I previously introduced Dr. Andy Naselli’s important new book, Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology, which is now available for pre-order from Logos. And I previously posted part 1 of an interview with Dr. Naselli. Here’s part 2:
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?
Here’s how I unpack that in my book:
This does not involve overlooking important differences, but it does involve keeping such differences in perspective. After critiquing Keswick theology, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones issues a convicting challenge:
The things about which they [i.e., George Whitefield and John Wesley] agreed were more important, and they had much fellowship together during the last years of Whitefield’s life. We must follow these men. There are these differences, and we must be clear about them. But let us examine ourselves. It is easy to denounce false holiness teaching; but what is your holiness teaching? Have you the same desire for holiness? These men suffered, and sacrificed much in order to be holy men. They may have been confused about doctrines at times, they may have confused “things that differ,” but they were zealously concerned to be holy men of God, and many of them were concerned to have a holy and a pure church. There, we surely are with them, and agree with them; and if we criticize what they taught, let us make sure that we have, and can preach and practice, “a more excellent way.”
This raises some practical issues:
1. I don’t think it’s feasible or wise for Christians to cooperate all the time and to the same degree with other Christians who hold very different views of sanctification. For example, someone who holds to a Reformed view and another who holds to a Keswick view should probably not lead a church together because their different views directly affect so many areas of doctrine and practice.
2. If the elders of a church embrace the Reformed view, I think it’s wise for them to include that in their church’s doctrinal statement.
3. If the Reformed view is in a church’s doctrinal statement, I think it’s still possible for people to join that church if they’re not fully convinced of the Reformed view as long as they are teachable and not sinfully divisive about the issue.
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?
Yes. Galatians 5:16–26 is the clearest passage describing the believer’s lifelong struggle with sin, and the most controversial passage is Romans 7:14–25. Those who affirm the Reformed view of sanctification (and thus reject the Keswick view) hold one of three major views:
1. Christian experience. The “I” is Paul as a mature believer. He represents all believers at every developmental stage. This conflict parallels Galatians 5:16–17.
2. Pre-Christian experience. The “I” is Paul as an unregenerate Jew. He represents unbelievers trying to earn salvation by self-effort (keeping the law).
3. Christian or pre-Christian experience. The “I” is anyone trying to please God by self-effort (keeping the law). The law is unable to transform human existence.
Most advocates of the Reformed view have held that Romans 7 is autobiographical and that the “I” refers to Paul as a mature believer. This would mean that Romans 7:14–25 describes the same struggle as Galatians 5:16–17 and 1 Peter 2:11. Regardless of which view proponents of the Reformed view hold on Romans 7, they are unanimous that believers actively struggle with an internal sin-principle until their glorification.
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?
The best article I’ve read on this is William W. Combs, “Does the Believer Have One Nature or Two?” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 2 (Fall 1997): 81–103.
Those who affirm the Reformed view of sanctification use different terminology to describe the same phenomenon. Some describe Christians as having only one nature, and others as having two. The one-nature and two-nature views are practically identical because both acknowledge a conflict between what Combs calls “two opposing somethings—principles, desires, urgings, etc.” in the believer.
* Two-nature advocates call them natures: (1) the old/sinful/ depraved nature of a regenerate person, i.e., “the flesh” and (2) the new nature of a regenerate person.
* One-nature advocates describe these two aspects of the believer’s one nature as “two struggling principles” (Gerster), “two opposed sorts of desire” (Packer), or “contrary urgings” (Packer).
The “old man” or “old self,” on the other hand, refers to the whole unregenerate person:
* Sin reigns as his master (Rom. 6).
* He is totally depraved.
* He is characterized by sin.
* At conversion a Christian puts off “the old man” (Col 3:9; Eph 4:22), who was crucified with Christ (Rom 6:6).
A Christian, thus, is a “new man” or “new self.” This refers to the whole regenerate person:
* Though he still struggles with sin (Gal 5:16–26; 1 Pet 2:11), Jesus the Messiah (not sin) reigns as his Master (Rom. 6).
* He is still depraved but not totally depraved; he is genuinely new but not totally new.
* He is characterized by righteousness.
* A Christian puts on the “new man” at conversion (Col 3:10; Eph 4:24).