A Meditation upon Psalm 119:148: "My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes.”

Psalm 119:48, “My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes.”

            The psalmist here declares his determined purpose to meditate upon the statutes of the Lord.  His declaration, I will meditate, is not a simple prediction of an action that will of necessity occur at some point in the future, as one might say, “I will read a grocery list,” but a determined purpose of heart: I will meditate.  Yet this was not just a determined purpose, done simply as an action of a disciplined will—although such a determination and discipline appears in his declaration—but an expression of his love, of his passionate desire for Jehovah’s statutes.  They are thy commandments, which I have loved.  He is determined to meditate upon them in the future, for they are the joy and rejoicing of his heart.  He would have no contentment without this meditation.  The lack of it would be to him a tragedy, a failure to fulfill a heart famished for Divine milk and meat.  Nor is his love the fleeting sprout of a minute, but a living, growing thing which extends back in years to the time He first knew the Lord in truth, and which continued to develop to the time of his present prayer—he can say I have loved—and also something which will yet further flourish, a hunger and thirst for His Savior’s statutes which will grow the more it is fed—for he yet will meditate and will lift up his hands to his God’s commands.  These statutes are precious to him because of their author—“They are thy statutes, oh my God, therefore I do love them.”  Nor is his love selective, so that he would have certain of these statutes, and not the others—all the commandments and statutes are his meditation, love, and delight.  To all of them he will lift up his hands—he yearns for them, desire them, values and blesses them; he stretches forth his hands to them all, out of love for them (cf. Ps 63:4; Lam 3:41; the only other OT vv. where lift and hands are conjoined).  He expresses this love, not to his neighbor only, or to the people of God in general—although he would also gladly sing this section of the hymnbook of Israel with them—but to the all-seeing God, He who searches and tries the reins and the heart.  No half-heartedness, no secret reservations, are possible, for all things are exposed to the One with whom he has to do.  He freely confesses his feelings toward the Word to its Author, as to one who already knows and can verify the truthfulness of his declaration of love, and the determinate purpose of his future resolves with respect to it: My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes.

Oh my soul, how is it with you?  Is it your determination to say, I will meditate?  Have Jehovah’s statutes been your burning passion since the time of your conversion to this time?  It must be so, to some degree, if ever you have tasted that the Lord is gracious.  Is your respect to all his statutes, or are there certain which you would only halfway embrace?  Search your mind and heart.  Can you join the psalmist in his prayer, or sing this portion of the inspired songbook to the Lord?  Oh for grace that it might be so, now, and for ever more!

TDR

Faith the Only Reliable Epistemology: It's Got to Be Faith, pt. 5

Part One     Part Two     Part Three     Part Four

Among other points, I have written in this series that we can't trust sight or evidence, versus faith, for knowledge because of our own depravity, the trampling of "evidence," that is, we don't live in a closed system, and then added the lack of perspective. For the latter reason, with God there "is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17).  You can't count on getting it right if you can't see everything, relating to sight or evidence.  On the other hand, faith is what brings glory and pleasure to God.  "Ye see. . . how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. . . . Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1 Cor 1:26, 2:5).

I want to take faith as the only reliable epistemology and compare it to sight or "evidence" in order to know that we have every word of scripture available for usage today.  By faith we know that we have every word and that every word is available.  This is the position of premodernism, which is why this is the sole position about preservation of scripture up until modernism.  Premodern epistemology was based upon revealed knowledge from authoritative sources -- the ultimate truth could be known and the way to this knowledge was and is through direct revelation. This direct revelation was assumed to come and to have come from God.  Therefore, the church, being the holder and interpreter of revealed knowledge was also the primary authority source in premodern time -- "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

The church agreed that it had every word, that every Word of God was generally available to every generation of believer, in the language in which it was written.  Men knew they had every Word by faith.  A new epistemology, a modernistic one, fueled the denial of this revealed knowledge.  The dominant approach of the modern period was empiricism, knowing through the senses, which developed into scientific empiricism or modern science with the diversion into modernist methodology.  Rather than knowledge standing in the Word of God, it stands in the "wisdom of men" or the "wisdom of this world" (1 Cor 1-3, James 3).  "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness" (1 Cor 3:19).

