In lieu of yuehan coming back to the subject, I thought I would start a thread to find out what others here think of Keswick theology.

I have studied holiness teaching quite extensively the last 30 years, from the traditional one found before Azusa Street, post Azusa Holiness Pentecostalism, the Keswick one, and the teaching on holiness from the early church fathers.

I found there is a very definite dividing line from before Azusa and after and all the holiness teachings I can find are of the later sort.

The main division is around Romans 6:6:

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

It is over the word 'destroyed' and what exactly that means. Does it mean completely gone as in pre Azusa or does it mean 'subdued' as in Keswick teaching?

I think that very early Keswick teaching did teach eradication of the old man but then later it was pointed out that the Greek word should not be translated as destroyed but rather 'rendered useless'. But from there Keswick teaching emphasized 'For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death'. Here, the idea is that by the spirit we have a power (law at work) which COUNTERACTS the stirrings and machinations of the old self. Just as an airplane counteracts the law of gravity acting on it by a more powerful force enabled by the law of aerodynamic lift. This was very good teaching that refuted the then dominant holiness teaching that suggested a 'second blessing' whereby the 'root of sin' is eradicated and we can live sinless lives.

-Daniel

Thank you Daniel. I think there is a big problem here, in that people will have read the latter interpretation of the Greek and thought the matter has been settled, and looked at it no further. I think that the original understanding cannot be dismissed like that, when the early church believed the former and so throughout church history till modern times.

Even Greek scholars disagree vehemently on the various possibilities of understanding the language differences. I have faith in the early fathers because they were not too far away from the interpretations of the disciples coming down from the Apostles both in understanding the language and the culture.

Added to this is the very significant interest that scholars are showing regarding the subject, which seems to me to suggest it is not clear cut as stated. I also humbly add my own experience of the matter.

I guess a lot depends on how you see history unfolding. I have been greatly helped to see if what we have been taught is true or not by reading Eastern Orthodoxy historians. They after all, did not have a Reformation, an Enlightenment, revolutions and later modern developments as society grew more and more secular.

They have many manuscripts that we do not have and their theologians are much better trained than ours, who are indoctrinated into their various sects. The eastern ones studied philosophy as well and can spot that a mile away.

I would ask if people would give it another chance to prove itself.

Quote: This was very good teaching that refuted the then dominant holiness teaching that suggested a 'second blessing' whereby the 'root of sin' is eradicated and we can live sinless lives.

It doesn't matter what they say or not say. The only thing I would say is look at the pitiful condition of the church, since this so called "refuting".

God says: Ezk 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

You either agree with God and what he said or not. God says I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. Is God a Liar?

Acts 15:8-9 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

The Holy Ghost does not dwell in unclean heart, but when the temple of the heart has been purified, then and only then does he come.

If you require I can use reformed teaching to identify the heart with the "flesh"

_________________
Colin Murray

Just adding a teaching form Ligonier Ministries (reformed teaching)

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/heart-of-the-problem

It is not what goes into a person that defiles him. It is what comes out of him — the corrupted streams that flow from a corrupted heart. “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone” (vv. 19–20).

As has been well said, the heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart. Not the blood pumping vessel that is the concern of your cardiologist, but the seat of your personality that is the concern of the Gospel.

Jesus teaches us that there is something far more fundamental to our sinfulness than the actual sins we commit. Our sins do not make us sinful. Rather, we commit sins because, at the very center of our lives, we are sinful. Sin has invaded the inner recesses of our personalities.

This is essential information for spiritual health because it keeps us from misdiagnosing our real problem. So often we are quick to blame others for our failures and shortcomings. We even mask how we do this by employing the “if-only” rationale to excuse our sin. “If only I had been raised differently…I had a better job…you hadn’t provoked me…my husband would listen to me…my church were better….” The list is endless and usually contains genuinely flawed people and circumstances that are blameworthy.

But no circumstance, other person, or activity can ever justify my sin. I sin, Jesus said, because my heart is sinful. That is a shattering reality. But we must humbly face it if we want to be spiritually healed.

Reformed teaching clearly teaches -

I sin, Jesus said, because my heart is sinful.

Martin Luther came to see this and it caused him to say, “I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals.”

Sin is not yet purged from the Christian’s heart, though one day it will be. But its power is broken so that, by faith in Christ, we can pursue real holiness from the inside out.

----------------------

They come to the correct conclusion, "Sin is not yet purged from the Christian’s heart" however I diverge from Reformed teaching, "though one day it will be" they hope one day to be free, when will that day be?

What I see in scripture something different: I see sin Purged from the Christians heart, in fact it's a new heart, a clean heart, free from filthiness and Idols.

