I am looking for a concise (okay, stifle those giggles…it can happen, [i]even[/i] at SI) definition of Keswickism. Something that a mom who’s been chasing three kids all day can understand without having to stand on her head (for too long). Can anybody oblige?
This is an excellent resource distilling Keswick beliefs: http://bible.org/article/wesleyan-amp-keswick-models-sanctification
I found the following information from Andy Naselli to be extremely helpful. I went through the PowerPoint while listening to the three MP3's, and also referenced the handout. These are from sessions he did at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in 2008.
Here is the link to his blog and the PDF's and MP3's that I found helpful. The only thing is, they're not short. 
But they're very well presented, and the first one will give you the background of Keswick theology.
Nathan, I had forgotten about that. I seem to remember a bunch of his posts on this showing up on the blogroll. I'll take a gander. Thank you.
Five Views on Sanctification in the Counterpoints Series.
Robertson McQuilkin, former President of Columbia International University, wrote the Keswick view.
Posting an mp3 interview w/Andy on Wed.... if all goes acc to plan.
Keswick in a nutshell: When you become a Christian you are not necessarily growing or "spiritual" yet. There is a second event involving the Holy Spirit that begins your life as a victorious Christian, empowered for service, etc. This is early Keswick. Later, it morphed into something more like the Reformed view.
Andy puts all views of sanctification under two headings: two-stage/early Keswick vs. Reformed. The latter is the view that God begins sanctifying His children immediately and there is no "carnal" phase that they must transition out of (or back out of again. This is the part that I wish I had thought to ask more questions about during the interview... and I still haven't finished the book so that may answer it: but I'm not sure why a view of sanctif. in which you can lapse and get right repeatedly is a "two stage" view. Perhaps two-level view.... carnal vs. spirirual.)
But in the Reformed view, you just keep growing toward Christlikeness because this is your destiny, why God saved you (Rom 8.29-30). You still sin and fellowship is interrupted and you can have periods of failure, etc., but God is in the process of transforming you... it is inexorable progress in Sanctification.
I definitely lean toward this view as long as it doesn't have what Andy called "monergism" tacked on. We are still responsible to act, discipline ourselves, etc. in the sanctification process. But God is the One doing all the transforming.
Looking forward to it Aaron. Thanks for the heads up.
This monergism idea has popped up in recent discussions with someone suggesting that one can live in disobedience (after all, Christ paid for ALL our sin, right?) while waiting to be spiritually bopped on the head and delivered from sinfulness. Strangely, it is being suggested that we are the ungodly ones to suggest that one's "helplessness" while waiting at this spiritual bus stop is wrong. That maybe the bus fare needs to be stuffed back in the pocket, and the feet need to do some walking. What a comfortable way to justify sin. I don't mean this sarcastically. It is grievous to me. How can a person say, in essence, it's God's fault that I am not more spiritual...I'm just not there yet? What happened to "be ye holy, for I am holy"..."study to show thyself approved"..."flee youthful lusts"..."abide in me"...Rom 6:13 etc....all those great passages with verbs in them? This may not be the official def. of monergism, but it is how it is being used in this case. yikes.
My head is swimming. Sorry if this sounds disjointed. To me this does not sound like someone who does not know...it sounds like there is awareness of sin and an "out" is being sought. Oddly, it reminds me of the garden.....Eve is pointing to the serpent, and Adam has one hand pointing to his wife, while the other points....up.
Diane. Couldn't agree more. In the interview, I briefly raised the subject of "Let go let Godism" in Reformed circles but it wasn't very germane to the book and didn't go very far. Did include some of that discussion in Part 2.
I was pleased to see that Andy embraces "synergism" in sanctification. I want to do some writing on this subject. He likes the phrase (from John Murray I think) "We work because God works." But I think this is not quite adequate because it can still lead to the reasoning that "Well, I'm not changing because God hasn't worked yet, and as soon as He does, I'll be able to do right in this area, etc."
Reformed thinking wants to avoid Pelagianism (were we and our 'free choice' are in control of what God does), but it can go too far the other way sometimes.