With the new epistemology, the authority shifted from the church to the university as the source of power.  You see this affect everything in the world, let alone the church.  Every field of knowledge has left the church and moved into the university.  Religion on the campus is viewed as art, art something that can't even be known in modernism and now postmodernism, but both religion and art just a matter of personal taste.  Doctrine has left the realm of knowledge and evangelicalism cooperates heavily with this.  They themselves see much of what premoderns believed and knew as only a matter of personal taste.

A major reason you can see a lack of strength in men today, and I'm not just talking about the church, but the church is mainly responsible, is because men don't know anything anymore.  In general their breadth of knowledge stops short of anything more than what entertains them or gratifies them.  This is why we see in James that "this wisdom [that] descendeth not from above . . . is earthly, sensual, devilish" (James 3:15).  Paul describes their philosophy or direction as their "end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things."  The knowledge of God descends to man through supernatural means, acquired by faith.  God expects us to believe what He says and know.

Men very often don't know today.  They know very little.  They have very little certainty.  This has come because of the acceptance of wisdom of men or evidence as the means of knowing.  God intended for us to know Him "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col 2:3).  We know Him by faith.

For men to lead with authority, they must know.  They need to have certainty to tell those people they lead, that they are right.  They know they are right.  What you can interpret today as the effeminate quality of men looks like a lack of confidence, which is why you might hear the word "like" come out of a mouth again and again.  They "like" know.  They don't know.  Evangelicalism fuels that.  These men who deny preservation of scripture, like a James White, Daniel Wallace, and a large segment of the leaders of fundamentalism, are a major cause of that lack of confidence.

You hear the term "evanjellyfish," which may have been coined by Douglas Wilson (I'm not sure), it comes from this lack of certainty, toward which in fact Douglas Wilson himself contributes.  He adds quite a bit of jelly to the fish with his capitulation to new Calvinism among other weakness.  Nevertheless, the weakness of evangelicals arises from its unwillingness to know by faith.

As this relates to the denial of the preservation of scripture, a modern pendulum swing is one category of King James Onlyism led by such men as Sam Gipp, that says that the Word of God was lost in the original languages.  These men deny preservation too, but their desire for certainty results a kind of double inspiration, where the English translation becomes the new authority.  Many men take this position in the United States, but it is fueled too by doubt and not faith.  They don't get that position from scripture.

Spiritual warfare applies spiritual weaponry.  "The sword of the Spirit . . . is the Word of God" (Eph 6:17).  The "pulling down of strongholds" doesn't come through carnal methods, which include the modernistic ones utilized by James White and other apologists.  The problem is a supernatural problem and the Word of God should be depended upon.

I'm going to explore this further in future posts.

Brainless Damaging Social Networking

I will be coming back to my series on epistemology later this week.

*****

At least in the top five all time most read of all of my posts was one I wrote in 2009, titled, "Why To Delete a Facebook Account."  When I look at the blog stats, it is still very often one of the most read posts for the day or the week.  I don't think I've written about social networking since (you can listen to a sermon on it by Dave Mallinak from the 2014 Word of Truth Conference).  Especially among fundamentalists or independent Baptists or separatists and even conservative evangelicals there is a wide range of opinion about social networking.  When I say "wide range," I mean that this post might get very different and contradictory reactions.  Some will really identify with what I'm writing and others might hate it.  I have found with the 2009 post that there is both strong agreement and hostile opposition.

A lot of younger people think that older folk like myself just don't get it.  Perhaps nothing seems more inane than explaining how you do "get it" to someone who says you don't.  It dawns on you pretty quickly that it wasn't an argument.  It was intended to shut down the conversation.

