I recently answered these questions from Alex Chediak about my book on Keswick theology:

1. Keswick theology teaches that, after salvation, one must pursue the second blessing. Having received it, can one lose this “second blessing”? If so, what would be the mark(s) of such a loss?
2. How would such a person get it back?
3. Is Keswick thinking in any way at the root of the struggle many have with discerning “the personal will of God” for their lives?
4. Some of us might read names like Andrew Murray, J. Hudson Taylor, and Amy Carmichael and think “Wow. Whatever it is, it can’t be that bad.” Does Keswick thinking, historically, have a track record of promoting more holy living on the part of Christians?
5. In your handout, you say, “Since it is unlikely that all living believers will agree on their view of sanctification, believers should promote unity on this issue as much as possible.” Can you unpack this a bit?
6. Romans 7 is a text that divides Christians, with some saying that Paul is referring to the believer’s ongoing struggle with sin, and others (like Doug Moo, and Martin Lloyd-Jones) arguing that Paul is referring to a pre-converted man (possibly himself). Is it possible to take the latter view and still not be a proponent of Keswick theology?
7. Related to the previous question, when discussing the believer’s ongoing struggle, should we use the word “flesh” or “old man” to refer to what John Owen called our “remaining corruptions”? Is there a difference?

—Part 1 | Part 2

Related:

1. Let God and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology
2. Interview on Keswick Theology with Kevin DeYoung

Update on 8/23/2017: My latest book attempts to survey and analyze “let go and let God” theology: