Friday, June 30, 2017

Andrew Murray, Mystical Quietist and Higher Life / Keswick Writer, part 7 of 7


Applications from the Life and Teachings of Andrew Murray

Many of Andrew Murray’s writings should be avoided altogether by all Christians.  Compositions such as his writings on the Faith Cure are certainly worthless settings forth of dangerous error.  The remainder of his works, at the most, should be read only by those who, within the protection of a strong Bible-practicing Baptist church, have a comprehensive knowledge of his Keswick and continuationist errors and the spiritual wisdom to reject them, as well a firm grounding in the truth of Scripture on the doctrines and practices concerning which Murray has been led astray.  Since such knowledge is absent in the vast majority of those who read Mr. Murray, the great majority of his readers should abstain from reading him.  Countless Christians have been hindered in their sanctification and been spiritually confused by the Keswick errors in Murray’s writings, and many have been influenced toward charismatic apostasy by him.  Even for the small minority that possesses the comprehensive knowledge and equipment to diagnose and handle his errors, one would expect greater spiritual refreshing from spending time in the Word itself, instead of Murray’s works, and from the reading of better devotional writers who handle the Scripture with more study and carefulness.  A spirituality developed from the study of Andrew Murray will be withered and weak compared to a spirituality sustained by a deep study of God’s Word.
            Learn from Andrew Murray’s life the dangers of corrupt religious denominations.  While Christian charity has a reasonable ground for hope that Murray himself was truly regenerate, the fact that he could already have determined to enter the ministry before his conversion illustrates the fact that vast numbers of spiritual leaders in the South African Dutch Reformed denomination of Murray’s day were unconverted—while God in His mercy appears to have saved Murray in seminary, many others who were studying for the ministry had never come to Christ, and never did come to Christ, but became spiritual wolves destroying the flock of God.  It was imperative for any true believers among the Dutch Reformed in South Africa in Murray’s day to come out from among that corrupt denomination and unite themselves with truly Biblical and separatist assemblies.  Unconverted members are an awful curse to any church—what disaster, then, is an unconverted minister?
Learn also from Andrew Murray’s life the danger of a corrupt seminary education.  A Christian should be as likely to attend an apostate seminary as the Apostle Paul would have been to send one of his converts to the Judaizers for an education, or as Elijah would have been to send one in the school of the prophets to learn in the school of Baal.  By the great mercy of God, a young and impressionable Murray was himself preserved from utter spiritual shipwreck while funding and attending an educational institution of the Antichrist to prepare for Christian ministry.  Many others were not so preserved.  Furthermore, Murray’s seminary education was both a waste of years of his life and a seed-bed for filling his mind and heart with errors that were never entirely extirpated—had he instead attended a school run by a true church, one that was whole-heartedly consecrated to God and whole-heartedly opposed to every form of error, the likelihood that Murray would have adopted an ecumenicalism that contributed to the destruction of whatever true Christianity remained in his denomination is small.  Furthermore, God blessed Murray’s sincere desire to walk with Him despite all his errors—but how much the more could he have flourished spiritually had he not been pumped full of error for years in his youth?  Who knows what blessings were available to Murray had he followed the preceptive will of God, and were lost because of a failure to practice separation (cf. 2 Chronicles 16:7; Psalm 81:16)?  Such terrible evils as apostate institutions for the training of Christians should not be attended, but be abolished from the face of the earth, thrust down into that hell which belched them forth.
Learn also from Murray’s life the great spiritual danger in hearing and reading of corrupt false teachers.  Although he had already been hopefully converted, and even in the ministry, for years, Murray unfortunately fell under the spell of William Law, that enemy of the gospel of Christ, and allowed that false teacher to profoundly influence him.  What is more, not only did Law influence Murray personally, but countless believers have been drawn towards error by the teachings of Law that they received mediated through Murray.  It would have been better for Murray to have feared error more, and mistrusted his ability to discern error more, and avoided William Law altogether.  “Be not deceived”—whether considering your denominational affiliation, or your educational choices, or your reading material—“evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Corinthians 15:33).  The Scripture gives no exceptions.  Whether you are in seminary, or in the ministry already, unscriptural associations will corrupt you.
Murray’s ecumenicalism and continuationism illustrate the experience-centered spiritual confusion engendered by the Keswick theology.  His Faith Cure delusion, which was nothing but the physical concomitant of his Higher Life doctrine of sanctification, has led both to many an unnecessary physical death and to the rise of Pentecostalism, which has overwhelmed South Africa and brought many not only to physical death by a rejection of medicine, but to spiritual death also, as the saving gospel is confused with mystical experience.  Reject experience-based hermeneutics and cleave with all your heart and soul to the literal interpretation of Scripture, recognizing the Bible as your sole authority.  In so doing, you will be preserved from much spiritual danger.
Rejoice that God promises you perfect physical healing in the future glory.  Ponder His blessed promise:  “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (Revelation 21:3-4).  Yes, healing is in the atonement.  Perfect bodily healing, perfect freedom from all pain and suffering, crying, and perfect victory over the last enemy, death, is certain to come.  Since God is your own God, and He has given you His Son, with Him you will certainly also be given all things.  You will not need to worry that you will “lose your healing.”  You will not need to pretend that you are healed when you are not.  Your body will be perfectly whole in truth, and so forever and ever, for you will have a body like Christ’s glorious body.  How wonderful is God’s real work of healing—how infinitely it exceeds the meager dregs promised by the Faith and Mind Cure!  Fix your eye of faith on your God and His glorious promises to you.  Knowing that even in this life He works all things together for your good, you can traverse your earthly pilgrimage, with its trials and sorrows, with a joyful confidence in the ineffably blessed eternity that is your certain future, to the everlasting glory of your blessed Savior, Jesus Christ.
Andrew Murray sought for genuine spirituality; such a desire was highly commendable, and one that you must share.  Indeed, your very desire for a closer walk with God must undergird your rejection of Murray’s Keswick continuationism.  Rejoice that a genuinely vibrant and Christ-centered spiritual life can truly be lived by the power of the Spirit through the Word in the context of a historic Baptist church.  Rather than being lieft to a dichotomy which includes, on the one hand, following Andrew Murray, adopting his errors, and having a heart-felt spiritual life—or, on the other, rejecting Keswick’s errors for a cold and lifeless orthodoxy—you can have a glorious and living relationship with Jesus Christ.  Such fellowship can be grounded upon a passionate orthodoxy that undergirds and greatly contributes to a sweet and growing spiritual life in Christ.  In fact, this is what you must have—nothing else can suffice but the wholehearted spiritual embrace of the orthodox Christ revealed fully and truly today only in the pages of the Holy Scripture.  Reader, how is it with you?