More than ever I see a rejection of the elderly or older generations by millennials.  Maybe it is just generational to make fun of the previous generations and to see yours as superior to the older ones. The silent generation or boomers more than gen x, millennials, or gen y see danger in social networking.  Some have succumbed either to look like they do "get it" or to submit to their only available or offered connection.  In 2004 Zuckerberg foresaw bookoo bucks in the perceived weakness of people, not for trying to help the world be a better place.  Facebook succeeds off the worst traits of humanity.  It's underlying philosophy and very design discourages godliness.  While cultural indicators trend downward, facebook stock rises.

What I have said about social networking is that it is possible to have a good "page," but that the massive difficulty of having one likely outweighs any benefit.  Is active social networking compatible with complete obedience to scripture?  Does the capability exist for social networking without sinning?  I'm not sure.  It is unlikely.  Those are not even the best questions though.  Facebook itself does far more damage than good to the degree that involvement encourages more facebook, which one can guarantee will cause even more damage.  That is code for stumbling block.

I've noticed that people who judge social networking are stalkers, lurkers, and trolls.  That's intended, it seems, to shut you up and sit you down, where you might stay in your diminished physical condition.  Also, if you treat social networking like it might be the real world, you aren't getting the point.  It seems that social networking is an opportunity to sin without accountability.  You are not really sinning.  You are only virtually sinning.  Social networking provides cover or deniability for sinning.  It is somehow removed from you as some kind of technological scapegoat.  It is perfect for postmodernism, where everyone's truth is his or her truth.  These are people who treat real life like it is a simulation, so surely social networking is a simulation.

I just signed up for an instagram account.  Instagram is not really the friend of the desktop or laptop computer.  I couldn't get started with instagram on my regular computer without further research.  It is simple for the mobile device, which encourages the mobile device, which appears to me a soul sucking vortex for young people.  I digress.  I use my tablet almost exclusively for sermon notes, as a means of replacing paper and ink cartridges.  Very seldom, I check email on it while traveling.  I have added instagram to its purpose.

Based on what I've written in this post, it would seem that my instagram account could not be good. It will serve to encourage more instagram.  I'm open to that criticism.  My page is public.  I'm not hiding here.  It has my full name and my picture.  It will keep one posting, because that is required to comment.  It's been up for a day and I still have no followers, am not following anyone, and have had zero likes or comments.  That is tell tale already.

The only point of my instagram account is to add my opinion to other instagram accounts.  Yes, I hear the screaming and see the eye rolling.  I don't count either reaction though, because it's only virtual anyway.  You don't get it.  I don't want to sit by without comment on what I see as brainless damaging social networking (I wanted my title to appear in the post).  I'm not going to step into the matrix of facebook.  However, instagram looks like it can be managed.  Only an arm and a leg are affixed to the glue like substance spun with silicon.

My comments on instagram will be a light not hid under a bushel.  I won't comment on everything I don't like, but I will comment.  I will add perspective with a comment.  I will praise with a comment.  All of it will be light though.  Most of it will be scripture, actual verses quoted.  I don't plan on posting another picture on my own account.  I'm not going to accept all followers (even though there will be nothing to follow), and I will follow only family members and church members with private accounts.  I will solely exist for the sake of commenting.  Maybe I'll come back later with a post to report all the times I have been blocked or deleted.

I want just to talk about instagram at this juncture.  What is it that I see that I don't like, that I believe is unscriptural?  I'm going to enumerate and then briefly elaborate not in any order.

1.   Unbiblical Content in a Photo or Photo Description or Hashtag

Whatever is in the picture is on limits.  If there is immodesty, you own it.  If there is ungodly behavior, you own it.  If there is a violation of gender distinction, you own it.  If there is some expression of unfaithfulness to God's Word, you own it.  Get rid of it.  

2 Chronicles 19:2, "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD."
Psalm 101:3-4, "I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.  A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person."
Amos 5:15, "Hate the evil, and love the good."
Matthew 6:24, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other."
Ephesians 5:11, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 

2.  Worthless Content

There is content that is worthless.  Worthless is also evil, but I'm differentiating it as having no edifying purpose.  Probably it's just selfish, narcissistic, a "selfie."  It is self promotion, which is evil.  I'm going to call it worthless though.

