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).

I previously introduced Dr. Andy Naselli’s important new book, Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology, now available for pre-order from Logos.
Dr. Naselli was kind enough to answer a few questions for us about his book, Keswick theology, and the believer’s ongoing struggle with sin. I’ll post part 1 of our interaction now, and a second and final installment sometime next week:

Keswick theology teaches that, after salvation, one must pursue the second blessing. Having received it, can one lose this “second blessing”? If so, what would be the mark(s) of such a loss?
Perhaps it’d be helpful to direct your readers to the five diagrams at the end of this handout. The diagram for the Keswick view of sanctification shows that Christians can frequently fluctuate between being Spirit-filled (i.e., victorious) and not Spirit-filled (i.e., defeated). Keswick proponents typically don’t describe this fluctuation as “losing” the “second blessing.”
Sin distinguishes which tier a Christian is on. Christians who are sinning are on the lower tier, and Christians who are not sinning are on the higher tier.
How would such a person get it back?
It’s an endless cycle that some describe as follows:
1. I must live the victorious Christian life.
2. If I consecrate myself by surrender and faith (i.e., letting go and letting God), I will live the victorious Christian life.
3. I now consecrate myself.
4. I am not living the victorious Christian life, so I didn’t consecrate myself sufficiently.
5. Repeat the cycle.
Is Keswick thinking in any way at the root of the struggle many have with discerning “the personal will of God” for their lives?
I don’t think that there’s a necessary theological connection between Keswick theology and the widespread views that evangelicals have about discerning God’s will for their lives, but there seems to be a historical connection. Kevin DeYoung’s Just Do Something is a helpful corrective (cf. my review).
Some of us might read names like Andrew Murray, J. Hudson Taylor, and Amy Carmichael and think “Wow. Whatever it is, it can’t be that bad.” Does Keswick thinking, historically, have a track record of promoting more holy living on the part of Christians?
I’ll answer that with five short reflections:
1. The Keswick Conventions commendably emphasized personal holiness and left a legacy of Christian service, but holy living is by no means the Keswick view’s distinctive. That is, holiness is not Keswick theology’s individual characteristic that distinguishes it from other views.
2. I’m not sure how I could evaluate whether adherents of the Keswick view of sanctification are more or less holy than adherents of other views. My evaluation would be hopelessly anecdotal and myopic because my fallen and finite perspective is severely limited.
3. All of the major views on sanctification have adherents who are exemplary, inspiring Christians, and disagreeing with a particular view of sanctification in no way questions the devotion to Christ of those who hold that view.
4. We shouldn’t determine our view of sanctification by counting up whom we perceive to be the most holy Christians and seeing which view has the most. Scripture must determine our view of sanctification.
5. John Murray rightfully reminds us:

When we think of the honoured names which have been associated with Keswick like those of Handley Moule, Webb-Peploe, Andrew Murray, A. T. Pierson, we have to reckon with a movement which enlisted the support of cultured and devoted servants of Christ and one hesitates to embark upon criticism. But the cause neither of truth nor of love is promoted by suppressing warranted criticism.

And that’s what I try to do in my book: promote the cause of truth and love through warranted criticism.
Update: Check out Part 2 of this interview.