Saturday, June 15, 2019

Andy Stanley Exposed and Crushed in Debate with Jeff Durbin

Anyone who reads here would know I don't endorse or associate with someone such as Jeff Durbin, pastor and found of Apologia Church in Arizona, the Phoenix area.  James White has joined him as pastor there.  I would characterize Durbin as one of the new Calvinists, new not chronological as much as it is a different kind of Calvinism, which relates mainly to the practice or application of scripture.

Andy Stanley is one of the most influential church leaders in the world, even as his church in Georgia is the largest in the United States.  His dad is the very well known, Charles Stanley, long time also pastor of a Southern Baptist church in Georgia.  In the last year Stanley wrote a book, Irresistible, that caused a furor within evangelicalism, because of some of the major teachings of the book.  I'm not going to go into the problem here.  I've just read reviews.  I've never read the book itself, and that's not point for this post.  My point with this paragraph was to introduce a debate between Stanley and Durbin.

There is a radio station in the UK, called Premier Christian Radio, and a program on that station in the UK called, Unbelievable.  Unbelievable is hosted by Justin Brierley, and he moderated the debate between Stanley and Durbin.  The premise of the debate on May 31, 2019 was something that Stanley had said in a sermon and then in his book, which is the title of the podcast:  Unhitching Christianity from the Old Testament?  At the time of this writing (Thursday), it had been viewed 47,128 times.  Watching the debate could be very helpful, but I want to add another disclaimer.

What Stanley asserts is wrong.  As you watch the debate, you can see Durbin undo Stanley and put to rest his position.  Stanley hardly debates.  This is a somewhat complicated issue, partly because of the false teaching that is out there.  I would not fellowship with Durbin and he uses a modern version to argue.  However, I agree with everything that Durbin says.  As far as a doctrinal position, I didn't hear anything from Durbin that I thought was wrong, and Stanley is very, very wrong, and it would take awhile to break down all the damage that believing Stanley would do.  Durbin, however, eviscerates Stanley, using scripture to do it.  It is a helpful subject to understand, first, to understand a biblical position on apologetics, what is referred to as presuppositionalism, which was defended, and, second, to elaborate on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.

I don't know Durbin enough to explain how he goes off the rails with the practice of scripture.  I'm guessing, he fails at biblical application, and isn't consistent on how his own doctrine should affect how his church grows.  He and his church are worldly.  I hadn't heard of Durbin until I saw him with James White in the last year.  This debate showed up when I clicked on my youtube app, because it knows what kind of thing I might want to watch.  Durbin is not consistent in this application and practice of scripture, even according to what he espouses in this debate, but what he says is good, right on, and confronts Stanley very well.

Stanley and Durbin don't discuss their view of grace, but antinomianism proceeds from Stanley's view.  The detachment from the law leads to cheap grace, the so-called "scandalous" grace that I've written on a few times in recent months.  The grace of God serves like a garbage can to sin.  This itself is not saving grace.

One more thing.  What Durbin says about scripture contradicts the Durbin and White position on the preservation of scripture, and, therefore, their apologetics with Moslems, something I wrote about here in the last month in a posting of an interview of Pooyan Mehrshahi.  Presuppositional apologetics starts with what scripture says about itself to come to a conclusion on the text of scripture, what and how it was preserved.  Durbin and White, against their own defended apologetic, do not start with the authority of scripture about itself.  Like Stanley says that events are a basis of faith, Durbin and White say the same in their defense of a critical text.

Friday, June 14, 2019

Israel in the Land of Canaan: Perfect Spot to be a Light to the Nations

The nation of Israel, in the land of Canaan, was God's institution for His worship, for passing on the truth about the coming Messiah, and for preaching the gospel to the nations both in picture through the sacrificial system and through direct calls to the nations to repentance and faith in Christ in texts such as: "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.  Blessed are all they that put their trust in him" (Psalm 2:12); see Truth from the Torah here for more information).  Have you ever thought about the location in which God put the land of Canaan in relation to His purpose that Israel be a light to the nations?

The location of Israel was perfect for reaching Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Near East.  It was also the center of international trade routes.  Have you thought about how much less effective of a location the nation would have had if God had put it, say, in Madagascar?

Fairbairn comments as follows:

Proceeding, however, to a closer view of the subject, we notice, first, the region actually selected for a possession of an inheritance to the covenant people. The land of Canaan occupied a place in the ancient world that entirely corresponded with the calling of such a people. It was of all lands the best adapted for a people who were at once to dwell in comparative isolation, and yet were to be in a position for acting with effect upon the other nations of the world. Hence it was said by Ezekiel1 to have been “set in the midst of the countries and the nations” the umbilicus terrarum. In its immediate vicinity lay both the most densely-peopled countries and the greater and more influential states of antiquity,—on the south, Egypt, and on the north and east, Assyria and Babylon, the Medes and the Persians. Still closer were the maritime states of Tyre and Sidon, whose vessels frequented every harbor then known to navigation, and whose colonies were planted in each of the three continents of the old world. And the great routes of inland commerce between the civilized nations of Asia and Africa lay either through a portion of the territory itself, or within a short distance of its borders. Yet, bounded as it was on the west by the Mediterranean, on the south by the desert, on the east by the valley of the Jordan with its two seas of Tiberias and Sodom, and on the north by the towering heights of Lebanon, the people who inhabited it might justly be said to dwell alone, while they had on every side points of contact with the most influential and distant nations. Then the land itself, in its rich soil and plentiful resources, its varieties of hill and dale, of river and mountain, its connection with the sea on one side and with the desert on another, rendered it a kind of epitome of the natural world, and fitted it peculiarly for being the home of those who were to be a pattern people to the nations of the earth. Altogether, it were impossible to conceive a region more wisely selected and in itself more thoroughly adapted, for the purposes on account of which the family of Abraham were to be set apart. If they were faithful to their covenant engagements, they might there have exhibited, as on an elevated platform, before the world the bright exemplar of a people possessing the characteristics and enjoying the advantages of a seed of blessing. And the finest opportunities were at the same time placed within their reach of proving in the highest sense benefactors to mankind, and extending far and wide the interest of truth and righteousness. Possessing the elements of the world’s blessing, they were placed where these elements might tell most readily and powerfully on the world’s inhabitants; and the present possession of such a region was at once an earnest of the whole inheritance, and, as the world then stood, an effectual step towards its realization. Abraham, as the heir of Canaan, was thus also “the heir of the world,” considered as a heritage of blessing.1[1]

Learn from the location in which God put Israel His purposes of grace toward the entire world through His chosen people and His ultimate chosen Servant, the Lord Jesus Christ (Isaiah 42; 53; 61), and the perfection of all the Divine works.

1 Ch. 5:5.
1 Rom. 4:13.
[1] Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture: Viewed in Connection with the Whole Series of the Divine Dispensations, vol. 1 (London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1900), 332–333.

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

The Deliberate, Convenient Ineptitude of Professing Christians at Applying the Lust Passages of Scripture, pt. 2

Part One

Sanctification, the practical outworking of actual salvation, which surely proceeds from justification, Paul characterizes in Romans 6:12:
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Essentially the Apostle Paul is stating the expectation of the reality of true salvation in someone's life, commanding someone to cooperate in practice with what God has already done.  A verse I quoted in part one speaks of this, Galatians 5:24:
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Saved people, "they that are Christ's," "have crucified the flesh with the. . . . lusts."  Sin won't reign in the body of a person where the flesh with its lusts has been crucified.  "Crucified" is aorist tense, so completed action at one point in time.  In Romans 6, this is what Paul said in the previous verse (v. 11):
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
"Reckon" is also translated "count," so count yourself as dead already unto sin.  It only counts if it's real and it's real when it isn't "lust."  This is big.  For further understanding, Ephesians 6:16:
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Someone walking in the Spirit will not fulfill the lust of the flesh.  Romans 8:14 says, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."  In v. 1, same chapter, Paul said, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."  Those with no condemnation, in Christ Jesus, walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, which is that they don't fulfill the lust of the flesh.  Again, saved people don't fulfill the lust of the flesh.

One should assume that we can know what lust is.  I'm saying people do know.  Not obeying lust and not fulfilling lust takes application.  What is lust?

What Is Lust?

I've read several definitions of lust through the years.  Lust itself is sin, but it also isn't sin.  Someone is not to lust.  That is how it is sin.  On the other hand, lust isn't in and of itself particular sins.  Abstaining from lust, which Peter commanded (1 Pet 2:11), is not the same thing as abstaining from particular sins.  Paul said that lust occurs through making provision for the flesh (Romans 13:14). 

Another way to describe "make provision" would be "to indulge."  Lust is a desire that we should not have.  Someone I read said it was a desire untethered to the purity of Christ.  It can be just directed toward the wrong object.  This would relate it to affections not set on things above (Colossians 3:1). The desire comes from indulging ourselves in something.  Consider a classic passage on sin, James 1:14:
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Someone is going to sin when he is first drawn away of his own lust.  Paul commanded Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:22, "Flee youthful lusts."  That is a command.  Lusts are to be fled.  When one is being drawn away by lust, that is something he defeats by first separating from the source.  The world is offering objects that draw someone to them and not to God.  Allowing ones self to succumb to these desires becomes addiction.  Instead of God controlling, the desire or the thing desired controls.  In 1 Corinthians 6:12, Paul writes:
[A]ll things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Something may be lawful for a believer, but except for Jesus Christ, it must not take power over a believer.  Allowing the draw is forbidden, I'm saying.

Applying Lust Passages to Music

I googled the words, "lustful music."  I had not done it before, but I assumed results, and there were 16,200 of them.  The words "lust music" brought 35,200 results.  These aren't mainly Christian sites mentioning this music.  The world produces lustful music and lust music.  The world wants the music to be popular, so it makes the music addictive with targeting the flesh.  It doesn't do that in so many words, but that is what the world does.  Satan uses the world to do this, and there is where we get the world, the flesh, and the devil working in harmony.

Fleshly music, music that appeals to lust, is very dangerous to a Christian.  It is addictive.  I know many people, professing Christians, who started to listen to the world's music, and they couldn't get victory then in their Christian life.  It's possible they were never saved in the first place, so they don't have power over the flesh and over lust (see first part of article).

A common answer from professing Christians and even church leaders is that the Bible does't tell us what lustful or lust music is, so this evaluation is going beyond what scripture says.  Just the opposite, scripture is profitable for correction and instruction for everything in life, including music.  Scripture applies to music.  A related argument is that some Christians listen to this lustful or lust music and they still live a good Christian life.  I don't think it is a good argument, because I think it is possible, but it's still wrong to do.

Just seeing and hearing, righteous Lot vexed his righteous soul (2 Peter 2:8).  This matches what Peter says earlier in 1 Peter 2:11 with fleshly lust warring against one's soul.  Even if lust doesn't wipe out a Christian life, it wars against the Christian life.  Bad music appeals to the flesh.  Acceding to that appeal is a wrong precedent for a Christian.  This alone doesn't please God.  It is of the flesh and not of the Spirit.

The reformer, Martin Luther, whom I'm not giving an endorsement by merely quoting him, wrote (from Luther's preface to the Chorgesangbuch (1524) of Johann Walter (1496-1570)):
Young people. . .  should and must receive an education in music as well as in the other arts if we are to wean them away from carnal and lascivious songs and interest them in what is good and wholesome.
I use that quote because it is a commonly understood matter, that there are "carnal and lascivious songs."  To put all this in a very simple way, carnality doesn't blend with Christlikeness.  To live godly one must mortify "inordinate affections" (Colossians 3:5), which is the same word, epithumia, translated "lust" everywhere else.

One application I'm making here is stop listening to carnal music.  That is not fleeing youthful lust.  That is not mortifying inordinate affection.  That is being drawn away of lust.  That not abstaining from fleshly lust.  That is sin.  It is not led by the Spirit, but by the flesh.  It isn't saved behavior.  It's even worse if this is being played and sung in the church, but it shouldn't be listened to by believers.  It is not a "common grace" as I've read by certain evangelicals.  Grace is not an occasion to the flesh (Galatians 5:11).

I could go further with entertainment.  Christian need to apply the lust passages to entertainment.  However, even before I go there, I've got to write more about carnal (lustful) music.

More to Come

Monday, June 10, 2019

The Deliberate, Convenient Ineptitude of Professing Christians at Applying the Lust Passages of Scripture

The Bible doesn't say what lust is.  It assumes we know, because we do know.  Not knowing is either blindness or feigning ignorance.  Blindness or feigned ignorance won't work in the end with God.  He knows we know.  People can understand and apply the passages on lust.  They don't want to give up their lust.  I'm asserting a deliberate, convenient ineptitude of professing Christians at applying the lust passages of scripture.

Application of scripture itself is taking a hit.  This last week, I listened to a panel discussion among FBFI leadership on "The Fundamentals," which is now a synopsis of the discussion in transcript form.  The following are the pertinent sections I ask you to consider:
Hankins: When you come back to what would be primary points of concern now, I can think of two important issues. We need a theological articulation of a right view and practice of worship and the same concerning worldliness. We need a theological articulation of the nature of worldliness and what characterizes it. This seems to be a watershed issue to me. 
Schaal: The advent of American popular culture took worship that had been consistent for millennia and turned it upside down. It took worship outside its normal and commonly accepted bounds, and now we are forced to define what aberrant worship looks like. 
Hankins: I think we have been at that point for several decades now. I might be missing something, but I do not think we have gotten the job done of articulating the theology of worship and the practices that should grow out of it.
Later they continue on this theme:
Schaal: So, back to the issue of worship. Is worship a bigboundary issue? 
Shumate: There are two questions. In principle, is it? And second, how do you apply it? Worldliness and ungodliness in worship is a very serious issue. 
Bauder: Worship includes doctrine (orthodoxy) and having our practices right (orthopraxy), it also includes loving God rightly (orthopathy). 
Schaal: Having our passions right. 
Bauder: Yes. Loving God wrongly becomes a boundary-level issue if someone or something is subverting our love of God sufficiently gravely. 
Shumate: I think worship clearly is a big-boundary issue. After all, what is idolatry but a false worship? It was having an altar to Baal and an altar to Yahweh in the same courtyard and mixing those together. There is a great deficiency theologically in defining what idolatry is all about. We have a shallow understanding of idolatry.
I watched the original discussion on video, which they've cleaned up to turn into an article.  The vital verbiage I recognize as included in the transcript.  The tell-tale expression from what I pasted, I believe, came from Shumate:  "In principle, is it?  And second, how do you apply it?"

So far some fundamentalists and others are willing to agree on the first part, that worldliness in worship occurs in principle, and in principle fundamentalists are against it.  The rub comes in the application.  What is worldly music?  This is what Hankins further above calls a "theological articulation of the nature of worldliness and what characterizes it" (emphasis mine).  If you can't know what worldliness in worship is, then you can't expose it, separate from it, or stop it.

A, if not the, chief characteristic or attribute of the things of the world from the things of God is lust, like John writes in 1 John 2:16-17:
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.  And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
Worldliness corresponds to or smacks of the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes, which passes away.  The "passing away" is described in Revelation 18:14:
And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.
Further down in the same chapter of Revelation, John writes:
And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee.
Some of what souls lusted after, that are departed from them in the end, are the voice of harpers, musicians, pipers, and trumpeters.  This is not the end of all music, just the world's music.  It will end because God rejects it, had already rejected, despite its acceptance by people who call themselves Christians.  Godly music will continue.  The above panel is saying in essence that we know the lust is wrong, but we're not saying exactly what that is, because we haven't articulated that.  It isn't communicated in the discussion even though the panel is agreeing that it is a fundamental boundary of Christianity itself.

Since worldliness is lust, worldliness is wrong and worldliness must be rejected, then lust can be understood, characterized, and identified.  This is the application of the lust passages of scripture.  Church leaders and churches haven't been doing it.  It's not just a matter of articulation, but also enforcement.  Churches and their leaders won't enforce what scripture teaches on lust.  They've treated the subject like it is too uncertain, so that they would be wrong to do anything about it.

It's worse.  Churches and church leaders have used lust to entice for the purpose of promoting and sustaining membership.  The FBFI leaders are discussing whether this is a boundary issue, which means separation from those churches.  Will they call this a "gospel issue"?  The Apostle John makes it a boundary issue, but will those who call themselves fundamentalists?

In Romans 13:14, the Apostle Paul writes:
But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
This verse can be applied and is especially applied in music and entertainment.  Listening to or watching much of the world's music and entertainment is in fact making provision for the flesh and fulfilling the lust thereof.  Why?  The Apostle Peter commands in 1 Peter 2:11:  "abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul."  Earlier in the same epistle, he writes:  "As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance."  The Apostle Paul further teaches first in Galatians 5:24 and then in Titus 2:11-12:
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.
Christians of the past were discerning of what I'm writing here.  They made application to crucifying the flesh with the affections and lusts, and denying ungodliness and worldly lusts.  Peter Masters, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, has written and preached on this subject, decrying the state of churches all around the world and their capitulation in this area.
Young people are encouraged to feel the very same sensational nervous impact of loud rhythmic music on the body that they would experience in a large, worldly pop concert, complete with replicated lighting and atmosphere. At the same time they reflect on predestination and election. Worldly culture provides the bodily, emotional feelings, into which Christian thoughts are infused and floated. Biblical sentiments are harnessed to carnal entertainment. . . . When you look at their ‘favourite films’, and ‘favourite music’ you find them unashamedly naming the leading groups, tracks and entertainment of debased culture, and it is clear that the world is still in their hearts. Years ago, such brethren would not have been baptised until they were clear of the world, but now you can go to seminary, no questions asked, and take up a pastorate, with unfought and unsurrendered idols in the throne room of your life. What hope is there for churches that have under-shepherds whose loyalties are so divided and distorted?
Very often today I hear Christian leaders, who are even sympathetic with what I'm writing here, say that this application of lust passages to be very "difficult."  I understand the statements.  They might not say what is difficult about it.  What is difficult, I've found, is that people don't want to give up their lusts, which have become even their addictions.  I don't think or believe that it is difficult to apply lust passages.  We can know what is fleshly lust or worldly lust to make not provision for it or abstain from it.

People make a choice.  They either choose the Lord Jesus Christ or they choose lust.  To say that those do not contradict is now fashionable in a majority of professing Christianity.  They can both have Jesus and their lusts.  It isn't true though.

What occurs when lust and Jesus are syncretized is the shaping of a different Jesus in the imagination.  Churches today are responsible for doing this through their worship, which is false worship.  This syncretization is akin to what Aaron did at the bottom of Mt. Sinai and what Jeroboam did in the newly formed Northern Kingdom of Israel.  People have the name of God and of Jesus, but they have shaped a different God and Jesus through syncretizing lust with the name of God and of Jesus.  People then worship a different Jesus and in a short time have a different Jesus, a different one than who can and will save them.  This is how false worship changes the gospel.

In my title, I've said a deliberate, convenient ineptitude exists among professing Christians.  I'm saying they are not inept.  I'm saying they choose ineptness.  It's deliberate.  It's also convenient, because staying inept allows for the perpetuation of the lust.  This is an addiction.  They shape a Jesus that accepts the addiction.  He doesn't exist, but they still worship "him."  This is in fact worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator.  The Creator Himself contradicts the lust.

I haven't myself made specific application of the lust passages of scripture in this post.  I think people know.  I'm not saying they aren't deceived.  They are.  The more they feed their lust, the more that their conscience is seared or salved and stops warning of this lust.  At one time, they rejected the fleshly and worldly lust.  They have continued past the warning of the conscience until they don't hear it anymore.  That is how they are deceived.

Furthermore, the feelings of the lust are confused with the workings of the Holy Spirit.  A feeling proceeding from lust is considered to be an interaction with the Holy Spirit.  Churches offer lust through the music and what people feel, they think is God.  This is akin to what occurred in the Babylonian mysticism of the false worship in Ephesus and Corinth.  Ecstasy, tied into lust even to the extent of temple prostitute activities, is seen as an encounter with God.  This is common today in churches.  They think they have an intimacy with God, but it's actually just their lust.

The condition on the ground among professing Christians in their lack of applying the lust passages is far worse than what I'm describing in this post.  They listen to and watch almost everything and treat it like it is neutral.  They are not applying scripture and, therefore, they are disobeying scripture.  At the same time, they profess to be a Christian.  Many, if not most of them, are not Christians.  The two can't coexist.  Teaching, assuming, or accepting that they do coexist confuses people in the most fundamental way, fooling them into thinking they are followers of Jesus, when they are not.


I'm going to go further in applying the lust passages.  This is an introduction.  I ask that you watch Scott Aniol's sermon at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in March.  I agree completely with what he says here.  You'll have to follow the link, but I'm going to see if I can post the sermon here below. 

Saturday, June 08, 2019

The Trip to Europe Continued (Twenty-Fifth Post In Total)

One   Two   Three   Four   Five   Six   Seven   Eight   Nine   Ten   Eleven   Twelve   Thirteen  Fourteen   Fifteen   Sixteen   Seventeen   Eighteen   Nineteen   Twenty   Twenty-One   Twenty-Two   Twenty-Three   Twenty-Four

The Allies landed on the beaches of Normandy in an invasion of Europe on June 6, 1944.  This week marked the 75th anniversary of D-Day, the beginning of the end for the Axis powers in Europe.   Less than a year earlier, on June 20, 2018, Tuesday, I left our apartment in Mountrouge and walked to a car rental business, a Europcar that was in the basement of a parking garage in the Jules-Noël Sports Center there.  Car rental and driving was a greater adventure in England, but France presented its own challenges.