See here for this entire study.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

The Role of the Attack on Spanking in Worldwide Apostasy

What gives wisdom?  Proverbs 29:15 says, the rod and reproof do -- reproof, yes, but also the rod. The rod.  Say it.  The rod.  The rod is an indispensable requirement for parenting.  I'm not saying that people couldn't still turn out fine, but in most cases and most likely not.  The rod is disappearing today in our culture.  It's easy to see, just like the Bible being removed from the public school.  In most cases evangelicals are cooperating with the elimination of the rod, taking it out of the toolbox. Reproof isn't popular either.

Spanking is still allowed for parents in the state of California, but it was outlawed in the public school starting in 1986.  In 2007, the state attempted to outlaw spanking for all parents, but the bill was stopped in the state legislature, in a major way because of the influence of our church.  That was ten years ago.  We still can spank in this state and God used our church to save it for parents.  That's about 40 million people who still have this freedom, and most don't even know how they almost lost it. I want to start to tell the story and then talk about the overall issue.

Today there are visible attacks on religious freedom in the United States.  This administration may be providing some push back for Christians, who believe and practice the Bible, and others who borrow from the Christian worldview on child discipline.  You see it with the Hobby Lobby case, the transgender bathroom issue, and the cake baking and flower arrangement cases.  If Hillary had won, things would be worse.  Her village would have intervened in your home life.  One of the prominent attacks on biblical obedience by the United States government today is in the area of child discipline, specifically in the attack on spanking.