God promises to cleanse us, give a new clean heart, to pour out his Spirit on us a cause us to obey and do them

Ezk 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

What is the issue the heart

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

A new heart also will I give you, this is mind blowing I admit, but has said he he will give us a new heart.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Then we will be empowered to walk in his law and do them.

28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

God will be our God and we will be his people, no longer self willed and independent of him.

29 I will also save you from all your uncleanness: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.

Saved from all uncleanness..

I don't want to pursue holiness - I WANT TO BE HOLY and God has promised he will do it, not for my sake but his.

_________________
Colin Murray

//I don't want to pursue holiness - I WANT TO BE HOLY and God has promised he will do it, not for my sake but his.//

Amen to this.

Colin I have been searching for the post of yours that refuted my endorsement of Jessie Penn-Lewis and gave this link?

https://faithsaves.net/welsh-revival/

I said it was from a Reformed position but went on to read further and must thank you for something so useful to me.

Because it is opposing the whole of the Welsh Revival it is especially useful as I find that information from anti sources, although usually full of misconceptions, are often very well researched and in this case I may have to recant my views on JPL. The site is quoting newspapers and independent sources and the revival was much more complicated than I had previously thought, having just read from one or two approaches.

It seems she was far more engulfed in Pentecostalism than I thought, although I still believe that she had become the scapegoat of some of it - the Finished Work Pentecostals.

I still remain the same on my estimation of Evan Roberts even more so after that site. Thanks.

BrendaM

Thanks

God loves you, Jesus loves you, and I also love you.

Colin

_________________
Colin Murray

Love you too brother.

Let me throw something out there to chew on. Look at the words used throughout Rom. 6 for "sin". They are all nouns with one exception, and that is in verse 15. To me, this is important. All of us were born into a thing called sin. This thing called sin had dominion over us and ruled our lives. Jesus came to destroy this thing, this sin (the noun) that had dominion over us and controlled us. It's dominion is broken. We died to this noun called sin. The body of sin, the thing called sin, was defeated where we were concerned. So, in verse 15, we are told, and I will give my own paraphrase. Shall we commit actions of sin now because we are no longer under the law? God forbid. Since you are no longer under captivity to the body of sin, you no longer have to give in to sin and be ruled by it.

But this is not automatic. We still fight against the flesh. We must learn to walk after the Spirit instead of walking after the flesh. And it takes a daily walk with God to do this. Paul deals with this infirmity of the flesh in verse 19 of Romans 6. He says that since we are no longer slaves to sin (the noun), we need to stop yielding our flesh to sinful things, but instead yield to righteousness and live holy lives.

By the way. I realize that we are born into sin and that sin rules us until we are born again. But I have often wondered. Can anyone give a passage of scripture that ever talks about a "sin nature" either before or after being born again? My point in the question is this. I wonder sometimes if we have not defined the sin nature in a way that scripture does not define it and then have read it into verses where it might not actually exist? Again, I believe that we are born slaves to sin and that it is our nature to sin, because we are born into sin. I also believe that the Christian has been set free from the body of sin (sin the noun) that ruled over him before he was born again. I want to make that clear. But what of the term "sin nature" and the image of these words that we might read into certain passages when it might not be there in reality.

_________________
Travis

Travis, a good subject.

Along with the ECF's I do not believe that we were born sinners, and the biblical proof of that is weak, resting mainly on one verse which some have pointed out has the meaning that Davids' mother conceived him in a state of sinning herself, not that all men were born that way.

Isaiah 64:6 says: For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Even secular psychologists say that around the age of four, there is a dividing line in children, whereby they can be tested to see it they lie or not and they found that under fours generally do not whereas after four, they do.

So man becomes a sinner although born innocent, obviously with the help of the enemy of our souls through temptation, and takes on his nature of rebellion. Adam's story repeated for all. The enemy now has rights over him and that is the price Jesus paid to save him from that domain to bring him back into the kingdom of God.

The man, with his co-operation and agreement of being crucified with Christ, can enter into the death with Christ and is raised with Him to newness of life. It is stark, one kingdom for another. Everything in scripture is black or white. We are saved or we are sinners. It never says we are gradually saved. A tree can produce only the fruit of its type.

The yielding to the flesh in this state is not the same as previously when sin held sway. It is to go back to reliance on ones own strength even very pious flesh. We can do the right things for the wrong reason and one wrong reason is our God given instincts, say to eat when God had said 'fast' which is one of the temptations of Jesus. The hard thing is that we are not usually aware that we are doing that so we must 'watch and pray' because operating in the flesh will lead us to sin and then we are out of the kingdom.