Psalm 119:37, "Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity."
Proverbs 30:8, "Remove far from me vanity and lies."
1 Corinthians 10:23, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."
1 Corinthians 14:26, "Let all things be done unto edifying."

 3.  Lack of Positive, Aggressive, Real Christian Testimony, i.e., Lack of Love for God Shown

The Bible should be all over a Christian's social networking.  It should be a regular mention.  It isn't something they have to try to do.  It is who they are.

Matthew 5:15, "Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house."
Matthew 12:34, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."
2 Timothy 2:4, "No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier."

4.  Allowed Unbiblical and Worthless Comments without Rebuke

God is not this way.  We should not be this way.  The reproval of unbiblical comments will not be likely welcomed by the one commenting, but it will start him or her on her way to the gospel.  Christ is the end of the law, but the law comes first.  Everyone who believes the gospel starts with the confrontation of his or her sin.  This is all over both the Old and New Testaments.  It is an application of holiness and the doctrine of separation.  I'll put two though.

Proverbs 19:25, "Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware."
1 Timothy 6:5, "Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

5.  Attachments to Ungodly People through the Comment Section, Aiding and Abetting the Enemy

It seems that some professing Christians want commentary from unbelievers.  They love that kind of praise of men.  They say what will impress the ungodly for the kudos of the ungodly.  It's not right. By doing so, they aid and abet the enemy.  People should be asked if they are right with God.  They should be confronted for their unbelief by believers.  What is the point of developing a following of unbelievers in a comment section or in your followers? You'll find yourself trying to impress unbelievers, when you should be thinking about the pleasing of God.

2 Corinthians 6:17, "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you."
1 Peter 3:12, "the face of the Lord is against them that do evil."

Men should not be accepting the flattery of the strange woman, including in social networking.  It's wrong.

Proverbs 5:3, "For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil."
Proverbs 6:24, "To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman."
Proverbs 7:5, "That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with her words."

I've noticed that social networking is a way for men to collect their admirers.  They lack in confidence in Jesus Christ, so they allow for women to flatter them with their acceptance.

6.  Pandering

Pandering is a kind of lie.  People live a lie in these social networking situations, because they portray their lives in a way of their choosing.  It isn't reality.  It is pandering to a particular group of people to give them a false impression.  I'm quite sure that the degree of social networking corresponds to the lack of confidence of the individual.  He compensates with his social networking.  He puffs himself up with his account.  He uses other people as props as part of the impression he or she is making.

I'm going to be using my instagram as a means, part time of course, for calling out brainless damaging social networking.

Keswick's Rejection of Effort: in Keswick's Errors--an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 12 of 17

               Barabas also argues against the position he terms “supression of the old nature.”[1]  He writes:  “Perhaps the most widely-held view of sanctification is that it is to be gained through our own personal efforts by trying to suppress the flesh in us.  Justification, it is believed, is by faith, but sanctification is by works—at least to a large extent.”[2]  Barabas argues against this position in three ways. First, he sets forth the erroneous Keswick view of Romans 7:14-25.[3]  Second, he argues for the teaching Keswick adopted from Hannah W. Smith and the Broadlands Conference[4] that sanctification is by faith alone, not works.[5]  Third, he makes arguments such as:  “Neither a tree nor a man grows by effort.[6] . . . It is a kind of sanctification of the flesh. . . . the [failed attempt at] the conquest of self by self . . . [the] legalism . . . to assume that justification is by faith, [but] sanctification is somehow by struggle.”[7]  Barabas warns that to “fall back upon mere moral processes to overcome sin is not Christianity, but pagan philosophy, which offers nothing better than self-effort as the only way of improvement.”[8]  Based on such reasoning, he concludes:  “It is the teaching of Keswick that an important reason for the defeat and failure of so many Christians is that they try to supress the old nature. . . . Sanctification is therefore not by works but by faith. . . . That is the distinctive method of Keswick.”[9]

