderful truth. The New Testament includes several usages of the word disciple, indicating various “levels” of discipleship. The broadest usage of the word refers to all believers in Jesus—all saints. But in the passage you mentioned in John 8, Jesus challenged those who had believed in Him to deeper discipleship.

According to Jesus, the way to become a “disciple indeed” is to “continue in my word.” The word continue is the same term translated abide in John 15, and abide is the picturesque term for dependence (John 15:4-5). Therefore, when you become a believer/disciple though faith, you can become a deeper disciple or a “disciple indeed” through continuous steps of faith. When you walk by faith you grow in grace.

The issue is not the evidences of true faith, as if you inevitably do works fitting for a believer. The challenge Paul gives in (Colossians 2:6) is that as you received Christ (by faith), now walk in Him (in the same manner—by faith). The works that evidence deeper discipleship are by faith. However, they are not automatic, otherwise Jesus would not challenge us to continue/abide in His word and Paul would not insist that we walk in Him by faith.

John Van Gelderen

 See Question #79

Site Publisher Addendum:

“Salvation and discipleship are two separate and distinct issues. Salvation is the gift of God to an undeserving Hellbound sinner. Discipleship is what ought to flow from the man or woman who through the shed blood of Jesus Christ has been redeemed from sin, death and Hell. Confusing the cost of discipleship for the believer with the gospel of grace through faith is one of the most disconcerting errors of Lordship Salvation,” (In Defense of the Gospel: Revised & Expanded Edition, p. 85).

“When a man tries to carefully introduce verses about discipleship as though they are strictly evangelistic, remember that the Bible teaches that the lost must come to Christ for salvation and then follow after Him in discipleship. Salvation and discipleship are two very different things. We must not use verses intended to teach discipleship to try to lead a man to Christ. To do so creates confusion and frustration. The message becomes a gospel of faith, plus works,” (In Defense of the Gospel: Revised & Expanded Edition, p. 93).

Yours faithfully,


Lou Martuneac

Dr. Robert L. Sumner, “DUNGHILL THEOLOGY!”

Dr. Robert L. Sumner

Over 8 years ago we clipped an excellent article which had been written by William R. Estep, at the time the distinguished professor of church history, emeritus, at Southwestern Seminary. He wrote with Southern Baptists in view, seeking to douse the flames of a growing Calvinism in that denomination. I wish we could print the entire article since it was filled with so much wisdom and understanding. The term ‘dunghill’ theology was coined by Andrew Fuller in his The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, an answer to John Gill’s Calvinism.

Estep described Calvin: “He was no advocate of religious freedom, but an autocrat who often mistook his own will for the will of God,” adding that he “never was able to free himself from his Roman Catholic heritage. … His Old Testament hermeneutics and his uncontrollable temper acerbated his intolerance of those who disagreed with him.” Estep apparently wrote this article as an answer to Ernest C. Reisinger’s attempt to “call Southern Baptists back to what he conceives to have been their Calvinistic root,” to which he responded, “This assumption must be challenged on the basis of the original Baptist vision and its theological insights.” Amen to that!

Calvin’s theology might be summed up with his definition of predestination: “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation, and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death” (Institutes, 3.21.5). If that isn’t fatalism, it’ll do until someone can think one up!

In talking about Baptists, Estep wrote: “Baptists arose out of English Puritan-Separatist movement, which was Calvinist, but they modified their Calvinistic heritage to a considerable degree. The first English Baptists of record (1608) came to be known as ‘General Baptists,’ since they believed in ‘general atonement’ – that Christ died for all and not just for the elect. Their Calvinism almost completely vanished under Anabaptist-Mennonite influence.”

In closing, he listed what he called “problems with Calvinism” as related to Baptists. Part of what he wrote was:

“First, it is a system of theology without biblical support.

“It assumes to know more about God and the eternal decrees upon which it is based than God has chosen to reveal in scripture or in Christ. To say God created some people for damnation and others for salvation is to deny that all have been created in the image of God.

“It also reflects upon both God’s holiness and His justice, as portrayed in the Bible.

“Further, Calvinism appears to deny John 3:16, John 1:12, Romans 1:16, Romans 10:9-10,

Ephesians 2:8-10 and numerous other passages of scripture that indicate, as Baptist confessions have consistently stated, that salvation comes to those who respond to God’s grace in faith.

“Second, Calvinism’s God resembles Allah, the god of Islam, more than the God of grace and redeeming love revealed in Jesus Christ.

“Third, Calvinism robs the individual of responsibility for his/her own conduct, making a person into a puppet on a string or a robot programmed from birth to death with no will of his/her own.

“Fourth, historically, Calvinism has been marked by intolerance and a haughty spirit. Calvin’s Geneva, the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) and the Regular Baptists (Hardshells, Primitives and Two Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists) are only some of numerous examples of this Calvinistic blight.

“Fifth, logically, Calvinism is anti-missionary. The Great Commission is meaningless if every person is programmed for salvation or damnation, for evangelism and missionary efforts are exercises in futility.

“Apparently, Calvinism is an excursion into speculative theology with predictable results, which we as Southern Baptists can ill afford.”

But what about “the great Charlie?” Estep wrote: “Charles Haddon Spurgeon often has been cited by Baptists as a staunch Calvinist. At times, the young Spurgeon claimed to be exactly that, but at other times it is clear he was neither a hyper-Calvinist nor even a consistent Calvinist. A. C. Underwood, in A History of English Baptists, writes that Spurgeon’s ‘rejection of a limited atonement would have horrified John Calvin.’ According to Underwood, Spurgeon often prayed, ‘Hasten to bring in all Thine elect, and then elect some more.’ The mature Spurgeon confided in Archbishop Benson, ‘I’m a very bad Calvinist, quite a Calvinist – I look on to the time when the elect will be all the world’.”

Don’t be taken in by “dunghill” theology!

Excerpted from The Biblical Evangelist: Volume 37, Number 3; May-June 2006.

Dr. Robert L. Sumner, (1922-2006) The Biblical Evangelist: “A Voice for Historic Evangelical Fundamentalism.”

Archival Series: What is Lordship Salvation and Why Does it Matter?

There is an on-going debate over a certain segment of fundamentalists preaching and practicing a new paradigm shift for separation commonly known as “gospel-driven separation” or “gospel centric fellowship.”

“There is today a very subtle shift that, on the surface, is very persuasive…. Rather than base separatism on the Bible, the whole counsel of God, we should use as our test the Gospel. There is a plea that says the only doctrines for which we should contend are those doctrines that impinge directly upon the Gospel…. That [Gospel-Centric separatism] broadens our fellowship incredibly to include organizations and individuals who are patently disobedient to the plain teaching of Scripture and yet are somehow tolerated, vindicated and even honored in some of our circles.”1

In recent articles we have been considering why there should be no fellowship or cooperative efforts with the so-called “conservative” evangelicals. The reasons include aberrant theology such as non-cessationism, amillenialism, ecumenical compromise, embracing the world’s music in the form of RAP, Hip Hop and CCM for ministry. All of these are grounds for withdrawing from and having no fellowship with believers who teach and do these things. All of this, however, is being tolerated, allowed for, excused or ignored by certain men who minister in fundamental circles, men who are forging fellowship and cooperative ministries with the evangelicals and influencing others to follow them. There is, however, one overarching concern that trumps all of these issues with the evangelicals combined. That is 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: Revised & Expanded Edition, p. 48.)

It is virtually impossible not to know that the evangelicals, almost to a man, believe, preach and defend Lordship Salvation (LS). When the T4G and Gospel Coalition conferences convene they gather around the LS interpretation of the Gospel. Certain men in fundamental circles, however, are drawn together in “gospel-centric” fellowship with evangelicals. They are gathering around a common acceptance of and bond in Calvinistic soteriology, primarily in the form of Lordship Salvation.

Dr. Kevin Bauder published a serious misrepresentation when he wrote that Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, “believe, preach and defend the [same] gospel.”2 Kevin Bauder has never edited or retracted that statement. Following are samples of Lordship’s corruption of the Gospel for justification.

“Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation, not . . . a second step of faith following salvation.” (Dr. John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith? pp. 219.)

