Two Allied Perspectives in Early Fundamentalism

Early twentieth century fundamentalism was comprised of two allied groups:  “revivalists in the pietist tradition and denominational conservatives in the Calvinist tradition.”[1] Each group had a distinctive theology, yet they willingly chose to cooperate for the purpose of stemming the tide of modernism.  However, within the revivalist wing:

there was a thoroughgoing amalgamation (much more than an alliance) of these two traditions – the pietist and the Calvinist.  This amalgamation had been an important aspect of American revivalism since its origins in the Great Awakening.  Seventeenth-century Puritanism had combined highly intellectual theology with intense piety.[2]

Calvinist Theology is Not the Underlying Problem

During the twentieth century most denominational conservatives of the Calvinist tradition gravitated toward liberalism.  They are no longer fundamental. Furthermore, while there are still some Calvinist groups that remain revivalist,[3] it seems that the more popular trend is towards conservative evangelicalism. Yet the underlying problem is not Calvinistic theology. The point has already been made that Calvinists can be both revivalist and fundamentalist. In fact, Marsden makes it very clear that Keswick teachings were “developed among revivalist Calvinists in nineteenth-century England.”[4] What, then, is propelling the contemporary transition from revivalist fundamentalism to non-revivalist evangelicalism amongst Calvinists?  I believe it is a growing disdain for Keswick sanctification theology.[5] (more…)

North American Keswick Conferences

The promulgation of Keswick teachings continued well into the twentieth century as a result of two primary means:  North American Keswick conferences and Bible colleges.  Charles Trumbull, editor of The Sunday School Times and a contributor to The Fundamentals, was radically transformed by Keswick teaching while attending a summer youth conference in 1910.[1] Immediately after stepping into the victorious life, Trumbull turned his magazine into a Keswick publication and hosted an annual Keswick-style conference in various locations in the United States and Canada.  He has been called, “the spark at the center of a movement that exerted a remarkable influence on American evangelicalism in the twentieth century.”[2] (more…)

Warfield’s Unfair Assessments of Keswick Teaching

B.B. Warfield (1851-1921), Princeton theologian, attacked holiness teachings vehemently.  He frequently made pointed and condescending criticisms toward Keswick theology.  On the other end of the spectrum, W. H. Griffith Thomas (1861-1924), a distinguished English scholar and Keswick adherent, once chided Warfield’s unfair assessments, remarking: “the Movement he criticizes and condemns expresses a spiritual experience and not merely a theological theory.”[1] Thomas makes a good point.  Dead orthodoxy is useless and, in fact, damaging.  However, Keswick teaching “provided an important subjective confirmation of the faith to stand alongside more objective arguments from the Bible and common sense.”[2] When vibrant Christian experience flows out of a biblical theological position, the result is an abundant life as promised by Christ in John 10:10.  It is also sometimes called the higher life, the deeper life, the victorious life, the Spirit-filled life, the Christ life, and the revived life. (more…)

Relationship Between Keswick Theology and Dispensationalism

Keswick sanctification partners well with dispensationalism; the two are closely connected.[1] Indeed, they have been referred to as “two sides of the same movement.”[2] A case in point is the Scofield Reference Bible which brings together both theologies.  Marsden provides a helpful explanation for the connection:

The dispensationalist and holiness teachings … were closely connected. The holiness teachings of nineteenth-century American evangelicalism were built upon the idea that the present era was the age of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which had begun on or near the time of the first Pentecost as recorded in the book of Acts. Dispensationalism’s central teaching — that the church age was the unique age of the Spirit — stressed the same thing. The holiness teachings … seem in fact to have prepared the way for the acceptance of dispensationalism.[3] (more…)

The Backbone of Fundamentalism

The impact of Keswick sanctification theology on early fundamentalism cannot be overstated.  By the early nineteenth century, “Keswick holiness teaching was thoroughly integrated into the fundamentalist network of Bible schools, summer conferences, and faith missions.”[1] In fact, Keswick’s higher life teaching, coupled with dispensationalism, “together … became the backbone of the fundamentalist movement in American evangelicalism after the turn of the century.”[2] Carpenter says, “It is important to stress how important this ‘surrendered life’ ideal was to the fundamentalist ethos.”[3] Keswick contributed to fundamentalism in several specific ways, which will be reviewed in the following posts. (more…)

The Futility of Self Effort

The problem with many Christians is that they strive to win the victory in their own strength or by meritorious behavior.  After failing, they grit their teeth, dig in their heels and try harder.  Worse yet, they assume that by reading their Bible more or praying more or witnessing more, or performing some other Christian service, they will become more spiritual.  These approaches are destined to fail and may explain why much of Christianity is defeated. (more…)

Here’s an interesting quote from D. A. Carson on Spirit baptism:

In this fallacy, an interpreter falsely assumes that a words always or nearly always has a certain technical meaning–a meaning usually derived either from a subset of the evidence or from the interpreter’s personal systematic theology…

…how about “baptism in the Spirit”? Charismatics tend to want to make all occurrences of the expression refer to a postconversion effusion of Spirit; some anticharismatics contemplate 1 Corinthians 12:13 and conclude, with equal fallacy, that all New Testament references are to the effusion of Spirit all Christians receive at their conversion. The problem is complicated by the uncertain syntax of 1 Corinthians 12:13; but the worst problem is the assumption on both sides that we are dealing with a terminus technicus that always has the same meaning. (more…)

Holiness through Faith

Keswick sanctification theology can be summed up in three words:  holiness through faith.  Holiness, or Christ-likeness, is the goal; surrender by faith is the means.  The Holy Spirit is the facilitating agent.  The fruit of the Spirit is evidence of the goal being achieved, demonstration of victory.  The works of the flesh are evidences of failure and defeat.  Jesus said, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10).  Abundant life is life in the Spirit.  It is the life of Christ manifest in the believer’s life.  Anything less is substandard, characterized by defeat.  The normal Christian life is a life of victory over all known sin. (more…)

Keswick Theology Popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible

The sanctification theology of the Keswick movement not only shaped early fundamentalism, but has also made an enduring impact on succeeding generations of fundamentalists.  This is largely due to the popularity and success of the Scofield Reference Bible, originally published in 1909.  Historian George Marsden said, “C.I. Scofield … more or less canonized Keswick teachings in his Reference Bible.”[1] Because of Scofield’s strong connection with early fundamentalism, the Scofield Reference Bible has been called, “perhaps the most influential single publication in millenarian and Fundamentalist historiography.”[2] Clearly, Keswick teaching and fundamentalism are inextricably linked.  First, consider Scofield’s notes on the Holy Spirit. (more…)