               Barabas’s argument is based upon a key confusion of two entirely different ideas, combined with some faulty exegesis.  If he only wished to prove that anyone who attempted to be holy without depending upon the Triune God for strength was doomed to failure, and that believers need, consequently, to live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4), his exhortation would be correct, and its warning well taken.  The necessity of living by faith and of experiential and personal communion with Jesus Christ by the Spirit is extremely important, and it has been regarded as such by Christians who lived centuries before the invention of the Keswick theology in association with the preaching of Hannah W. Smith.  If self-dependence, seeking the ultimate ground for growth in holiness within one’s own person, and “mere moral processes to overcome sin” as in “pagan philosophy” were all Barabas wished to combat when he warned of the “man who is trying to be good and holy by his own efforts and is defeated every time,”[10] he would be right on target, warning against a serious sin that the believer’s fleshliness naturally inclines him to commit.

However, the “most widely-held view of sanctification,” which Barabas seeks to argue is in error, is not actually an independent moralism, based on pagan philosophy, that fails to depend upon Christ and the Spirit—although such errors are indeed taught in large portions of the apostate denominations which Keswick ecumenicalism refuses to repudiate.  Rather than restricting his argument to the real error of an independent moralism, Barabas argues that believers are not to try to suppress the old nature or to struggle against sin in sanctification.  Regretably, when Barabas warns against the “man who is trying to be good and holy by his own efforts,” he does not just condemn self-dependence, but also the truth that the Christian himself should personally make effort and strive to mortify sin, depending upon Christ and the power of the Spirit.  Barabas’s opposition to “sanctification . . . by struggle” is an error ignores the many texts such as “Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin” (Hebrews 12:4).  Indeed, Paul’s conclusion, after setting forth in a lengthly chapter the necessity of living by faith (Hebrews 11), is “wherefore”[11] (Hebrews 12:1)—in light of Hebrews 11 and those who lived by faith in that chapter—“lay aside every weight . . . run with patience . . . consider [Christ] . . . resis[t] unto blood, striving against sin . . . nor faint . . . endure chastening . . . be in subjection . . . [be] exercised . . . lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees, and make straight paths for your feet . . . follow peace . . . and holiness. . . loo[k] diligently,” and so on (Hebrews 12:1-16).  Living by faith, Biblically, is not only compatible with struggling and striving for holiness, but it necessarily produces it. Biblical sanctification does not state:  “We cease from labor because we trust in God,” but “we . . . labour . . . because we trust in the living God” (1 Timothy 4:10).  For Paul, living by faith means one will “run . . . striv[e] for the mastery . . . fight . . . keep under [the] body, and bring it into subjection” (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).  The Bible says to do exactly what Barabas says not to do.  The Christian’s attitude must not be “let go and let God,”[12] but “trust God and get going!”[13]  Faith in sanctification does not lead the believer to cease striving, but to strive ever the harder, trusting in the Lord for strength to fight.  The Christian does not labor independently and faithlessly, but “labour[s], striving according to [God’s] working, which worketh in [him] mightily” (Colossians 1:29).  For Keswick to affirm a genuine dichotomy between independent moralism and ending all “trying to conquer the old nature . . . effort . . . [and] struggle,”[14] so that one must choose the one or the other, is a serious misrepresentation, one that ignores the true position that sanctification involves a faith-based, God-dependent struggle.[15]  By discouraging believers from striving to mortify their indwelling sin, Keswick theology hinders the work of sanctification.