I picked up the car that morning right when the car rental opened and drove it to the front of the apartment to pick up the family and began our drive to the American Cemetery at Normandy.  Almost all of the trip was on a toll road that looked similar to an American one.  I found it hard to gauge the speed limit on these freeways.  The tolls are paid mostly with coinage and sometime a window with a person in it, who does not understand English.  If you are ever making that trip, you better get the proper coinage figured out to put into the machine.  Some of them will take credit cards, but I also found that the credit card wouldn't work on some of these.  The French are not, I repeat not, in general sympathetic to Americans.  Maybe it's everybody they don't like, but one can get the distinct impression that they do not like Americans.

As multicultural as the United States. as leftist as it is in France, France isn't multicultural.  The French like their language and and their culture.  I don't like a lot about it, but it is a culture that the French have, a unique one.  I'm reporting only what I saw.  I'll write more about it.  I don't think I went into it with a bias toward the French.  When we visited the church on Sunday morning, I was blessed to see what I believed to be true conversions and a genuine evangelistic effort there.

It was about a three hour trip by car from Montrouge to the cemetery.  If I was going to compare the northern coast of France to anything that I knew in the United States, it would be closer to parts of the East coast of the Middle Atlantic states than the West coast.  With the time that we had to get there and back in one day, we decided to do two things.  We would visit the American Cemetery and then Omaha Beach, which is right underneath the cemetery, down the bluff.

I've been into military cemeteries.  I've been to burials in military cemeteries.  I've visited Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, D.C., Gettysburg National Cemetery where Lincoln gave his speech, and then the military cemetery at West Point.  Nothing moved me like the American cemetery.  The presentation in the museum there was very good.

There is a lot of parking at the cemetery, but there aren't normally a lot of people there to visit, because it's an American cemetery in France.  Mostly people visit from the United States, and it isn't easy to get there.  There are also lots of places to tour around Normandy, several museums and various cemeteries.  Someone could spend weeks there just looking at D-Day related sites.  I can tell you only about the two sites we saw.

We walked first to the cemetery building, which was the museum.  The museum gives an excellent presentation of what happened on D-Day.  It is very well organized to put the events in chronological order.   At the end is a small theater with a very well done film that is very emotional.  I cried all through the museum.
When we left the museum, we walked out to the cemetery, which is kept in immaculate condition.  There are grave stones mostly in the form of crosses, made out of a unique marble.  The rows are so, so straight.  The order and symmetry in themselves, green fields filled with white crosses, moves.  We caught up with a tour that starts with a large map that overlooks the beach below and out onto the English channel.  You can imagine everything from that vantage point.  Then we walked to the variious memorials there and our tour guide, a French woman, who spoke excellent English with an a French accent, talked at every point.  She stopped at certain crosses and told stories about the one whose body rests there.  Tears continued to run with her talk and the sites all around us.

We went back to our car and drove down to the beach and parked there.  There is a memorial on Omaha beach.  There are some symbolic metal objects there.  Besides that, it's just a beach.  It's like someone talking about ground where some major event occurred.  The ground itself is hallowed by the men who died there.  That's the feeling I had even though it was an ordinary beach.
We drove the three hours back and I was able to drop off my family and return the rental car that evening, then walk back to our apartment.  We ate that night at the restaurant on the first floor.  The next day we would visit the Palace of Versailles and the Eiffel Tower.

Friday, June 07, 2019

Jessie Penn-Lewis: Spirit-Baptized Woman Preacher (part 3 of 22)

Mrs. Penn-Lewis soon became “a fluent and powerful” woman preacher in “open air” meetings connected with Evan Hopkins’s assembly,[1] although because of a difficult ministry experience she “would have cracked” without the stabilizing influence of some other women.[2]  Also, opposition because of “her unorthodox views . . . caused [her great] pain.”[3]  Nonetheless, throughout her life she regularly preached in congregations, conventions, and settings of the most varied kinds to both men and women,[4] despite “strong prejudice based upon misunderstanding of Paul’s” prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15,[5] but in accordance with the Quaker practice of “encouraging women to be ministers.”[6]  Generally, “the pastors [were] strongly opposed,”[7] but women were to reject pastoral counsel, receive women preachers anyway, and preach themselves; many did,[8]  being “faithful to the power of the Lord” against their “local clergym[e]n, who said women should not speak at meetings.”[9]  Penn-Lewis knew that Paul did not really mean to prohibit women preaching to men when he wrote:  “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church,” and “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”  Rather, Penn-Lewis knew that “Psalm lxviii 11-12 (see R. V.) must surely have been a prophecy of these days in which we live,” proving that women in the New Testament dispensation are “to prophesy and preach”[10] to men, although nothing of the sort is in view in the psalm if one adopts a grammatical-historical interpretation of the Hebrew text, the Authorized Version, or even the Revised Version to which Penn-Lewis refers.  However, “God had given her the text of a ‘new translation’ of [the] Psalm.”[11]  Soon after beginning her public work, she “saw that [she] should know the Holy Spirit as a Person . . . through reading Andrew Murray’s Spirit of Christ,” leading her to a variety of special spiritual experiences, although she testified, “I could not understand why it made so little difference in my service . . . [i]n these respects [of serving Christ in different ways], I was just the same as before, until, some three years later,” she received a “Baptism of the Spirit for service.”[12]  She later was able to meet “Mr. Murray” and have “a long talk” with him, “the first contact of a fellowship in God which deepened into a bond in the Spirit between [their] two souls.”[13]  Their continuing friendship is evident from, for example, the fact that Andrew Murray wrote a preface to the Dutch edition of Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s book The Cross of Calvary and Its Message[14] and that she led various groups of people in studies on spiritual life based on Murray’s writings.[15]  Those who translated Murray’s writings often translated hers as well.[16]
Mrs. Penn-Lewis also employed other texts that do not, literally interpreted, prove her point about women preachers, such as Joel 2 and Acts 21:9.[17]  In her argument for women preachers from the Spirit baptism text in Joel 2, Penn-Lewis follows the argumentation of Phoebe Palmer, the Methodist woman preacher with a Quaker background who made that passage central to her case for women preachers, [18] as well as popularizing the connection between the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification and Spirit baptism, in which she had the help of Asa Mahan.[19]  Palmer’s “work quickly extended beyond Methodism into a large number of Protestant denominations, helping to fuel interest in Christian perfection, holiness and ‘the higher Christian life’ throughout much of English-speaking Protestantism.”[20]  Her views of Spirit baptism and entire sanctification “largely defined the ‘holiness revival’ or ‘holiness movement’ that grew from her work and that of other proponents of Christian perfection, Christian holiness and the higher Christian life. . . . In England, Palmer introduced her ideas during an extended preaching tour between 1859 and 1863. Later, other American revivalists, notably Robert Pearsall Smith and his wife Hannah Whitall Smith, and Asa Mahan, followed up her visit, preaching versions of her theology throughout the British Isles. Their work led directly to the organization of the Keswick Conventions and the ongoing Keswick ‘Higher Life’ Movement among British evangelicals . . . [and] also influenced modern Pentecostal and charismatic movements. . . . [I]t is clear that her emphasis on Pentecost and the baptism with the Holy Spirit and her interpretation of the early chapters of Acts . . . laid the groundwork for much modern Pentecostal and charismatic thinking.”[21]  Naturally, Mrs. Palmer was a continuationist, as her preaching of post-conversion Spirit baptism and perfectionism led to “trances, visions, sleeps, dreams, and miracles.”[22]  Interestingly, her husband was a homeopathic physician,[23] supplying another strand in the web that connects the pagan ideas of the nineteenth century Mind and Faith Cure movement to the healing theology of the twentieth century Pentecostal and Word of Faith movements.


The following are the parts of this series:

Jessie Penn-Lewis: Keswick and Welsh Revivalist, Quaker and Freemason (part 1 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Conversion (?) and Higher Life (part 2 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Spirit-Baptized Woman Preacher (part 3 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Keswick Faith Healer (part 4 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: the Christ-Life and Quietism (part 5 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Her Inspired Writings (part 6 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Inspired Woman Preacher (part 7 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: her mystical false god (part 8 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Worldwide Keswick Impact  (part 9 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Welsh Revival and Pentecostal Preparation (part 10 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: War on the Saints (part 11 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Christians Demon Possessed (part 12 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Warfare Prayer and the 1914 partial Rapture (part 13 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Binding Satan (part 14 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Binding and Loosing (part 15 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: “My Demon Possession Key to My Keswick Teaching” (part 16 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Inspired “Truth” on Demon Possession (part 17 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Throne Life / Power and the Higher Life (part 18 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis: Soul Force, Only the Human Spirit Regenerated, And Other Bizarre Foolishness (part 19)
Jessie Penn-Lewis and Evan Roberts: Applications From Their Lives and Doctrines, I (part 20 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis and Evan Roberts: Applications From Their Lives and Doctrines, II (part 21 of 22)
Jessie Penn-Lewis and Evan Roberts: Applications From Their Lives and Doctrines, III (part 22 of 22)

[1]              Pg. 10, Jessie Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Garrard.
[2]              Pg. 13, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[3]              Pg. 41, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[4]              E. g., Jessie Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Garrard, pgs. 77-78, 88-96, 107-109, 130-131, 156-158, 185-187 (in Moody’s church and college, where her influence led to a “revival” where “[a]ll order was dispensed with . . . [s]ome would be praying for pardon, some were singing, and some asking for the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and others for Healing,” pg. 105, The Trials and Triumphs of Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones), 187-188 (A. B. Simpson’s church and the CMA Nyack Institute), 194-196 (1901 Scottish Keswick convention to both men and women, where, as at many Keswick-themed conferences in other parts of her homeland and in many foreign countries, her preaching to men was “blessedly sealed by the Spirit of God,” so that “in after years there was no suggestion of a limited ministry [to women only] whenever [Penn-Lewis] was able to come to Scottish Conventions”), 199, 203, 274, 277 (“the Voice of the Spirit of God” leading her to powerfully preach a misinterpretation of John 12:24 at the Swanwick Conference she started), 286 (many “ministries revolutionized” by the doctrines she preached), 301, Ibid.  She also led meetings where men and women prayed in different languages at the same time in a confusion that clearly violates the pattern set in 1 Corinthians (cf. pg. 80, Jessie Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Garrard; pgs. 53, 57, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones, where a confused meeting was said to be “a forerunner of the Welsh revival.”).  Compare also, for her preaching, pgs. 41 (at Keswick), 45 (leaving her husband behind while she went on preaching tours in various countries), 49-57, 71-74 (pg. 74 records an example, not only of a mixed preaching service, but a special “men-only” service), 86, 97 (“meetings and conventions in Canada and the great northern cities of the United States,”), 103-108, 113, 138-139, 146 (preaching at the Welsh Keswick at Llandrindod and influencing Welsh holiness revival men like Seth Joshua, while “open[ing] up new truths to such key people”), 149, 153, 161-162, 196-197, 232, 235 (where the men handled the simple matters, but she, as one above them, “would step in later to comment on the more complex questions”), 240-241, 259-265, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[5]              Pg. 73, Jessie Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Garrard.
[6]              Pg. 431, “Friends, Society of,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Elwell.
[7]              Pg. 50, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones; cf. pgs. 161-162.
[8]              Compare “God Is Using Women: Opportunities for Women at Keswick,” chap. 8, pgs. 148-166 in  Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present and Future, by Charles Wesley Price and Ian M. Randall.  Carlisle: OM, 2000.
[9]              Pgs. 138-139, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.  Mrs. Penn-Lewis followed her own advice of rejecting pastoral counsel. When, in 1897, even “several Keswick leaders, including her own Vicar [Evan Hopkins], distrusted her teachings as ‘too subjectivist,’” and Hopkins warned her about “a misinterpretation and a misapplication of texts of Scripture,”  rather than submitting to their objections, she “felt the Lord was calling her to publish her messages as a top priority” because she was “[i]solated more and more from former colleagues” (pg. 60, 62, Ibid.).
[10]            Pg. 73, Jessie Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Garrard.
[11]            Pg. 50, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[12]         Pgs. 13-15, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
[13]            Pg. 48, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
[14]            See pgs. 220-221, Garrard; pg. 203, The Overcomer, December 1914.
[15]            Pg. 97, Ibid.
[16]            E. g., pg. 204, Ibid.).
[17]            See pgs. 73-74, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard. (“Keswick and the Higher Life,”
[18]             “Keswick and the Higher Life,”
[19]            “Asa Mahan and the Development of American Holiness Theology,” Donald W. Dayton. Wesleyan Theological Journal 9:1 (Spring 1974) 60-69). 
[20]            pg. 502, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed. Larsen.
[21]            Pgs. 502-503, Ibid. 
[22]            Pg. 66, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Synan.
[23]            Pg. 501, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed. Larsen.