Since Proverbs says that the rod and reproof give wisdom, the world, the flesh, and the devil oppose both the rod and reproof, but especially the rod.  Many times parents won't spank their children in a biblical way, but it is possible that the day is near that they can't.  Today the practice is chilled by various child protective services.  Child protective services does some good work.  They do.  The good work they do is outweighed, as I see it, by the bad they do in trying to find abuse that isn't there, but what is actually just good parenting by parents who still follow the Bible.  They find actual child abuse, but they harm biblical parenting and over all more children are endangered.  Everyone reading this knows that if you spank a child and leave a mark, and you have a doctor visit scheduled soon thereafter, you could get in trouble.  This is never ending at this point in American history.  I believe this is a major contributor to end time apostasy as we see it here in this country.

A legislator in California, a single woman with a pet cat, and sort of social justice warrior, wanted to do away with spanking, which in the bill she wrote, was taking away the use of an implement. Parents would be outlawed from using a switch, a fairly thin tree branch that is part of our national heritage.  Everyone understands a child being taken behind the woodshed and dad using the switch he pulled off the tree for a time of correction.

You can read the stories on the internet if you google "spanking," "Bethel," and "California."  I actually read a story I had not seen, written in a publication in South San Francisco in 2014, that said that our school was the last one in the entire state to use corporal punishment.  What does that say about this state?  I know parents are afraid to send their kids to the public school, because they are afraid for their safety.  Teachers cannot keep control of their classrooms.  Meanwhile at our school, children are happy, growing, thriving in quiet classrooms, learning, because there is a threat to go to the office for swats.   We rarely give them, but that tool is still in our toolbox.  Others have eliminated it because of the liability or the hassle or the perception, like they are ashamed of what the Bible teaches on this.  Why should anyone believe anything in the Bible if we don't like everything in it?

Have you ever seen the crazed people who oppose spanking?  Almost ten years ago, I saw a very strange, weirdo looking character standing in our parking lot, looking at our children while they were playing.  He was a man with long black hair to his waist.  He just stood their watching.  I noticed it and ignored it, then I looked later, and there he was still. I walked out to talk to him, and he told me he was standing there, because he was trying to figure out how he could close our school down.  I spent the next two hours talking to him in the hot sun, burning the top of my head.  He didn't do anything, because I think I somewhat persuaded him that we were helping children.

How the battle started for us was the following, and I'll end with this part of it.  One of the parents in our school sent their foster child to the school, and they were spanking him.  You can't spank foster kids, maybe anywhere in the country.  The child complained to the foster child leadership, they sent it to child protective services (CPS), and the interview of the child had to be at his school.  We were his school.  CPS came to our property and interviewed him in the office.  They had an obvious bias right away against us, because this child had been spanked.  The family didn't get in trouble, because spanking was still legal.  They just couldn't keep the child any longer, and the child, I know, because he's been in touch since, went to really bad situations, that were actually abusive.  However, they were abuses the state tolerated, because they were politically correct.  What I'm saying is that they didn't actually protect the child. They hurt him.

When CPS visited us, they noticed a tract our other pastor had written on corporal punishment on spanking, essentially exegesis of scripture meant to help parents.  The CPS people took that tract and they sent it to the newspaper, and because of this law that was in the state legislature, it went to front page, top fold news.  CPS was trying to hurt us and getting glee out of it.  We had several articles written about us.  The major television in the Bay Area here came out to do news stories and interviewing people.

CPS and the news really, really wanted to find a bunch of kooks to show how horrible spanking was.  It didn't work.  Our people were very reasonable.  There were no skeletons in our closet.  We looked like decent, caring, loving people.  The children looked great, and it really did backfire.  The woman legislator with the cat is the one who came off looking weird.  The media was interpreted as overweening before there was fake news.  Parents were not going to deny what was plainly in their face.  This is a witch hunt.  The only repercussions were that we lost a few parents, who were just afraid of the state, and it affected our enrollment from a few.  Overall, it's been a plus for us.  We don't want a big school and so it helps screen out people very nicely.

Meanwhile, the bill was going through the state legislature, and I'll talk about that next time.

Monday, June 26, 2017

The Perversion of God's Grace from Evangelicals

Nothing was wrong with the Old Testament.  Salvation wasn't different in the Old Testament.  It was like the book of Hebrews talks about, a shadow of things to come.  It was good for what it was, but a proper understanding and acceptance of it is a move toward the New Testament.  You don't really accept the Old if you don't receive the New.  The new covenant is a superior covenant.

The Old Testament isn't law and the New Testament grace.  They are both grace.  A perversion of the old covenant could be "law."  The Old Testament itself, however, is grace.  Old and New are both grace.

Both the Old and the New Testament have "rules."  "Rules" are a means of ruling.  God is sovereign.  He rules.  We look to what God says in His Word to see what His rules are.  He says that if you love Him, you will keep His rules.  The one that God receives to Himself is not the one who says, Lord, Lord, and doesn't do what God says.  It is he who does the will of the Father, like Jesus did.

Justification by faith is not a get out of jail free card.  Paul was clear on that in Romans 6.  He also said that grace is not an occasion, a base of operations, to and for the flesh.  In Jude, we see false teachers who turn the grace of God into lasciviousness.

Grace enables righteous living.  God works in someone both to will and to do of His good pleasure. A primary purpose of church is to to consider one another to provoke unto love and good works.  What are good works?  Are they not the works that God prescribes in His Word?  Are those not rules?  How are we supposed to provoke someone to good works, if we are to just wait for the Holy Spirit to do it? That's not something taught anywhere in scripture.

What I'm describing is how evangelicalism and now much of fundamentalism approaches biblical teaching that they don't like.  They call it legalism.  The grace of God, however, is not a garbage can that just keeps swallowing up disobedience to God's Word.  It is a cleansing agent that empowers righteous living, which is obedience to what God said.

Evangelicals and many fundamentalists pervert God's grace today.  2 Peter 2 talks about it.  Men don't want to do what God says and the grace of God is corrupted to allow people to disobey scripture. That's not how God's grace works.  Paul told Titus that God's grace taught believers to deny worldly lust and to live soberly and righteously in this present world.

According to James, believers are presented with tests of faith. They are to pray for wisdom to pass those tests.  What is wisdom?  It is the proper application of scripture.  Why does someone need wisdom if scripture doesn't need to be applied?  If the only scripture someone obeys are specific actions stated, no wisdom is needed for that.  It's just wrote obedience.  However, scripture does need application.

Almost all of scripture comes in principles that need to be applied.  The application comes in a second term.  God commands no corrupt communication to proceed from the mouth.  Wisdom requires understanding what corrupt communication is.  Believers are assumed to know.

Today if a church has a modesty or dress standard, it is called legalist.  I know because our church gets it all the time.  We rarely talk about dress.  However, we are still criticized as legalistic.  I hear these evangelicals, conservative ones, say that we are dangerous because we are telling people to keep rules and rules are legalism.

God's grace doesn't allow nudity.  It doesn't allow cross dressing.  Are those rules?  They are God ruling by His grace in the life of a believer.  Grace isn't less holy.  It allows someone to live holy and pure.

The apostate wants to do what he wants.  He doesn't want a boss.  A common corruption of grace allows him to do what he wants and yet still categorize himself as spiritual enough, godly enough, or religious enough.  This false, made-up, perversion of grace takes care of all the ways he disobeys God by not applying scripture.  He's doing what he wants and still getting credit for doing what God wants, at least in his mind.  That isn't the grace of God.  It isn't how God's grace works.

Whole evangelical churches are doing what they want and calling it the grace of God.  They design their churches to be worldly to attract the worldly.  If you critique their music and their dress or lack thereof, they pull the legalist card.  This is old.  It occurs again and again.

If you read here, you know I call them legalistic.  They are the true legalists in the tradition of the Pharisees, who reduced God's rules, His laws, to what they could keep.  Evangelicals don't require obedience to the so-called non-essentials.  Their view of grace says that those are permissible.  The non-essential list is growing.  They are not non-essential to God. God wants believers to live according to every Word that proceeds from His mouth.  That's also how God's grace works.

Evangelicals, operating in the flesh, shorten the list of commandments or sayings to be kept, to a list they can keep.  Pharisees did this.  They asked Jesus the greatest commandment, because they were accustomed to ranking their laws, because they knew they couldn't keep them all in their flesh.  Evangelicalism keeps its own rules, except in the flesh.  It keeps those rules by reducing them to a smaller number.  This is not how the Bible teaches Christian living.  God's grace enables a believer to keep everything that God said.  It is a supernatural, spiritual work in the soul of a man that testifies to God.

Reductionism, reducing what scripture has to be kept to a smaller number, depends on the flesh.  It is left-wing legalism.  It says that it is grace, but it really is an operation of the flesh to live how someone wants to live, but still call it Christian living.  It isn't, and it won't be judged as so.

I'm tired of the legalism card, but I think it will keep going.  It is a horrendous lie that is used out of guilt.  Evangelicals are guilty of violating scripture.  Their programs and their attendance and their gimmicks are more important than the Word of God.  They are willing to keep their crowd by lying and calling true believers, legalists.  I expect it will continue.

Friday, June 23, 2017

No Two Biblical Manuscripts Are The Same? Old and New Testament Evidence

Have you heard the oft-repeated assertion that "no two Biblical manuscripts are the same?"  It is one of the most often-repeated arguments by enemies of the God of Scripture and opponents of perfect preservation.  However, it is simply false. There are early copies that are identical to the later printed texts.  For example, you can view the Qumran manuscript 4QGenb (4Q2) here.  A picture from this manuscript, which dates to c. A. D. 50, is below:


This manuscript "is identical to codex L," (Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012], 31), the basis for the common printed Hebrew Bible published by the United Bible Society, as well as being identical to the Hebrew Received Text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.  You are, thus, viewing with your eyes a very ancient Hebrew text that is identical to printed editions of the Hebrew Bible.

What about for the New Testament? Consider the copy below:



P52, the oldest undisputed fragment from the Gospel of John, dates between A. D. 90-125 (J. Kenneth Eakins et al., “Archaeology and Biblical Study,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 100; Lee Strobel, In Defense of Jesus:  Investigating Attacks on the Identity of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 2007), “Interview #2, Daniel B. Wallace.”)  It contains a Greek text that is identical to modern printed editions of the Gospel of John.  P52 was discovered in an obscure village in Egypt a great distance from Ephesus, where the Gospel of John was composed, demonstrating that the book had been in circulation for quite some time before this very ancient manuscript was copied.  Keener explains:

This text’s discovery far from the Gospel’s likely places of origin pushes its proposed date of writing back at least a quarter century[.] . . . Nor does the manuscript allow us to suppose that this represents a pre-Johannine tradition on which John based part of his Gospel . . .[this] oldest fragment of the Gospel of John . . . does not differ by a single word from our printed Greek texts. . . . 𝔓52 . . . proves the [early] existence and use of the Fourth Gospel in a little provincial town along the Nile, far from its traditional place of composition (Ephesus in Asia Minor)[.] (Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary & 2, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012], 141–142.)

Thus, very ancient manuscripts of the Bible that are exactly identical with modern printed texts exist.

Furthermore, there are many Biblical manuscripts that represent the text-type found in the Textus Receptus and the Authorized, King James Version that are identical with each other even over the space of entire books.  (This is not the case with the inferior and tiny minority of manuscripts that support the modern Greek critical text). For example, click here to view four manuscripts from widely separated parts of the world, copied in different centuries (and collated by Dr. Wilbur Pickering), that have a text that is absolutely identical for the entire book of Titus

One can contrast this extremely careful copying of the Received Text with the very careless copying of the favorite MSS of the critical text, Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph). Herman Hoskier did a full collation of Aleph and B, and in the Gospels he found the following:[1]

Disagreements between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
Matthew
656
Mark
567
Luke
791
John
1022
TOTAL
3036


Compare this with the differences between the Westcott-Hort or critical Greek text and the Received Text in the entire New Testament:

TEXTUS RECEPTUS vs. WESTCOTT-HORT CHANGES
TR Has 140,521 Greek words. W/H changes 5,604 places in the N.T.
TR has 647 pp. in Greek Text. W/H changes include 9,970 Greek words.
TR has 217 Greek words. per page. W/H changes 15.4 Greek words per page.
TR has 100% of the Greek words. W/H changes 7% of the Greek words.
TR has all 647 pp. unchanged. W/H changes total 45.9 pp. in Greek text.[2]

The number of differences between Aleph and B just in the Gospels is comparable to the number of Greek words in which the TR and the W/H text differ in the entire NT--if one extends the average number of disagreements in the Gospels between Aleph and B over the entire NT, there would be more disagreements between the two MSS that critical text advocates falsely claim are the best than there are between the Received Text and the W/H printed editions!