I'd prefer to say "We work because God has worked and is working." The distinction is that, per 1 Peter 1 and other passages, He has already done enough work to render us inexcusable when it comes to sin. He has done enough work that we ought to discipline ourselves for the purpose of godliness. On the basis of what He has already done, we are supposed to do exactly what the monergists reject: try hard... and failing, try harder.
But that's not the whole story either, because we are dependent on a continuing work of God to be successful. It is His work. He really does move a true child forward. But how and when He is doing that is mysterious (much as "effectual calling" is difficult to point at and say "there it is, I see it happening"). So our focus, per the emphasis of the NT, is to be on simple--but humble and dependent--obedience.
I'm a bit puzzled by the terms monergism/synergism being thrown around in sanctification. (Note: I didn't listen to the audio, because I don't like audio, but I hope to read the book soon.) At least, I'd like to probe the definition for a bit more clarity. Monergism, traditionally understood, doesn't mean that the human is passive; rather, it means that there is no "energy" contributed in salvation that does not come from the divine. Reformed theology certainly affirms that faith and repentance are human acts (in that the human is the one doing them; it isn't the Holy Spirit believing through the person) that humans have a responsibility to perform. Nevertheless, they are possible only through grace.
So, if one wanted to use the term monergism in speaking about sanctification, it could not mean that a person is 1) passive or 2) free from moral responsibility. Where then is the objection?
In the interview, he brought those terms up and made an analogy between monergism in "justification" (which he used loosely to refer to everything that happens immediately when you believe) and monergism in sanctification. Then he explained that he was comfortable using the term "synergism" in reference to sanctification "in that sense," by which he meant "we work because God works."
Whether these are the correct the terms or not, there is a problematic way of thinking out there that exists in both Reformed and non-reformed (more Keswick-like) versions: a confusion about what we must do vs. what God does. It often trickles down to the same thing: an attitude that if I am not doing what I should, it's OK because of "my standing in Grace" or because "sanctification is by faith and not by works just as salvation is by faith and not by works," or because "our union with Christ," or--in more typically Keswick-like language--"because all we need to do is yield and God does the rest," (with "yield" having an extremely vague definition), etc.
So perhaps monergism/synergism are not the best terms, but we do need terms for these differences.
From articles and books I have read on Monergism, it has more to do with where we get the ability to do that which is pleasing to God, not on who is doing the work. Again, from what I have read of authors like Luther and AW Pink, they make a distinction between our ability (will) and action (choice). Thereby retaining both human responsibility and our inability to do that which is good. Or, our ability to do that which is good is only able by the working of God. In other words, it is not about dissecting what we must do vs what God does, for a Monergist (at least some of the authors I have read) truly is doing the deed, but he finds that ability and desire to do that work through the enabling of the HS. Luther belabors this point in 'Bondage of the Will'.
I know this has been hashed out quite a bit on here, but this is where Piper gets his view on salvation (I believe): It is a life change with a path that starts with the first confession followed by sanctification (insert the passages Diane quoted flee lusts, etc), finished by glorification. Salvation is more than get out of Hell. If my memory is correct, this is also what Pink believes.
So, Diane, whoever it is you have talked to is misguided and actually holds to antinomianism.
I appreciated listening to the interview with Andy...albeit interspersed with discussions with my 4 yo about how much candy she can buy with her pennies, etc. I wish it could have been longer. I would like to have heard him develop the Keswick view of sin which he says is "shallow and incomplete". I think I just need to get the book.
In respect to the example I gave in the OP, I don't think there was any allusion to a crisis of faith or "second step"...I'm not exactly sure there is a pigeon hole that fits this situation perfectly. It seems to be a skewing of a number of things to create a unique system of beliefs (which is what we all have a propensity to do, I suppose). I was thinking it would be nice if this all fit into a nice, neat pie chart...actually saw one that had one huge portion and one other tiny sliver, which were color coded. The tiny sliver was "me" and the huge portion was labeled "people that are wrong." 
