* * * * * * *

I became a Christian when I was seventeen years old, and the first theology I knew was Keswick theology. I read many books and heard numerous sermons that exhorted me to “let go and let God,” to live the victorious Christian life, to surrender absolutely and completely to the Lord, to live in unbroken victory for significant periods of time, to live as a spiritual Christian instead of a carnal Christian. I read Hannah Whitall Smith, Charles Trumbull, Andrew Murray, Watchmen Nee, Major Ian Thomas, John Hunter, etc. My youth pastor, who discipled me and taught me the rudiments of the Christian faith, gave a steady diet of Keswick teaching as well. When I attended seminary, at my youth pastor’s suggestion, I attended a church that promulgated Keswick theology because I was convinced that those who did not share such a theology were less biblical.

Let me be quick to say how much I learned from Keswick theology. It upholds the Scriptures as the authoritative and inerrant word of God. It highlights the majesty and beauty of Christ. It embraces and rejoices in orthodox Christian theology. Most important, it takes the Holy Spirit seriously. Christians can and should live in a way that pleases God through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not a theological cipher; his presence is vital and energizing so that believers can triumph over the flesh.

Nevertheless, Keswick theology, which was so wonderful to read about, did not match my experience. I didn’t enjoy the sustained victory over sin that I read and heard about in books and sermons. I comforted myself with the thought that I was a young Christian. I hoped that when I was more mature I would experience consistent victory. In my seminary years, however, two things weaned me away from Keswick theology. For the first time in my life I started doing serious exegesis. It became apparent to me fairly quickly that Keswick theology does not match up with what the scriptures teach. The Christian life has an already-not yet tension, and sanctification is progressive and partial. Believers do not and cannot live on clouds during their earthly sojourn. Second, I was getting older and more mature. I noticed that my pastor who espoused Keswick theology, although he was a godly man, was not adept at recognizing his own sin. His “theology,” unbeknown to him, did not match his experience either.

Keswick theology is still popular today. Unfortunately, thoughtful and helpful evaluations of the movement are relatively hard to find. I received much help over the years by reading B. B. Warfield’s Perfectionism and J. I. Packer’s Keep in Step with the Spirit. Warfield’s analysis is perceptive, though he could have shown more sympathy for Keswick thinkers. Packer’s summary and evaluation are the most accessible for believers today. Andy Naselli, however, provides us with a thorough explanation of Keswick theology and uncovers its biblical and theological weaknesses. Naselli’s work is judicious but kind. The Keswick movement has done much good, and we are allies and friends in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Still, iron sharpens iron, and Keswick theology has too often produced discouragement and despair with its exalted and finally unbiblical view of sanctification. Naselli’s work helps us to see why Keswick doesn’t measure up, and he provides a more satisfying and biblically faithful alternative.

Thomas R. Schreiner
James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation
Associate Dean, Scripture and Interpretation
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Louisville, Kentucky

Related:

1. Let God and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology
2. Interview on Keswick Theology
3. Endorsements

• In “The Millennium,” his sermon on Revelation 20:1–15 (preached on June 14, 2009), Schreiner begins by explaining that he recently changed his millennial position from amillennial to premillennial, largely as a result of studying that text (HT: Ben Wright).
• Jason Button transcribes some of Schreiner’s wise introductory remarks here.

Updates:

1. See A. J. Gibson’s “It’s a Sin to Sever Cooperation with Other Believers over Eschatological Issues,” which comments on the sermon on Revelation 20 that Mark Dever preached yesterday (July 12).
2. See Ben Wright’s “‘I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular Millennial view.’” (Ben is a member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church.)
3. Justin Taylor weighs in.
4. Kevin Bolin interviewed me on this issue on July 14: “Are Millennial Views Essential?“
5. See Ben Wright’s “Amillennialists and Premillennialists: What Do We Agree On?“
6. See “Mark Dever on the Function of Statements of Faith.”

“Well it just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead. There’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. . . . Now mostly dead is slightly alive. All dead—well, with all dead, there’s only usually one thing that you can do.”

“What’s that?”

“Go through his clothes and look for loose change.”

Recommended resources:

1. William W. Combs, “Does the Bible Teach Prevenient Grace?” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 10 (2005): 3–18.
2. John Piper, “Total Depravity,” in “TULIP” (a nine-part seminar available in audio and video), 2008.
3. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?” in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace (ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 229–46.

One of the less convincing features of Hurtado’s book is his tendency to accept critical orthodoxy throughout. For instance, he includes his chapter on Q before consulting the Synoptic Gospels. Placing Q before the Synoptics is a rather strange procedure since the nature of Q is keenly debated, and some scholars question whether it even existed. Even if Q did exist, the document (or oral tradition) has never been unearthed, and so we do not know (contrary to the confident assertions of some!) what was actually contained in the alleged document. Therefore, it is rather speculative to write about the Christology found in Q to say the least. Perhaps Hurtado’s purpose is to demonstrate the plausibility of his theory even if one adopts a Q hypothesis, since he argues that even Q does not point to variant form of Christian belief regarding Jesus Christ. In any case, reading this chapter on Q reminded me that biblical scholars who complain that those who do systematics are guilty of too much speculation should look carefully in the mirror (Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 9:1 [2005]: 101, emphasis added).

1. Editorial: Stephen J. Wellum: “Learning from the Epistle to the Romans“
2. John Polhill, “The Setting of Romans in the Ministry of Paul”
3. Benjamin L. Merkle, “Is Romans Really the Greatest Letter Ever Written?“
4. A. B. Caneday, “‘They Exchanged the Glory of God for the Likeness of an Image’: Idolatrous Adam and Israel as Representatives in Paul’s Letter to the Romans”
5. Robert W. Yarbrough, “The Theology of Romans in Future Tense”
6. Douglas Moo, “Paul’s Universalizing Hermeneutic in Romans”
7. Mark A. Seifrid, “The Gospel as the Revelation of Mystery: The Witness of the Scriptures to Christ in Romans”
8. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Sermon: Loving One Another Fulfills the Law: Romans 13:8-10″

Update: See “Fall SBJT studies significance of Paul’s epistle to the Romans,” published by Towers Online, SBTS’s news service.

Steve Lawson on Romans 11:36:
Parts 1 and 2 available here.
Riveting. Refreshing.

Thomas Schreiner on TULIP from a conference in March 2006:

1. Radical depravity
2. Sovereign election
3. Particular/single/definite redemption
4. Overcoming grace
5. Perseverance of the saints

I’ve enjoyed reading Schreiner’s works (e.g., commentary on Romans, Pauline theology), but this was my first time hearing him speak. These MP3s are well worth your time, especially if you disagree with his conclusions. He is a reliable representative for this aspect of Calvinism. (11 other MP3s by Schreiner available here.)

John Piper‘s most recent MP3 from his annual biographical messages: William Tyndale. Moving. Convicting. (as usual)