“That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior.” (MacArthur, Ibid, p. 150.)

“If you want to receive this gift [salvation] it will cost you the total commitment of all that you are to the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ps. Steven Lawson, The Cost of Discipleship: It Will Cost You Everything.)

“Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)

“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.” (MacArthur, Hard to Believe, p. 6.)

Based on clear, unambiguous statements from advocates of LS thousands in Fundamentalism reject LS as a corrupt and false interpretation of the gospel.

When the Lordship advocate speaks of “following Christ,” he is speaking of the gospel. When John MacArthur refers to “The Cost of Following Christ,” he really means “The Cost to Receive Christ.” MacArthur believes there is a “Real Cost of Salvation,” or more accurately a “Real Cost for Salvation.” He believes that the gospel 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. (In Defense of the Gospel: Revised & Expanded Edition, p. 82.)

Dr. Ernest Pickering recognized that LS, as MacArthur defined it, was a departure from the biblical plan of salvation. Following are two excerpts from Dr. Pickering’s review of the first edition (1988) of John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus.

“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. Charles Ryrie was certainly on target when he wrote, ‘The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel…’” (Balancing the Christian Life, p. 70.)

“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 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.”

Several months after an April 2010 personal meeting with Dr. MacArthur NIU president Dr. Matt Olson announced that with MacArthur they “agree on the most substantive issues of life and ministry.”3 Then Olson hosted MacArthur’s executive pastor Rick Holland in the NIU chapel pulpit to address impressionable young people.4 NIU would not have had Rick Holland in its pulpit, or validated John MacArthur’s doctrine and ministry if the administration had any serious reservations over Lordship Salvation. With Olson’s statement on MacArthur and putting Holland in the chapel pulpit NIU stamped its approval on and endorsed a false gospel, namely “Lordship Salvation.”

Do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, “believe, preach and defend the [same] gospel?” No, they do not! Men in fundamental circles who are converging with advocates of LS are either tolerating a known and egregious error or have themselves embraced the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel and are rallying around it with like-minded evangelicals.

It is high time for men like Dave Doran, Kevin Bauder, Matt Olson, Tim Jordan, et. al., to be transparent on the Lordship Salvation controversy. Are these men willing to state in unvarnished terms whether or not they believe LS as John MacArthur, John Piper, Steve Lawson, et. al., “believe, preach and defend” it is the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Lordship Salvation is not the gospel! LS clouds, confuses and complicates the Gospel. LS corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21). Above all other considerations (aberrant theology, ecumenism and worldliness) we cannot fellowship, promote or cooperate with evangelicals who “believe, preach and defend” Lordship Salvation.


LM
Originally published April 14, 2011.

Related Reading:.
For a clear, concise example of the egregious error that is Lordship Salvation please read, Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page. This article is a reproduction of an appendix entry by the same name that appears on pp. 284-286. In it I examine a statement by John MacArthur that appears in all three editions of The Gospel According to Jesus. You will find that there is no more clear example of how John MacArthur’s LS corrupts and redefines the Scriptures than this one.

What is the Fault Line for Fracture in Fundamentalism?

“How can there be unity within a fellowship when two polar opposite interpretations of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ are accepted as legitimate?”

Footnotes:
1) Pastor Marc Monte, Preserving the Separatist Impulse

2) Do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, “Believe, Preach and Defend the [Same] Gospel?”

“There is no universal ‘mutuality in the gospel’ among evangelicals and fundamentalists. ‘Evangelicals and fundamentalists are [NOT] united in their allegiance to the gospel,’ because there is a vast difference between what evangelicals and non-Calvinists in Fundamentalism believe to be the one true Gospel. It is irrefutable, and Kevin Bauder is well aware, that many men in Fundamentalism reject Calvinistic soteriology in the form of LS as a false, works based Gospel. It is, furthermore, indisputable that virtually every man in “conservative” evangelicalism is a passionate advocate for Lordship Salvation, which Dr. Bauder is also well aware of.”

3) Dr. Matt Olson, Open Letter To Friends in Ministry, November 23, 2010.

4) Northland Int’l University Presents Executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to It’s Student Body