Barabas affirms that the Keswick theology recognizes other “other erroneous methods”[16] of sanctification.  Following Hannah W. Smith,[17] Barabas warns that believers must not “trust for their sanctification to a diligent use of the means of grace, to watchfulness over their own heart and life, taking themselves to task ever and again for the coldness of their heart.”[18]  It is an amazing thing that Barabas’s book explaining the Keswick theology never once quotes any of the numerous verses in Scripture that connect sanctification with the Word of God, but attacks as an “unscriptural wa[y] of pursuing holiness”[19] employing the means that God has given to increase and strengthen inward grace, such as, centrally, the Word.[20]  Rejecting watchfulness over one’s heart and life as a means of avoiding sin and growing holy is astonishing when the Son of God specifically states that watching and praying protect one from temptation (Matthew 26:41) and are essential for spiritual preparedness for His second coming (Mark 13:33-36).  The Lord Jesus said, “Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy”[21] (Luke 21:36), thus demonstrating that watching helps the believer be more holy.  Scripture is filled with commands to watch,[22] and the Lord Jesus Himself commanded, “What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch” (Mark 13:37)—but Barabas rejects such watchfulness as an unscriptural means of growing in grace!  As for its being “unscriptural” to take oneself to task over the coldness of one’s heart, it is evident that some of the psalms, which the Spirit-filled Christian is to sing (Ephesians 5:18-19), are not appropriate for the advocate of Keswick.  God’s inspired songbook teaches the righteous man to pray: “For in thee, O LORD, do I hope: thou wilt hear, O Lord my God” (Psalm 38:15) and yet complain: “There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin. For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me” (Psalm 38:3-4).[23] The saint who can say “I waited patiently for the LORD . . . thou art my help and my deliverer” (Psalm 40:1, 17) also prays, “mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me” (Psalm 40:12).  The holy man in the Bible, who says “I put my trust in thee” (Psalm 25:20), can nonetheless pray:  “Mine eyes are ever toward the LORD; for he shall pluck my feet out of the net.  Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted.  The troubles of my heart are enlarged: O bring thou me out of my distresses.  Look upon mine affliction and my pain; and forgive all my sins” (Psalm 25:15-18).  Keswick is dead wrong when it condemns sanctification through the diligent use of the means God has appointed to grow in grace, when it deprecates watchfulness, and when it affirms that the saint should not take himself to task over the coldness of his heart.  Following this unscriptural advice of Keswick will hinder the believer’s sanctification.

Barabas’s Keswick critique of the Biblical facts that believers grow inwardly more holy by sanctification and that indwelling sin is actually reduced in its strength through mortification is a total failure.  Barabas misrepresents the classical orthodox doctrine of sanctification held by his theological opponents, such as Warfield, refutes straw men of his own creation, and then concludes that actually untouched non-Keswick alternatives have been refuted.  Scripture employed by Barabas is often misused, and Scripture that refutes the Keswick position is often ignored.  One actually convinced by the Keswick position advocated by Barabas would be led to many unbiblical actions:  despiaring of any hope that the Holy Spirit would make him a particle more holy; ceasing to mortify indwelling sin; stopping diligent Bible study to grow in grace; ceasing from watchfulness as a means to avoid sin and become more holy; and failing to lament the remaining sinfulness of his heart.  These positions of Keswick theology are blatently unscriptural and, if adopted, will hinder the sanctification of God’s people if adopted.

 See here for this entire study.

TDR

---

[1]              Pgs. 74-83, So Great Salvation, Barabas.

[2]              Pg.74, So Great Salvation, Barabas.

[3]              Romans 7:14-25 is analyzed in “Romans 7:14-25:  A Depiction of Part of the Normal Christian Life.” The Keswick position is evaluated in that chapter.  It will not be discussed further here.

[4]              Indeed, the Broadlands doctrine of faith was “[s]ome of the most valuable of the teaching at Broadlands,” preached there by “Mrs. Smith” (pgs. 263-264, The Life that is Life Indeed:  Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson.  London:  James Nisbet & Co, 1910).

[5]              The question of whether sanctification is by faith alone, just as justification is by faith alone, is evaluated in the chapter “Does Colossians 2:6-7 Teach Sanctification by Faith Alone?”

[6]              Effort is certainly involved in a man’s growing—if he stops eating, drinking, exercising, and the like, he will grow weak and sickly with great speed.  The man who grows physically strong so that he can become the winner of a race works very hard (1 Corinthians 9:24).  So spiritual eating, drinking, and exercise are necessary for spiritual growth.  It is pushing an analogy far beyond its proper limits, and ignoring the many plain statements about the striving and struggle God commands the believer to employ in sanctification, to draw Keswick conclusions from growth metaphors.  While Keswick conclusions about effortlessness in the Christian life are not validated by the metaphors of Scripture, they are the indisputable fruit of the pre-Keswick Conventions at Broadlands, Oxford, and Brighton, e. g.:  “Fruit is an effortless thing, it comes by abiding in the vine . . . not by struggles” (pg. 241, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago:  Revell, 1874).

[7]              Pgs. 74-75, So Great Salvation, Barabas.

[8]              Pg. 75, So Great Salvation, Barabas.

[9]              Pg. 83, So Great Salvation, Barabas.

[10]             Pg. 75, So Great Salvation, Barabas.

[11]             toigarouvn; “a particle introducing an inference, for that very reason, then, therefore”
 (BDAG), an “emphatic marke[r] of result, often associated with exhortation — ‘for this very reason, therefore, hence, therefore indeed, so then’” (Louw-Nida).

[12]             This phrase became a popular Keswick cry through its use by Victorious Life leader Mark Trumbull.  Note the comments on pgs. 155-157, Keep in Step with the Spirit, Packer.  Snodgrass notes:

[S]anctification [is] the work of God. . . . [b]ut . . . it is important in another view that we should regard it as the work and the duty of man. The subject of it . . . is bound to be holy[.] . . . [H]e is properly dealt with in the use of arguments, exhortations, and motives.  He has a duty to perform and work to do; and that is to follow holiness, to purify himself, to cleanse himself from all filthiness both of the flesh and of the spirit.  In prosecuting this work, his reliance for success must be [o]n the Spirit of God working by appointed means.  He must be active, yet he must not depend on himself.  He must have recourse to meditation and prayer, to watchfulness and self-examination, to [C]hristian intercourse and counsel, and to all positive institutions, especially the reading and hearing of the word; but, in all this, he must remember that the means are nothing without an influence from God to render them effectual.  Their whole efficiency lies in the fact . . . that they are of God’s appointment, and that he has promised to bless them.  And hence, our only encouragement to be active in the use of means, is made to rest upon our knowledge of the interposition and the agency of God.  “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” [Philippians 2:12-13].  Nor is the[re] any inconsistency or confusion in the idea of these two agencies as working together in the production of the same result.  They are not of the same kind; the sphere of their operation is not the same; one is efficient, the other instrumental. And, so accustomed are we to assign to each the place and position of a real agency, that we often ascribe the same event, sometimes to God, and sometimes to man.  We say of an individual that he has risen from indigence to affluence, or from obscurity to distinction, by the Providence of God; but we are not supposed to contradict ourselves, if we afterwards say, that he has succeeded by his own prudence, wisdom, and skill.  Both statements are true, though in different senses.  And accordingly they are both adopted by the sacred writers in reference to the work of sanctification.  In one place, we are taught to call upon God to sanctify us; in another, we are commanded to sanctify ourselves.  One introduces God as promising us a new heart and a right spirit, and another commands us to make to ourselves a new heart and a right spirit.  And both these views are important in practice, as well as true and consistent in theory.  We need the idea of human agency to incite us to activity; and we need the doctrine of Divine influence and efficiency to remind us of our dependence, to make us “pray without ceasing[.]” . . . [Thus] sanctification . . . [is properly] considered both as the work of God and the duty of man. (pgs. 13-18, The Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, W. D. Snodgrass)

[13]             Cf. pg. 128, Keep In Step With the Spirit, J. I. Packer.

[14]             Pgs. 74-75, So Great Salvation, Barabas.

[15]             Thomas Smith wrote:

Another evil that necessarily follows from the erroneous [Keswick] conception of holiness is the representation that pervades these writings of the attainment of holiness by the believer without effort on his part.  The idea which they have suggested to us is that of a man put into a boat, lying in it in absolute rest, and being carried down a gently flowing stream; whereas that suggested by the apostolic writings is that of a strong rower, straining every muscle to stem the current, with the knowledge that he shall ultimately succeed in reaching the goal, but only in virtue of strength imparted to him by Christ, and received by faith.  The one representation is that of faith dispensing with effort, the other of faith enabling for effort.  The one seems to say, “Work not out your salvation, for God worketh for you;”  the other says, “Work out your salvation, for God worketh in you.”  In both cases a certain work of God is the premise, but the conclusions are directly the opposite of each other, just because the works postulated in the premises are altogether different.  Somewhere in the course of our reading of [Higher Life] works, we have fallen upon the expression, “sanctification by works,” as opposed to “sanctification by faith,” and descriptive of the prevalent [classical evangelical, non-Keswick] view of sanctification.  No one who understands that view, and who does not design to misrepresent it, could possibly state such an antithesis. . . . The question is as to the specific action of faith in the production of holiness in the heart and life of the believer.  We hold as strongly as our [Higher Life] friends can hold that Christ is made to his people sanctification, quite as really and quite as much as he is made unto them righteousness or justification; but in ways according with the essential difference between justification and sanctification, between judicial righteousness and personal holiness. (pgs. 267-268, “Means and Measure of Holiness,” Thomas Smith.  The British and Foreign Evangelical Review (April 1876) 251-280)

[16]             Pgs. 83-84, So Great Salvation, Barabas.

[17]             While Scripture does not support Barabas, at least Hannah W. Smith’s writings do so.  She taught:  “[W]e are passive of choice and willingly . . . are to grow . . . without any concern about our own growing[.]”  We are to “tak[e] no . . . care for . . . spiritual growth” (Letter to Daughter, May 25, 1878 & Letter to Anna, July 27, 1878, reproduced in the entries for August 26-28 & September 3 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).

[18]             Pg. 84, So Great Salvation, Barabas.  Of course, one must trust ultimately in Christ, not in the means through which Christ gives His people grace, but Barabas does not merely speak against such an error.

[19]             Pg. 84, So Great Salvation, Barabas.

[20]             Note the chapter “The Means Of Sanctification,” by James Petigru Boyce, for the role of the Word of God in sanctification and its connection with other things termed “means of grace” in Protestantism, such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  Were Barabas warning against sacramentarianism or an ex opere operato form of doctrine, his warning would be wholesome and welcome.  Unfortunately, he never even mentions or gives a single word of warning against sacramental corruptions, while attacking as unscriptural the idea that sanctification comes through the means God has appointed for the believer’s growth in holiness.

[21]             kataxio/w, clearly a sanctification term; compare the other uses of the verb in Luke 20:35; Acts 5:41; 2 Thessalonians 1:5.

[22]             1 Corinthians 16:13; Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:6; 1 Peter 4:7; Revelation 3:3, etc.

[23]             The whole of Psalm 38 is entirely against this Keswick concept that the righteous man should not complain about the sinfulness of his own heart:

Psa. 38:0   A Psalm of David, to bring to remembrance. 1   O LORD, rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.  2 For thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore.  3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.  4 For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me.  5 My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness.  6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.  7 For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh.  8 I am feeble and sore broken: I have roared by reason of the disquietness of my heart.  9 Lord, all my desire is before thee; and my groaning is not hid from thee.  10 My heart panteth, my strength faileth me: as for the light of mine eyes, it also is gone from me.  11 My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore; and my kinsmen stand afar off. 12   They also that seek after my life lay snares for me: and they that seek my hurt speak mischievous things, and imagine deceits all the day long.  13 But I, as a deaf man, heard not; and I was as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth.  14 Thus I was as a man that heareth not, and in whose mouth are no reproofs.  15 For in thee, O LORD, do I hope: thou wilt hear, O Lord my God.  16 For I said, Hear me, lest otherwise they should rejoice over me: when my foot slippeth, they magnify themselves against me.  17 For I am ready to halt, and my sorrow is continually before me.  18 For I will declare mine iniquity; I will be sorry for my sin.  19 But mine enemies are lively, and they are strong: and they that hate me wrongfully are multiplied.  20 They also that render evil for good are mine adversaries; because I follow the thing that good is.  21 Forsake me not, O LORD: O my God, be not far from me.  22 Make haste to help me, O Lord my salvation.

Such a song would be a very poor fit at a Keswick convention, and Hannah. W. Smith would be much displeased with the Scriptural holiness set forth in it.