Daniel, Andy mentions the regeneration (I am sanctified)-->sanctification (I am being sanctified)-->glorification (I will be sanctified) idea too. The second part of the interview was esp helpful to me. I agree with Andy's use of "monergism" at salvation and "synergism" to describe the process of sanctification...the "I work because He works" which Aaron referred to above. Antinomianism? Dunno. Misguided? Absolutely. But it's like trying to hold something really oily in your hand to try and reason with someone like this. It is as if we take a flying leap off the solid rock of salvation into something that slides and shifts and makes it impossible to get a firm hold. It can turn into an argument which no one wins, except the adversary. Discouraging. i once had a friend who would respond to every altar call (perhaps one "step" after another?) and was continually depressed and defeated and anxious when he failed yet again to perfectly keep the ground he believed himself to have gained. "My peace I give thee"...these things ought not so to be.
I've been thinking about the monergism/synergism distinction more, and I'm having a hard time reconciling it with Reformed theology, which is the position Andy takes, right? This is from Southern Presbyterian Robert Lewis Dabney: "Sanctification only matures what regeneration began. The latter sprouted the seed of grace, the former continues its growth, until there appears first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear. The agent and influences are therefore the same."
A bit later: "If regeneration is supernatural, and by a mysterious, but real and almighty operation, more than the moral suasion of the truth, then sanctification is the result of the same kind of agency." (Systematic Theology, 56. 2, 3)
In other words, the relation of the agents and the meaning of grace is consistent between regeneration (definitely monergistic in the Reformed scheme) and sanctification. Were we to call regeneration monergistic and sanctification synergistic, that would imply that the role of grace qualitatively changes between the two, something entirely incommensurate with Reformed theology. I suspect that what is happening with Naselli is that he somewhere equivocates on the definitions, so that the content of what he says is true, but his labeling is inconsistent. I really need to get this book, since Keswick is an area I've studied a bit.
"Sanctification only matures what regeneration began. The latter sprouted the seed of grace, the former continues its growth, until there appears first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear. The agent and influences are therefore the same."
This describes what I do not believe.
The reason is that it fails to account for how much changes instantly when someone becomes a believer. He was dead and is alive, he was empty but is now Spirit indwelled, he was alone but now has a union with Christ, he was independent but is now interdependent in a body of believers. On it goes. Though I accept the idea that sanctification is "more of the same" there is a huge boatload of "the same" that comes all at once at salvation. And once God has made changes in a believer, the changes belong to the believer. That is, these God-given abilities are now my abilities.
The result is that there is no point where I face a sinful choice that I can reason "God has not yet given me the desire or ability to resist this temptation." I believe the other option (call it monergism or whatever) invites that kind of reasoning.
So I do not deny that it's all of grace, but I firmly believe grace given is grace possessed and the grace given is fully ours and sufficient.
"Sanctification only matures what regeneration began. The latter sprouted the seed of grace, the former continues its growth, until there appears first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear. The agent and influences are therefore the same."
This describes what I do not believe.
The reason is that it fails to account for how much changes instantly when someone becomes a believer. He was dead and is alive, he was empty but is now Spirit indwelled, he was alone but now has a union with Christ, he was independent but is now interdependent in a body of believers. On it goes. Though I accept the idea that sanctification is "more of the same" there is a huge boatload of "the same" that comes all at once at salvation. And once God has made changes in a believer, the changes belong to the believer. That is, these God-given abilities are now my abilities.
The result is that there is no point where I face a sinful choice that I can reason "God has not yet given me the desire or ability to resist this temptation." I believe the other option (call it monergism or whatever) invites that kind of reasoning.
So I do not deny that it's all of grace, but I firmly believe grace given is grace possessed and the grace given is fully ours and sufficient.
And this bolded portion is what I see evident in the situation I am referencing. I love the last sentence Aaron.
I will need to sit down with this when I have less...uh...commotion.
I am in a conversation where someone is suggesting that progressive sanctification is very largely (if not entirely) passive. Please understand I am not suggesting that any good thing comes from me...God works in me both to will and to do...but I am not an automaton either. I still need to choose to recognize and act upon His promptings.
The suggestion in the conversation is that by observing the need for a believer to be actively engaged in his/her pursuit of personal day-to-day holiness (in one example, discussing how we are to "flee youthful lusts") is to say that Christ's work on the cross was insufficient for all sin. We don't believe enough. But is not our faith proven by our works? We have positional sanctification as well as progressive, do we not? It is partly what we already are, and partly what we are becoming as He works in us...
Maybe I'll understand better when I get to read this...maybe at nap time...
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield
http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com