This entire 21-part study appears on the FaithSaves.net website in a study entitled “Hannah Whitall Smith: Higher Life Writer, Speaker on Sanctification, Developer of the Keswick Theology, Quaker Quietist and Universalist Heretic.” Click here to read the entire study.
Search for:
“In addition to rejecting the core Biblical doctrine of justification, Mrs. Smith was very confused on the instrumental means for the receipt of the gospel.”
to read the section that was in the blog post below.
In light of Mrs. Smith's corruption of conversion, it is not at all surprising that modern advocates of Keswick theology likewise, in a huge percentage of cases, corrupt the gospel.
ReplyDeleteBro. Ross:
ReplyDeleteWho are the modern proponents of Keswick theology today? Most of what I see in the rural Midwest are the old "holiness" denominations; Methodists and Nazarenes. I haven't met any self-proclaimed Keswick folks.
Dear Tyler,
ReplyDeleteI believe that the great majority of fundamentalist advocates of Keswick don't know what they are promoting. If a church bookstore has the works of Hannah W. Smith, Watchman Nee, F. B. Meyer, Andrew Murray, Hudson Taylor, A. B. Simpson, and the others I discuss at http://faithsaves.net/soteriology/ then the people in the congregation are being influenced by Keswick theology. If they are taught that sanctification is by faith alone because of Colossians 2:6, or that Romans 7:14-25 is Paul being self-dependent and escaping into freedom in Romans 8, or that Christ lives the Christian life for the believer (the Christ-life, allegedly Galatians 2:20, but actually a development of the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light/Divine Seed/Christ Within), or that in John 15 abiding is something only a select few Christians do, or that only the believer's spirit is regenerated, or that only some believers are disciples, there is very likely influence from Keswick, either directly or indirectly.
In terms of fundamentalist schools, I have personally seen strong Keswick material coming out of Ambassador Baptist and Baptist College of Ministry, and there are likely many more that I don't know about because they do not have as many admirable qualities as Ambassador and BCM in other areas. Of course, Ambassador and BCM do not agree with all the heresies of Hannah W. Smith because they are fundamental Baptist institutions, and the Baptist and the Bible part moderates some of the Keswick theology, but negative Keswick influence is still present.
When I was at Fairhaven I know a Keswick book, "Hudson Taylor's Spiritual Secret," was assigned, although I did not know it was Keswick at the time, nor for some years afterwards. I never heard the word "Keswick" used there but Keswick theological concepts were at times taught.
I believe that there is also strong Keswick influence at West Coast, although they may not know what they are promoting; I do not get the sense from graduates of that institution that one really gets much grounding in Scripture--one would get a lot more by simply listening to the expository preaching at Bethel Baptist Church in El Sobrante, CA and never going to Bible college at all.
Someone I know who was "under-pastored" by someone who teaches at West Coast got tons and tons of Andrew Murray and became Keswick until he got out of it later because it wasn't Scriptural and it didn't work.
Essentially unless one has a strong grounding in the Baptist doctrine of sanctification found in classic Baptist creedal statements, and which is supported by Scripture, one is almost certain to have some Keswick in him because of its pervasive influence. Far too many Baptists today have no idea what classic Baptist doctrine on sanctification is, or what classic Baptist doctrine in general is in anything.
Thanks for the question. You can get more information by reading some of the articles at:
http://faithsaves.net/soteriology/
Thanks. I'm thinking of getting Naselli's book on Keswick theology. I've seen some of your own work in this area from your website, and I know you cover this much more extensively than Naselli did. What is your opinion of his work?
ReplyDeleteDear Tyler,
ReplyDeleteI believe that his book is worth reading. You are correct that it is shorter. Most of his criticisms of Keswick are valid. I would say that the main difference overall is the difference between the perspective of a strongly separatist Baptist and of someone who teaches at John Piper's neo-evangelical seminary. Thus, for example, he never criticizes Keswick for being ecumenical. He is also a Calvinist, and I'm not. I also hope that the exegetical sections and the applications made in my dissertation not only enlighten the mind but also warm the heart, something that did not strike me as especially high on the priority list in Naselli's work. Overall, though, it is an effective demonstration of the errors of Keswick theology.