Facts such as these--and there are many more where these came from--should put to rest the myth that there are no Biblical manuscripts that are identical with each other.  They should also show the unsoundness of the critical Greek text and the modern Bible versions based upon it and the superiority of the preserved Word of God contained in the Hebrew and Greek Received Texts from which the Authorized, King James Version was translated.






[1]           Herman Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies:  A Study and an Indictment, vol. 2 (London:  Bernard Quaritch, 1914) 1.
[2]           Donald Waite, Defending the King James Bible (Collingswood, NJ:  Bible for Today, n. d.) “Forward.”

Friday, June 16, 2017

Andrew Murray, Mystical Quietist and Higher Life / Keswick Writer, part 6 of 7

           
Nevertheless, despite the failures of the Faith Cure, Murray believed that the gift of healing was not limited to the first century but was for the entire church age.  He had, after all, been influenced in his doctrine of healing by what he had himself “witnessed . . . [in] a Sunday evening service for the sick . . . [led by] the late Mr. W. E. Boardman.”[1]  Murray wrote:
The Bible does not authorize us, either by the words of the Lord or of His apostles, to believe that the gifts of healing were granted only to the early times of the Church[.] . . . [I]t is the Church’s unbelief which has lost the gift of healing . . . salvation offers to us even now, healing and holiness[.] . . . The more we give ourselves to experience personally sanctification by faith, the more we shall also experience healing by faith.  These two doctrines walk abreast. . . . [D]ivine healing is part of the life of faith. . . . Wherever the Spirit acts with power, there He works divine healings.[2]
Andrew Murray taught, as did John MacMillan,[3] A. B. Simpson,[4] and the Pentecostal movement, that physical healing in this life was part of Christ’s atonement:  “Jesus Christ has obtained for us the healing of our diseases, because He has borne our sicknesses.  According to this promise, we have right to healing, because it is part of the salvation which we have in Christ.”[5]  Job was sick, Murray affirmed, following Boardman, because the patriarch had not properly employed the Higher Life technique of surrender and faith to deal with “his hidden sins.”[6]  It was best for believers to cease using medicine,[7] he believed, and rather to employ Higher Life techniques when they were sick.  Indeed, “setting aside all remedies [is better than] using remedies as believers do for the most part[.] . . . Renouncing remedies, [sic] strengthens faith in an extraordinary manner; healing becomes then, far more than sickness, a source of numberless spiritual blessings; . . . we commit ourselves to Him as our sovereign healer, counting solely on His invisible presence.”[8]  Unfortunately, as with the spurious “healings” of modern charismatics, the generality of the “healings” Murray spoke of were radically different from those of the Lord Jesus and the Apostles.  Biblical healings were all perfect and without any relapses, while such was not the case with the alleged healings of which Murray spoke:  “Sometimes also the first symptoms of healing are immediately manifest; but afterwards the progress is slow, and interrupted at times . . . [or entirely] arrested or . . . the evil returns.”[9]
            The tremendous difference between Murray’s Higher Life theology of healing and the healings of the Lord and His Apostles was connected to his Higher Life doctrine of sanctification.  As the Keswick theology teaches that sanctification is only maintained by a moment-by-moment faith decision without any change or actual renewal of the inward nature, so physical healing is only maintained by a moment-by-moment faith decision, and any relapse in the faith decision leads to a loss of the healing:  “[T]he return to health . . . is the fruit of giving up sin, of consecration to God. . . . [I]t is by healing that God confirms the reality of . . . sanctification[.] . . . When Jesus . . . cures . . . our body . . . miraculously . . . it follows that the health received must be maintained from day to day by an uninterrupted communion with Him.”[10]  The Higher Life for the spirit takes elements that, in Biblical and historic Baptist theology, pertain to the perfect holiness and perfect rest of heaven, and transfers them into the present.  Likewise, the Higher Life for the body takes elements of the physical perfection that pertains to the resurrected state and transfers them to the present.  However, the Higher Life for both soul and body affirms that these elements that actually pertain to the future glory are only maintained in this life through a moment-by-moment faith decision.  Thus, as the Keswick perfectionist state of sanctification was maintained only moment-by-moment, so bodily healing was maintained only moment-by-moment, and the very instant one fell out of the Higher Life his body returned to a state of sickness.  Certainly God is able to heal people today—indeed, every recovery from illness comes from the hand of God (Psalm 103:3)—and it is right for believers to pray for physical healing.  However, the Higher Life theology of healing espoused by Boardman and Murray is unscriptural, and the Biblical gift of healing—which involved no relapses and did not require any faith on the part of the recipient—was temporary and for the first century alone. 
