Keswick theology was born when Asa Mahan convinced Charles Finney that the latter's first evangelistic tour had been successful despite the apparent lack of fruit: Finney had successfully preached justification by faith, but had failed to preach the corresponding truth of sanctification by faith. Rejuvenated by this realization, Finney retraced his steps with the message of sanctification by faith and revival broke out.
You see, in the minds of Finney and Mahan, since justification is a forensic truth, it has no efficient means of producing sanctification, and uninformed believers cannot be expected to grow in godliness. After all, the Gospel changes nothing except one's status: by it believers are declared righteous, but they remain just as totally depraved as ever. In order to experience Christian growth, a second event must occur: believers must let go and let God do what totally depraved people cannot do. This occurs when the believer "reckons" on his newfound status as a saint and in faith becomes a passive "channel" through which God can flow.
With the strong emphasis on total depravity, it is no surprise that some Reformed folk perked up and took notice. After all, total depravity is the "T" in TULIP. But to borrow a line from Tolkien, "they were all of them deceived." For while Reformed soteriology emphatically teaches that unbelievers are totally depraved (i.e., incapable of pleasing God), it does not teach that believers remain totally depraved. Justification is always accompanied by regeneration, and regenerate people are by definition no longer totally depraved: although perpetually dogged by the remnants of sin, the regenerate have been enabled by God to please him. The resultant growth in godliness is never perfect (at least in this life), but it is a real and necessary response of the new creature in Christ.
What, then, is the believer's impetus to progressive sanctification? Well, gratitude for God's justifying work is surely a great incentive. But is it the only incentive or the greatest one? I'm convinced that the answer to this question is "No." Christ's crosswork accomplished more for us than mere justification. It also accomplished regeneration--the impartation of a new nature; the creation of a new man; the partaking of the divine nature; the new birth. And while it is surely true that justification stands as a great inspiration to godliness, it is equally true that regeneration stands as a critical enablement of godliness.
Am I diminishing Christ or the Gospel by such statements? No indeed. What I'm saying is that truncating the work of Christ in the Gospel to mere justification is a dangerous exercise in reductionism with serious consequences.
MAS
14 comments:
Mark,
I think your points are well taken, but who is committing this error today? That is, the error of truncating the work of Christ in the Gospel to mere justification?
There are still people who hold Keswick views, are they doing this?
Is John Piper doing it? Tullian Tchvidjian? (not sure I spelled that right)
Or... would you prefer to not be too specific?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, I think Tchividjian is precipitously trending this way. But I was being deliberately general in suggesting that it is possible for good emphases (like total depravity and justification) to be emphasized to the exclusion of other essential emphases (like regeneration and definitive sanctification).
Again, my point is not to suggest that we stop emphasizing justification, but rather that we give more attention to regeneration.
MAS
Probably off topic, so dispose of as you please, but . . .
Did Finney really ever preach justification by faith? Where?
This is a question, not a snark.
Keith
Point well taken, Keith. There have been a number of studies that have taken Finney's non-orthodox views of justification to task--although there is debate about the extent of his errors early in his ministry.
Perhaps I could more accurately say that he had communicated forensic aspects of salvation in his first evangelistic tour, but had neglected ethical aspects of salvation.
After his recuperation under Mahan, Finney's focus radically shifted to ethics.
Mark:
From my limited understanding of Keswick I still think I know enough to say that Keswick men would track with you on certain elements of this article. Where they would part company is over what I believe you are suggesting is the inevitability of growth. The Keswick believes in growth (sanctification) of the redeemed, but hindrance to growth that can and does exist (carnality, unconfessed sin...) must be biblically resolved. I don't think there is a quick fix that guarantees the process of growth, but the opportunity and supernatural aid for growth is certainly infused at the moment of justification, regeneration.
LM
Lou, I have no doubt that there were many godly and sanctified folks in the Keswick movement, those who grew in grace and godliness. What I would suggest, though, is that this was in spite of their central teaching.
The well-known mantras of Keswick, such as "Let go and let God," "channels only," "Absolute surrender," etc. reflect an idea that sanctification is not something in which the believer actively participates. It is only when the believer "stops struggling" and begins "reckoning" on his standing in Christ that growth occurs.
My point here is not to discourage reflection on justification; instead, my point is to say that this alone is not the whole of sanctification. The biblical picture of sanctification is one of expending effort, working hard, beating one's body into submission, laying aside weights, striving, reaching forward, etc. (you fill in the references). These actions flow from the new man who is not only inspired to pursue godliness (because of his justification), but also enabled to pursue godliness (because of his regeneration). What I am suggesting is that this latter emphasis was neglected in the Keswick model, and I wonder if we aren't seeing something of history repeating itself today.
MAS
Mark:
Thanks for the reply. If I am following you and getting my train of thought on the same rails I don't think Keswick teaches some kind of near absolute passivity. We are instructed to run the race, press toward the mark, strive. Instead Keswick emphasizes removing the barriers that hinder growth, lay aside every weight and the besetting sin... . Apart from Him we can do nothing; grieve not the Spirit....
The Bible does tell us how to restore fellowship with the Lord (1Jn. 1:9) the fellowship we hinder and break because of our own sin.
As we consider justification, sanctification and our eventual glorification all of them are ultimately provided by Him and through Him when we once as lost, depraved sinners came to Him in faith believing who He is and what He did to provide our salvation.
LM
Thanks for the clarification.
Keith
Bonus points for the Tolkien reference--are you going to make a hobbit of such things?
Mark:
Thanks for hosting me for this discussion. I think your article and our discussion here is a helpful read. From here I’d like to, in four (brief) separate comments, address certain elements in your article. By the way, I may a new article at my blog that points my readers to this article. I thunk there is value in what you raised for consideration. Now, I’ll begin here with-
To claim that Keswick was born out of Wesleyan holiness is a logical fallacy. It is like claiming that Reformed Theology was born out of Catholicism. J. C. Pollock who wrote The Keswick Story notes the Keswick theologians (Moule, Hopkins) kept Keswick theology within biblical boundaries so that Keswick was protected from the shipwreck of the holiness movement.
LM
Next, regarding the claim that Keswick teaches believers are a “passive channel” is just not so. The men I speak to have read thousands of pages of Keswick authors (much more than I have) and they assure me that they have not seen that taught.
Keswick teaches sanctification by faith, not self-dependence. But it is an active faith that trusts to obey. This does not negate the need to act. It simply points up the need to trust (ask / take) before you act. To just act is self-dependence. To just trust is really not trusting; it is easy-believism in sanctification. To trust to obey is God-dependence, accessing Spirit-enablement (Rom. 5:2).
LM
Next, regarding the claim that Keswick teaches a “status change only” in salvation is again simply not true. Day Two of the Keswick progression highlights “Provision.” The emphasis is on all that God provided in regeneration - the new man joined to the indwelling Christ, etc. It’s just that Keswick maintains this provision must be accessed by faith or you live below your provision. But the point is Keswick teaches a glorious provision as the foundation for that faith.
The difference simply boils down to an “inevitable” view of faith versus a responsible faith.
Keswick, in a nutshell, emphasizes repeated steps of faith to access the indwelling Christ. Why would anyone knock this focus?
"But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him," (Heb. 11:6).
"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God," (Heb. 12:2).
Thanks again for hosting me for this discussion.
LM
PS: I may be limited in reply for a few days due to medical concerns.
Lou,
A few things, and them I'll have to cut this off--I've already written this doctoral dissertation so I'll point you to it for any further questions. As to the history of Keswick, I'd suggest a read of Warfield's Studies in Perfectionism for the seminal influence of Phoebe Palmer's "Shorter Way" and esp. Asa Mahan's early influence at Keswick; also Andy Naselli's dissertation, "Keswick Theology" and Bill Combs's article "The Disjunction Between Justification and Sanctification in Contemporary Evangelicalism." You're right that Keswick theology and holiness theology are not synonymous, but to suggest that holiness theology and Keswick are as disparate as Romanism and Protestantism is unsustainable.
As to the passive channel comment, I'm at a loss that this could be questioned. The empty vessel and channels only motif is ubiquitous in Keswick literature. I'll offer just one, Mary E. Maxwell’s popular Keswick song, “Channels Only”:
Emptied that thou shouldest fill me, a clean vessel in Thy hand;
With no pow’r but as Thou givest graciously with each command.
Channels only, blessed Master, but with all Thy wondrous pow’r Flowing through us, Thou canst use us ev’ry day and ev’ry hour.
As to the status change vs. experiential transformation comment, I'll point you to Chafer's comment: "Is it true that any Christian ever experienced a death to sin? Never was there one. But the death which is mentioned in this passage [Romans 6] is said to be accomplished for every believer. All Christians are here said to have died to sin. A death which is all-inclusive could not be experimental. It is positional. God reckons all believers, as to their sin nature, to have died in Christ and with Christ. (He That Is Spiritual, 121).
In the end I "knock" Keswick theology because, as I've said, it makes too little of regeneration and esp. of definitive sanctification. It argues that progressive sanctification occurs primarily when the believer by faith "reckons" on a forensic event and pretends that it's real rather than by faith acting on his experience of the new birth and showing that it's real.
MAS
Post a Comment