Living the Christian Life: New Developments in 18th & 19th Century Teaching

Questions and Answers

Dr. Lloyd-Jones divides perfectionist teaching into three types. What are they, and why does the distinction matter?

Dr. Lloyd-Jones identifies evangelical perfectionism (represented by John Wesley), ethical perfectionism (represented by Charles Finney), and psychological perfectionism (represented by the Pearsall Smiths and the Keswick Convention). He insists these categories are genuinely distinct — not merely different expressions of the same impulse. Wesley was an Arminian who believed in original sin and taught that a second, instantaneous work of grace could eradicate the inward root of sin. Finney, by contrast, denied original sin altogether and taught that men are morally capable of perfect obedience to the law; for him, perfection was a rational and ethical achievement, not a supernatural transformation. The Keswick school rejected Wesleyan eradication and taught instead that sin is counteracted, not removed — held in check as long as the believer maintains a crisis of surrender and moment-by-moment "abiding." Understanding these distinctions matters because they expose the different doctrinal foundations from which each teaching springs, and therefore the different points at which each must be corrected by Scripture.

What was Wesley's doctrine of "entire sanctification," and how did Dr. Lloyd-Jones evaluate it?

Wesley taught that after regeneration, a believer could receive a second, instantaneous gift of grace in which the inward root of sin — what he called "inbred corruption" — is entirely eradicated. He described this state as "perfect love": loving God with the whole heart, though he was careful to add that the perfected believer remains liable to involuntary transgression and ignorance. Dr. Lloyd-Jones acknowledges Wesley as a figure of extraordinary historical significance — one whose movement may, as the historian Leckie suggested, have spared England from a revolution like that of France in 1789. But he argues that Wesley's doctrine arises not from careful biblical exegesis but from the mystical and Roman Catholic devotional writings his parents had absorbed before him. Wesley's error was to confuse assurance of salvation with perfection, to ignore the pollution of sin by reducing it to voluntary transgression, and to suppress the numerous New Testament exhortations that call the believer to active, sustained effort in the mortification of sin.

How does Dr. Lloyd-Jones use the structure of Paul's epistles as a doctrinal argument against perfectionist teaching?

Dr. Lloyd-Jones points to what he calls the "great therefores" of the Pauline letters as decisive evidence against every perfectionist system. In Romans, eleven chapters of doctrinal exposition lead to the word "therefore" in chapter 12: "I appeal to you therefore, by the mercies of God." The practical exhortations that follow — which include commands to "mortify the deeds of the body" (Romans 8:13), to "cleanse ourselves from all impurity" (2 Corinthians 7:1), and to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12) — are addressed to the believer, not delegated to a higher experience or moment of surrender. The New Testament, Dr. Lloyd-Jones argues, does not teach sanctification as a theory to be received; it teaches it as a doctrine to be understood and a life to be actively pursued in the power of the Spirit. The "therefore" is the key: holiness flows from doctrine, not from crisis.

What distinguishes the Keswick teaching from Wesleyan perfectionism, and why did Dr. Lloyd-Jones call it "psychological"?

Unlike Wesley, the Keswick school did not teach the eradication of sin. Its leading figures explicitly rejected that doctrine, insisting instead that sin remains in the believer's nature but is counteracted or "kept in check" as long as one maintains an act of surrender and abiding faith. The language of the movement — "let go and let God," "the rest of faith," "sanctification by faith" — made holiness a matter of passive reception rather than active effort. Dr. Lloyd-Jones calls this "psychological" because its governing motivation is not the glory of God or conformity to the image of Christ but the desire for a happy and peaceful Christian life. He demonstrates this from the very title of Mrs. Pearsall Smith's definitive text, The Christian Secret of a Happy Life, arguing that any system which places happiness first and constructs its theology to achieve it has already departed from the biblical ordering of the Christian life: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled."

Did Dr. Lloyd-Jones believe the Keswick movement retained any positive legacy, and what was his assessment of its state at the time of his address?

Dr. Lloyd-Jones is measured and fair in acknowledging that the Keswick movement produced men of genuine godliness and sincere devotion, even where he regarded their doctrine as defective. He is equally clear, however, that by the time of the centenary he addresses, the "Keswick message" had in large measure already died on the platform that had promoted it. Most of the speakers at Keswick in the preceding decade, he observes, no longer taught the classic Keswick view of Romans 6 and 7; their Bible readings had returned, often without explicit acknowledgment, to the traditional Reformed understanding that the movement had been founded to oppose. This collapse from within leads Dr. Lloyd-Jones to conclude that the church stands at an interesting juncture — one in which the perfectionist strand of Protestant piety, having run its course in various forms from Wesley onward, has largely exhausted itself, and the ground is being prepared for a recovery of the more thoroughly biblical, expository, and exegetical teaching on the Christian life that he regards as the inheritance of the Reformation.