However, according to Murray, none of the spiritual gifts were temporary, and they will all appear to those who have discovered “the higher life”[11]:  “Wherever the life more abundant of the Spirit is to be found, we may expect Him to manifest all His gifts . . . Divine healing accompanies the sanctification by the Spirit . . . the body . . . ought to be healed as soon as the sick believer receives by faith the working of the Holy Spirit, the very life of Jesus in him.”[12]  Murray believed that not healing only, but “all [the Spirit’s] gifts,” including tongues, prophecy, and the rest of the phenomena claimed by the modern charismatic movement, should be expected for the entirety of the church age for those who have entered into the Higher Life[13]—indeed, Murray taught believers to “live in a holy expectation” for a restoration of the other gifts that accompanied the pouring out of the Spirit in Acts.[14]  Keswick theology was the key to having all the sign gifts restored:  “[M]en and women who live the life of faith and of the Holy Spirit, entirely consecrated to their God . . . would see again the manifestation of the same gifts as in former times.”[15]  He affirmed that God may lead believers today through “heavenly voices.”[16]  Tongues, in particular, will be restored as Keswick theology spreads:
On the day of Pentecost the speaking “with other tongues” and the prophesying was the result of being filled with the Spirit. . . . We may reckon upon it that where the reception of the Holy Spirit and the possibility of being filled with Him are proclaimed and appropriated, the blessed life of the Pentecostal community will be restored in all its pristine power.[17]
Murray’s strong continuationism, associated with his teaching that “the intellect must follow,” not lead, “the heart and the life . . . [i]n all the experience of the blessings of the Gospel,”[18] were important in theological trajectory from Keswick to Pentecostalism.[19]
In light of Murray’s Higher Life continuationism, it is not surprising that he was a central figure in the rise of South African Pentecostalism.  Certain of Murray’s books are “sold nowadays only by the Pentecostals.”[20]  Murray requested that his own biography be written by J. DuPlessis, whose continuationism led him to became the General Secretary of the charismatic Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa.[21]  Furthermore, Murray “acted as mentor for Pieter Le Roux, who was to be a key figure in the establishment of Pentecostalism in South Africa,”[22] as LeRoux was “one of the first propagandists” of the Keswick continuationist and essentially Pentecostal “Christian Catholic Church” of John Dowie.  LeRoux went on to become, “for 29 years, President” of the “Pentecostal Apostolic Faith Mission”[23] which developed largely out of the Christian Catholic denomination.[24]  The Christian Catholic Church and the Pentecostal Apostolic Faith Mission “provided the example that has been followed by the South African Pentecostal movement”[25] to this day, including the South African Pentecostal doctrine that “[m]edicine is rejected and . . . absolute reliance on the healing of the sick through prayer” is practiced instead.[26]  In addition to the major Pentecostal denominations, numberless South African “independent Pentecostal churches . . . go back to men like Le Roux” as “offshoots of the Apostolic Faith Mission.”[27]  Andrew Murray’s Keswick continuationism was key to the explosion of the apostasy, which is South African Pentecostalism.
Unlike many other central figures in the Keswick theology, Andrew Murray had a reasonable testimony of personal conversion and a confession that was generally consistent with the fundamentals of the Christian gospel.  He was a sincere and pious man, and various Christian truths found in his writings have been a spiritual blessing to many.  A sincere Pentecostal pastor may similarly make statements that could be of benefit to separatist Baptists.  Nevertheless, the errors of Keswick continuationism and the influence of many unconverted religious figures in Christendom are bound inextricably into the fabric of Murray’s works.  The spiritual truths that have blessed the people of God in his writings are also found in the works of many authors free from Murray’s errors, writers of unquestionable orthodoxy and fervent spirituality who pay far more attention than Murray does to the careful and accurate exegesis of that instrument of the Spirit for the sanctification of the saint, the holy Scripture (John 17:17).

See here for this entire study.






