A CRITIQUE OF THE HIGHER LIFE MOVEMENT
By Jay Wegter
The concept of the higher Christian life arose in the nineteenth century in connection with the holiness tradition in America. The movement grew in popularity and ultimately spread to England. Keswick, England became the home of the higher life conventions. In time, the movement returned to America with great momentum. “The Higher Life movement has influenced the rise of other theologically conservative movements, the founding of a number of institutions, the growth of foreign missions, and the theological perspective of several denominations.”1
Description of the Movement
The higher Christian life is an explanation of the means and methods involved in advancing the believer’s progressive sanctification. The purpose of this paper is to identify the areas where the higher life model of sanctification differs from the scriptural doctrine of sanctification.
Though not identical, three terms are used synonymously to refer to the movement; “The higher Christian life,” the “Victorious Christian Life,” and “Keswick Teaching.” In this paper, any of the three terms may be used to refer to the whole body of higher life teaching.
The inception of the higher life movement is often identified with the publication of William Edwin Boardman’s book, The Higher Christian Life (1858). The book argued that Christ was to be received for sanctification sometime after justification. Continue reading
If you trust and revere men like, John Piper, Mark Dever, Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller,Kevin De Young, Joshua Harris, D A Carson, Tullian Tchividjian, Ligon Duncan, Jared Wilson, Thabiti Anyabwile , Al Mohler, C.J. Mahaney and all those part of this movement T4G/Gospel Coalition (TGC) /Reformed Charismatics/ you had better think again my friend. Test these men and pray for discernment, because their deception is finely tuned very finely tuned.
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. (2 Corinthians 11:13-14 KJV)
You can also read our previous articles on the issue, all names mentioned above are well known in the Reformed Circles here in South Africa, some of them visited South Africa recently . Why We Cannot Endorse Rezolution 2013 , More on the New Calvinist /YRR Mystic Tim Keller and Rezolution Conference 2013 , Charismaticism: fraud, lies, arrogance and deception and The New Calvinists.
Also read these extensive well written articles which voice serious concerns, by Dr Paul M Elliott Tim Keller’s False Gospel: A Point-By-Point Analysis. Timothy Keller promotes a “gospel” designed to be attractive to unregenerated man, but stripped of the Biblical essentials and robbed of Divine power and authority.Tim Keller’s False Gospel: Changing Both the Method and the Message. Timothy Keller’s “gospel” rests on a faulty foundation: the misconception that man changes, therefore the message must change. Tim Keller’s Gutless ‘Gospel’. A segment from an interview with Tim Keller shows just how gutless his “gospel” is – a mass of evasions, equivocations, and misrepresentations of God’s truth.Tim Keller: Dangerously Influential. Dr. Timothy J. Keller is one of today’s most influential religious leaders, and one of the most dangerous. Continue reading
Truth Matters… The truth will make you free (Jn 8:32)
2-9-2012 G.J. Harloff, Ph.D.
North Olmsted, Ohio 44070
This pamphlet examines the veracity of Bible teaching based on literal interpretation and spoof-texting. Spoof-texting is a teaching method that employs a word-search- approach to present lots of scriptures without time for thought. It is concluded that man-centric literal interpretation, including spoof-texting, leads directly to the different literal system discussed herein. This literal system is dispensationalism and is in wide spread use today.
MacArthur asks for Biblical proof (in GC 70-16 tape) that the Old Testament Israel is the church. This booklet is partly about illustrating this proof and attempts to show: (1) the Bible teaches that there is a continuation between spiritual (individual believing) Israel and the church, (2) the mystery in the New Testament is not that there is a church, but rather that Gentiles are fellow heirs of the same body and partakers of His promise in Christ, (3) believing Gentiles historically joined Israel in the Old Testament, (4) the “new man” in the New Testament is comprised of believing Jews and Gentiles, (5) those who believe in Christ (that Christ is the Messiah, died for our sins, and was resurrected to eternal life) are children of Abraham and all believers are part of the “olive tree” nourished by Christ, (6) the Old Testament prediction of the New Covenant “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people .” (Jer 31:33) is synonymous with the New Covenant announced by Christ at His last supper, and (7) salvation in Christ is the same in both the Old and New Testaments because no one comes to the Father except through Christ.
This pamphlet compares the assumptions of a literalistic system with reformed theology and scriptural references are cited. Of course reformed theology and or the different literal system may both be wrong. The literal system rejects the continuation of the Old Testament believers into the New Testament church and instead assumes that Israel “temporarily” forfeited the privilege of being “the people of God”.
We are instructed by scripture to oppose incorrect teaching (Gal 2:11-14), and to search the scripture daily to test its true interpretation (Acts 17:11). We need to be in the Word daily to discern the truth with the help of the Holy Spirit. Continue reading
Arminianism at Home in Rome
But, however frivolous his cavils, the principles for which he contends are of the most pernicious nature and tendency. I must repeat, what already seems to have given him so much offence, that Arminianism “came from Rome, and leads thither again.” Julian, bishop of Eclana a contemporary and disciple of Pelagius, was one of those who endeavoured, with much art, to gild the doctrines of that heresiarch, in order to render them more sightly and palatable. The Pelagian system, thus varnished and paliated, soon began to acquire the softer name of Semipelagianism. Let us take a view of it, as drawn to our hands by the celebrated Mr. Bower, who himself, in the main, a professed Pelagian, and therefore less likely to present us with an unfavourable portrait of the system he generally approved. Among the principles of that sect, this learned writer enumerates the following:
“The notion of election and reprobation, independent of our merits or demerits, is maintaining a fatal necessity, is the bane of all virtue, and serves only to render good men remiss in working out their salvation, and to drive sinners to despair.
“The decrees of election and reprobation are posterior to, and in consequence of, our good or evil works, as foreseen by God from all eternity.”
Is not this too the very language of modern Arminianism? Do not the partizans of that scheme argue on the same identical terms? Should it be said, “True, this proves that Arminianism is Pelagianism revived; but it does not prove, that the doctrines of Arminianism are originally Popish:” a moment’s cool attention will make it plain that they are. Let us again hear Mr. Bower, who, after the passage just quoted, immediately adds, “on these two last propositions, the Jesuits found their whole system of grace and free-will; agreeing therein with the Semipelagians, against the Jansenists and St. Augustine.” The Jesuits were moulded into a regular body, towards the middle of the sixteenth century: toward the close of the same century, Arminius began to infest the Protestant churches. It needs therefore no great penetration, to discern from what source he drew his poison. His journey to Rome (though Monsicur Bayle affects to make light of the inferences which were at that very time deduced from it) was not for nothing. If, however, any are disposed to believe, that Arminius imbibed his doctrines from the Socinians in Poland, with whom, it is certain, he was on terms of intimate friendship, I have no objection to splitting the difference: he might import some of his tenets from the Racovian brethren, and yet be indebted, for others, to the disciples of Loyola. Continue reading
Tim Keller thinks God may have a ‘trap door’ to heaven ?
Dr. Paul M. Elliott of Teaching the WordMinistries:
Part 2. Tim Keller’s Gutless ‘Gospel’
Also read here :
Keller openly admits that his account of theistic evolution is confused. And because he realises that there are insurmountable difficulties with his theistic evolution theory he says that he prefers the messy approach. Continue reading