[1]           Pgs. 113-114, Divine Healing, by Andrew Murray.  Nyack, NY:  Christian Alliance Publishing, 1900.
[2]           Pgs. 15, 17-19, 24, 29, Divine Healing, Murray.
[3]           “MacMillan believed that healing is a privilege for the Christian as a provision of the atonement, and needs to be affirmed actively and strenuously,” so that the believer can “refuse the sicknesses that seek to fasten upon [his] physical fram[e]” (pg. 227, A Believer with Authority, Paul L. King).  See pg. 25, The Adult Full Gospel Sunday School Quarterly, November 22, 1942 & pg. 26, The Adult Full Gospel Sunday School Quarterly, January 23, 1938, MacMillan.
[4]           One notes that, in 1900, the Chrisitan and Missionary Alliance published Murray’s Divine Healing in Nyack, NY, home of the CMA Training Institute (cf. pg. 529, The Life of Andrew Murray, DuPlessis).
[5]           Pg. 72 (cf. pg. 12), Divine Healing, Andrew Murray.  London: Victory Press, 1934.  Cf. http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/library/murray_divine_healing.pdf.
[6]           Pg. 172, cf. 168-173, Divine Healing, Murray.  Since Job was the most righteous man on the earth (Job 1:8), it appears that Higher Life principles must not have been often practiced on the earth in Job’s day, since even the best man on earth was made horribly sick for not properly employing them.  Or perhaps Murray’s reading of Job, in which he follows William Boardman, is radically inaccurate.
[7]           The Word of Faith movement likewise teaches that “all disease comes from the spiritual realm of Satan. . . . a true believer should never be sick. . . . [Word of] Faith teachers insist that believers can, and should, grow in their faith to the point where they no longer need medical science.  Only those in the Faith movement who are immature in their faith guiltily seek medical care” (pgs. 149-150, 186, A Different Gospel, McConnell; pgs. 153-165 demonstrate the almost exact similarity between Murray’s doctrine and that of the Word of Faith theology and provide a fine critique of the Word of Faith healing doctrine.).
[8]           Pgs. 174-179, Divine Healing, Murray.
[9]           Pg. 92, Divine Healing, Murray.
[10]         Pg. 154, Divine Healing, Murray.
[11]         Pgs. 201, 209, Divine Healing, Murray.
[12]         Pgs. 85-86, 124, Divine Healing, Murray.
[13]         Nor is it surprising that charismatic writers can refer to “Andrew Murray” as a “prominent Pentecostal figur[e]” alongside of charismatics like “Aimee Semple McPherson” (cf. pg. 67, A Different Gospel, McConnell), although such a designation for Murray is somewhat proleptic.
[14]         Pgs. 87-88, Divine Healing, Murray.
[15]         Pg. 15, Divine Healing: A Series of Addresses, Murray.  See also pg. 100.
[16]         Pg. 161, The Spirit of Christ, Andrew Murray.  Springdale, PA:  Whitaker House, 1984.  While Murray writes, “There are souls to whom such leading . . . [by] heavenly voices . . . undoubtedly is given,” at least he also affirms that such voices are not the “ordinary” means of leading—an affirmation, however, that a Quaker or practically any modern Pentecostal could also make.
[17]         Pg. 17, The Full Blessing of Pentecost: The One Thing Needful, trans. J. P. Lilley.  London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1908.
[18]         Pg. 204, The Life of Andrew Murray, DuPlessis.
[19]         Murray’s writings also contain antecedents to the Word of Faith heresy.  For example, the doctrine of the authority of the believer, as developed by the Word of Faith movement from the writings of John MacMillan, appears to have been anticipated by Murray:  “The Head truly calls the members of His Body to share His power with Him.  Our Father places His power at the disposal of the child who completely trusts Him” (pg. 83, With Christ in the School of Prayer, Andrew Murray.  Springdale, PA:  Whitaker House, 1981).
[20]         Pg. 114, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.
[21]         Pg. v. The Life of Andrew Murray, DuPlessis & pg. 172, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee.  DuPlessis was a continuationist like Murray but not yet the General Secretary of the Pentecostal Mission at the time Murray asked him to write the biography.
[22]         Pg. 462, “Murray, Andrew,” Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed. Larsen; pgs. 72-73, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee.
[23]         Pgs. 115, 120, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.
[24]         Pg. 120, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.
[25]         Pgs. 120-121, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.
[26]         Pg. 121, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.
[27]         Pgs. 171-172, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger.