Friday, June 28, 2019

Sing the Nicene Creed in Greek




Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, A. D. 325/381 

(with Filioque) on the holy Trinity

(sung to the tune of “Of the Father’s Heart Begotten”)




Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν
Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ
καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.        

Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ιησοῦν Χριστόν,
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ,
τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα
πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,

θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός,
θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,
γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα,
ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί·

δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο·
τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους
καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν
σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν
καὶ σαρκωθέντα

ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἅγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου
καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, σταυρωθέντα
τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ
Ποντίου Πιλάτου,
καὶ παθόντα

καὶ ταφέντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα
τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς,
καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς,
καὶ καθεζόμενον
ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός,

καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς·
οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. 
[repeat] οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.

Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον,
τὸ κύριον, καὶ τὸ ζωοποιόν,
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν
ἐκπορευόμενον,

τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ
προσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον
τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν· . . . .
Ἀμήν.

I believe in one God
the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven
and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of the Father before all worlds,

God of God, Light of Light,
true God of true God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;

by whom all things were made;
who, for us men
and for our
salvation, came down from heaven,
and was incarnate

by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man; and was crucified
also for us under
Pontius Pilate;
he suffered

and was buried; and he rose again
the third day according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sits
on the right hand of the Father;         

and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge the living and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end,
[repeat] whose kingdom shall have no end.

And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost,
the Lord and Giver of Life;
who . . . from the Father and the Son
proceeds,

who with the Father and the Son
is worshipped and together glorified;
who spake by the Prophets. . . .
Amen.

The text above, while commonly called the Nicene Creed (A. D. 325), is actually the text of the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed of A. D. 381, where a more detailed statement about the Deity of the Holy Spirit was added to the original formulation. Furthermore, the song above only includes the portion of the Creed on the holy Trinity, not the portion of the Creed on ecclesiology and eschatology, which briefly followed.  Also, the Filioque is included in the text above, because the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son as from one principle is the teaching of Scripture.

In addition to the verses of Scripture in Greek I posted about before that we are singing in my first year New Testament or Koine Greek class, we are also singing the glorious Biblical truth contained in this creed in Greek.  I would encourage you, if you are a student or a teacher of the Greek language, to praise the Triune God in the words of this great classic creed as well as praising the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with the New Testament Greek Scripture-songs I posted earlier.  You should be able to see the class singing these verses and this creed in Greek at the beginning or the end of the class lectures on YouTube (as of the time this post was composed, there are still quite a few lectures left to post) or at the appropriate section of the college courses section on my website.

As I pointed out in my class on Trinitarianism, not only the early proto-Catholics but also the ancient Anabaptists held to the same Trinitarianism.  When the Catholics were in power, they used the power of the State to persecute the Arians because they were anti-Trinitarian and also persecuted the Anabaptists because they rejected Catholicism's many false doctrines.  When the Arians were in power, the used the sword of the Roman government against both the Catholics and Anabaptists because they both shared the same Trinitarianism.  Thus, the fact that Biblical ecclesiology is Baptist or Anabaptist, and the type of church Christ founded is Baptist and not Roman Catholic or Protestant is no reason for members of historic Baptist churches to fail to rejoice in the glorious Biblical truths about the Trinity taught in the creeds of the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.

-TDR



[1]           The portion of the creed on ecclesiology and eschatology is omitted in this song.

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Tolkien and Lewis: Preference for Masculine Clothing in Rejection of Dandyism

Speaking of J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis, Humphrey Carpenter writes in J. R. R. Tolkien:  A Biography (Boston:  Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977):
[H]is [Tolkien's] choice of clothes in middle age was also the sign of a dislike of dandyism.  This he shared with C. S. Lewis.  Neither could abide any manner of affectation in dress, which seemed to them to smack of the unmasculine and hence of the objectionable. . . .  [F]undamentally both men had the same attitude to their appearance, an attitude that was shared by many of their contemporaries.  This preference for plain masculine clothing was in part perhaps a reaction to the excessive dandyism and implied homosexuality of the 'aesthetes', who had first made their mark on Oxford in the age of Wilde and whose successors lingered on in the nineteen-twenties and early thirties, affecting delicate shades of garment and ambiguous nuances of manner.  Theirs was a way of life of which Tolkien and the majority of his friends would have none; hence their almost exaggerated  preference for tweed jackets, flannel trousers, nondescript ties, solid brown shoes that were built for country walks, dull-coloured raincoats and hats, and short hair.
As I read that, I thought, "This couldn't be written today."  No one would even say it, let alone in such a matter of fact manner and that was in 1977, which was my sophomore year in high school.  What else does the quotation say?

There is masculine dress.  There is effeminate dress.  People can know and know what masculine and effeminate dress are.

Regarding "dandyism," read the Wikipedia article on "dandy," but in that article, Albert Camus said in L'Homme révolté (1951) that:
The dandy creates his own unity by aesthetic means. But it is an aesthetic of negation. "To live and die before a mirror": that according to Baudelaire, was the dandy's slogan. It is indeed a coherent slogan. The dandy is, by occupation, always in opposition. He can only exist by defiance. Up to now, man derived his coherence from the Creator. But from the moment that he consecrates his rupture from Him, he finds himself delivered over to the fleeting moment, to the passing days, and to wasted sensibility. Therefore he must take himself in hand. The dandy rallies his forces and creates a unity for himself by the very violence of his refusal. Profligate, like all people without a rule of life, he is only coherent as an actor. But an actor implies a public; the dandy can only play a part by setting himself up in opposition. He can only be sure of his own existence by finding it in the expression of others' faces. Other people are his mirror. A mirror that quickly becomes clouded, it's true, since human capacity for attention is limited. It must be ceaselessly stimulated, spurred on by provocation. The dandy, therefore, is always compelled to astonish. Singularity is his vocation, excess his way to perfection. Perpetually incomplete, always on the fringe of things, he compels others to create him, while denying their values. He plays at life because he is unable to live it.
More "men" (of actual biological gender, but perhaps only to varying degrees in practice) than ever are dandies.  No Christian should be a dandy and this at one time was the normal way for a Christian to think, because the opposition to dandyism matches with what scripture teaches about manhood.

When I think the word "dandy," I also remember, Yankee Doodle Dandy, the revolutionary war song.  So what's that all about?  It's not good, which is why it was a popular American song, singing about the British in a derogatory way.  It was a song of defiance from the Americans.  Here are two paragraphs from Wikipedia, that seem to be accurate:
The term Doodle first appeared in English in the early seventeenth century and is thought to be derived from the Low German dudel, meaning "playing music badly", or Dödel, meaning "fool" or "simpleton". The Macaroni wig was an extreme fashion in the 1770s and became slang for being a fop.  Dandies were men who placed particular importance upon physical appearance, refined language, and leisure hobbies. A self-made dandy was a British middle-class man who impersonated an aristocratic lifestyle. They notably wore silk strip cloth, stuck feathers in their hats, and carried two pocket watches with chains—"one to tell what time it was and the other to tell what time it was not". 
The macaroni wig was an example of such Rococo dandy fashion, popular in elite circles in Western Europe and much mocked in the London press. The term macaroni was used to describe a fashionable man who dressed and spoke in an outlandishly affected and effeminate manner. The term pejoratively referred to a man who "exceeded the ordinary bounds of fashion" in terms of clothes, fastidious eating, and gambling.
Some men, professing again to be men without showing the quality, it seems, would rather be a dandy than be a daddy.  They are still playing around with clothes like little girls did with paper dolls when I was a child.  I'm reminded of what the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:11:  "when I became a man, I put away childish things."  It's worse than just childish to be a dandy.

Join Tolkien and Lewis.  Reject dandyism.

Monday, June 24, 2019

2 Peter 2 and John 13: The Relationship Between Lust, Authority, Heresy, and Apostasy

Apostates deny the Lord who bought them (2 Peter 2:1).  Their problem with Jesus is His sovereign lordship, that is, they don't want Him in charge.  Why?  Their lust.  They want what they want, and only what He wants when it's what they want.  On earth in real time, however, they don't clash with Jesus.  Their conflict is with human authorities.

Since Jesus' ascension, Jesus rules on earth through human authorities over all His ordained institutions:  church, home, work, and government.  The apostate may say he doesn't have a problem with Jesus, just the leaders of these human institutions.  Their problem with these leaders most often is their problem with Jesus.  Their Jesus is a rorschach ink blot in which they see whatever Jesus they want to see.  The human leaders are much more concrete and less malleable to their imagination.

2 Peter 2 is a tale of dueling leaders.  On one hand, you see the false teachers making merchandise of the potential or actual apostates, using covetous and feigned words (2 Peter 2:3).  They pander to their victims, offering them what they want in the name of a Jesus.  On the other, you see who are referred to as "government" and "dignities."  "Government" (kuriotes) and "dignities" (doxa, "glory") represent God ordained authorities, those whom God has placed in charge, so representing Him.  2 Peter 2:10 reads:
But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
These are both the false teachers and those who seek or follow them.  Government and dignities conflict with their flesh, their lust, their presumption, and their self-will, characterized as uncleanness.  As a result, they are not afraid to oppose these human authorities through whom the Lord Jesus is ruling.

The authorities Jesus uses could be governmental authorities and the boss at work.  If they get in the way of lust, what these potential or actual apostates want, they will despise them and speak evil of them.  Primarily they are going to clash with parents, especially the father, a husband leading in godliness and sometimes correcting his family, or church leaders who conflict with their lust and confront them over it.  They might not clash with their church leaders anymore if they find new ones who pander to their lust.  Then it might only be the parents that are a problem for them.

I often hear that the new leaders or teachers, akin to those in 2 Peter 2:3, not discouraging the lust of the potential or actual apostates, understand the love of Jesus.  Their new leaders get "relationship."  At the end of John 13 (v. 34), Jesus taught His disciples:
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Jesus taught them to "love one another," and this sounds like relationship, doesn't it?   But Jesus though taught them to love one another, "as I have loved you," that is, love like Jesus loved.  Jesus is that sovereign ruler of 2 Peter 2:1.  His rule is love and His love is rule.  How did Jesus love?  What did Jesus do (WDJD)?  Even in John 13, where Jesus told them to love as He did, the love would clash with the flesh, lust, and self-will.  It provides a microcosm or sample of the Jesus' love about which He speaks at the end of John 13.

In John 13, Jesus conflicted with the disciples again and again, and that's a major component of "as I have loved you" (13:34).  Here's a list from chapter 13 leading up to verse 34, specifics of what Jesus meant by "as I loved you."

  • Jesus washed the disciples feet in John 13 as a repudiation of their disputing over who would be the greatest in His kingdom (parallel passage in Luke 22).
  • Jesus strongly rebukes Peter in John 13:8, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me."
  • Jesus corrects again Peter's error in John 13:10, " He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all" -- Jesus didn't just "let it go."
  • Jesus reminded the disciples that He was greater than them in authority, He their Master and they His servant, so that they should be servants (13:13-16).
  • Jesus announces that one of them would betray Him (13:21).
  • Jesus sent out or removed one of them, Judas (13:27).
  • Jesus refutes Peter by saying that he will deny Jesus three times (13:37).
This was typical behavior of Jesus.  He let no error go by.  He didn't fail at telling the truth.  He expected His followers to do what He said, He was their Master and they were His servant.

This Master to servant relationship with Jesus, I've found over my 32 years of pastoring and speaking to thousands of people, to be the most offensive aspect of the gospel.  This is how Jesus loved.  This love, the actual relationship of Jesus with His followers, conflicts with the lust of pseudo followers, who choose their imaginary rorschach Jesus, the one also pushed on them by false teachers described in 2 Peter 2.

2 Peter 3 says those "walking after their own lusts" are "scoffers."  They scoff at authority, what Jude calls, "despise dominion" (Jude 1:8), which is the same Greek word translated "government" in 2 Peter 2:10.  It is essentially lordship.  Apostates don't want a boss, because it conflicts with their lust, their desires.

In my title, I included the word, "heresy."  "Hereticks" are factious, and their problem is with authority, either the human authority challenging them with the Word of God or with the Word of God itself.  It is why the authority of scripture is attacked by apostates (2 Peter 1:16).  Their diversion from orthodox doctrine very often coordinates with their lust.  They very often don't like what they might call "organized religion," and what they mean is the authority there.  They don't want to fit in, submit.  They prefer the loose relationship of self-defined "community" with so-called love that isn't "as Jesus loved," but according to their own lusts, their self-will.  Heresy arises from self-will against the will and Word of God.

By "relationship," the potential or actual apostate often means "acceptance" and "toleration," not service to the Master.  On the ground, the problem is with a husband, father, or pastor, but the real problem is with Jesus, because this is how Jesus rules on the earth today.  For instance, Jesus is the Head of the church, but He uses the pastor to head the church.  Submission to Jesus is submission to the godly leadership of a pastor of one of His churches.  Using the correction of a godly pastor, husband, or father is how Jesus is loving, and those rebelling against that correction are rebelling against His love.  They are not loving like Jesus loved, even while their lips are saying, "love."  This is akin to Isaiah 29:13, "with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me."

As I've written in my recent series on "lust" (3 parts, and on relationship, 13 parts), the Word of God is depreciated in consideration of lust.  The purposeful unwillingness, feigned as inability, to apply scripture proceeds from the service to one's own desires.  This is the rejection of God's authority, which is self-will and then resultant uncleanness.  Scripture says love, but a counterfeit love is the deceit.  It is acceptance, toleration, and sentimentalism again to accommodate lust.  Correction, reproof, and telling the truth are labeled unloving and the enemy of community or relationship, even though they are loving as Jesus loved.  This is a rejection of Jesus Christ for a counterfeit Jesus compatible with lust.

(HT to Bobby Mitchell, interaction through talk and preaching at recent conference at Mid-Coast Baptist Church, Brunswick, Maine)

Friday, June 21, 2019

Jessie Penn-Lewis: Keswick Faith Healer (part 4 of 22)


Penn-Lewis also discovered, after staying at Bethshan, Boardman’s faith-cure “House of Rest,”[1] the doctrine of healing espoused by Asa Mahan, William Boardman, and Andrew Murray, learning “what it meant to take [Christ’s] life and strength for [the] body when needed for His service.”[2]  Shortly after adopting the Faith Cure doctrine, she began seeking a “Spirit baptism” of the sort “Finney and Asa Mahan”[3] experienced, and, not able to figure out whether or not the Bible taught their doctrine,[4] set aside the Word of God and all “books” of theology to simply pray until God revealed directly to her what she could not figure out by means of the Bible that is “more sure” than even His audible voice (2 Peter 1:16-21).  Through a vision and “revelation” where she saw a “hand holding up in terrible light a handful of filthy rags” and heard what was allegedly God’s voice, she adopted what became an influential Keswick doctrine of crucifixion with Christ and the central aspect of her later preaching and writing, based on a misinterpretation of Romans 6, and as a result of receiving that crucifixion doctrine by revelation, she also received the kind of baptism that Finney and Mahan had experienced.[5]

She further explained, in continuity with the Keswick healing doctrine stretching from Boardman through to Simpson, Murray, Nee, and many others, that she was “healed . . . when the Baptism of the Spirit came . . . in 1892 . . . when there came to me that revolution in Christian life which can only be described as a ‘Baptism of the Spirit’ . . . [and which] enabled [me], physically, to endure and to accomplish labour . . . beyond both natural and physical powers,”[6] since the believer’s co-crucifixion with Christ gives him both spiritual victory over sin and Satan and physical healing.  Penn-Lewis wrote:
If you have learned the inner life of victory . . . you . . . have in union with Christ . . . life and healing for soul and body. . . . [It is the weak Christian] who is not able to trust beyond the use of means for recovery[.] . . . Isaiah said, “By His stripes we are healed.” . . . I got the inside clue [when] . . . I saw this Hebrew rendering . . . “IN HIS HEALED WOUNDS THERE IS HEALING FOR US!” . . . [J]ust as we are “crucified together with Him,” and share in His victory over sin and Satan, so in a still deeper sense “crucified with Him” when we stand in victory over sin and Satan, the life of Jesus ministered by the Holy Spirit indwelling the spirit, can heal the bruised and broken bodies of all who thus by faith apprehend their identification and union with Him . . . as I stand in identification with His death, the VERY LIFE that healed Him, which comes to me as I am joined to Him in spirit, can heal my broken body . . . It is “identification” again, with Him in His death, and a deeper appropriation of His Risen and healing life. . . . [H]ealing . . . is all for each believer in the finished work of Calvary.[7]

Thus, bodily healing is part of the Christian’s inheritance for today and also a product of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so that the truly spiritual Christian will reject medicine for the Faith Cure; Penn-Lewis bore her “testimony to the truth of Matt. viii. 17, and Rom. viii. 11” and “st[ood] by faith upon these Divine facts,”[8] for “[h]ealing is part of the finished work of Calvary[,] [and] ‘In His healed wounds there is healing for us[.]’ . . . The same life-power that healed and restored His broken body can heal and quicken my broken body.”[9]  Consequently, “on the basis of Romans Six you may put in your claim for the healing of any bodily disease.”[10]  One simply “definitively drop[s] [one’s] ‘body’ at the Cross” and then becomes “quite well” as Christ’s bodily life then begins to flow into the person who has entered the Higher Life;[11]  healing comes by “taking the Risen Life of the Crucified Christ to quicken the mortal body,”[12] since “diseases spr[i]ng from inward soul sicknesses such as lust and anger . . . [and] deliverance and victory over the soul’s imprisoning passions was a part of Christ’s victory on the Cross.”[13]  Evan Roberts exercised this healing ability on himself, so that he was “bubbling over with joy and shouting about his wonderful new body that had become strong by faith,” delivered from “nine years” of sickness—delivered, that is, at least for a few hours, since “twenty four hours later he was knocked out completely with strain” and continued to be as ill as before.[14]  Similarly, “fellow-Welshman, Stephen Jeffries, in the early stages of his ‘Faith healing’ that caused scores of conversions in South Wales . . . became a celebrated figure in London,” at least until “some of the healed people testified that they had not been healed permanently.”[15]  Such a loss of the effectiveness of a Keswick healing had an explanation, however; just as the Higher Life will spiritually be lost by ceasing to maintain the decisive act of faith, so bodily healing is lost whenever one ceases to maintain faith,[16] in radical discontinuity with the type of healing practiced by Christ and the Apostles.  In further discontinuity with the truly miraculous healings recorded in the Bible, which brought about actual and perfect physical deliverance from disease, Mrs. Penn-Lewis’ “healing” at the time of her alleged Spirit baptism left her with “large cavities” in her lungs which were from thenceforth in perpetual danger of “active disease,”[17] and she continued to endure terrible “ill-health and suffering”[18] and “constant poor health and much pain”[19] for the rest of her life as “the lung weakness” grew ever the “more manifest.”[20]  The poor woman suffered from “bouts of pleurisy and neurasthenia . . . weeks of asthmatic attacks and hypertension . . . weeks each year . . . plagued with chills, migraines, and bronchial attacks, which left her too exhausted to think . . . pneumonia [that left her] just a shadow of herself . . . pain and helpless weakness . . . over-straine[d] heart . . . recurrent flu . . . enforced convalescence . . . serious hemorrhage . . . almost fatal illness . . . [and other] sicknesses for forty years.”[21]  Her doctor told her, “Your lungs have been weak ever since I have known you—now 30 years or more,”[22] and she lived in “constant expectation of a ‘final release’ from her pain-racked body.”[23]  Finally she died, with work she felt she still had left to do,[24] although she had taught that, because of “the fifth to the eight [sic] of Romans,” she “expected to be enabled for full service in all the will of God until the Lord comes.”[25]  She did not, however, manage to live until the Lord came, or even until all the work she thought she was supposed to do was accomplished—instead, she died just like people who did not share her revelatory insight into Romans.  However, there were other explanations for her continuing and severe illnesses, and for her death, than that her Keswick doctrine of healing was erroneous; for example, when she suffered three serious attacks of pneumonia in 1926-1927, each time being “brought very near the gates of death,” and each one leaving “her weaker in body,” until, at length, she actually died in 1927 at the age of 67, her ill health was not because of a false doctrine of healing, but because, in line with the teaching at the Broadlands Conference[26] and later Keswick meetings, by getting pneumonia she was enduring “the ‘fellowship of the sufferings of Christ . . . for His Body’s sake, the Church,’ which made it difficult for the physical frame to respond to the life which the Risen Lord was ready to give.”[27]  Those who are skeptical of her extra-biblical revelations and doctrines, instead of accepting such an excuse as valid, would rather greatly pity both her severe bodily sufferings and her continuing Keswick Faith-Cure delusion. 

-TDR


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. 16, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
[2]              Pg. 17, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.  She records an instance where Murray’s doctrine allegedly worked to cure a cold on pgs. 101-102, Ibid.
[3]              Pg. 24, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
[4]              The Bible certainly does not teach the Finney/Mahan doctrine of Spirit baptism.  See the appendix “Spirit Baptism: A Completed Historical Event. An Exposition and Defense of the Historic Baptist View of Spirit Baptism.”
[5]              Pgs. 18-29, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
[6]              Pg. 183, “An Autobiographical Sketch,” The Overcomer magazine, ed. Jessie Penn-Lewis, December 1914.
[7]              “Experimental Difficulties,” pgs. 186-187, Overcomer, 1911.  Capitalization and italics retained from the original.  It is not clear who Mrs. Penn-Lewis received her unusual “Hebrew rendering” from, for the Hebrew text is properly rendered “with his stripes we are healed,” as in the Authorized Version, while the rendering that gave Mrs. Penn-Lewis the “inside clue” is a corruption of the passage.  Note her very clear identification of the Higher Life for the spirit and the Higher Life for the body, the Keswick theology and the Faith Cure.
[8]              Pg. 264, Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Garrard.  However, she also affirmed that a certain kind of bodily weakness can assist one in prayer and thus may be spiritually beneficial.  Perhaps she made this affirmation because she was herself in a very weak bodily state at the time of her writing.
[9]              Pgs. 278-279, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[10]            Pg. 134, Overcomer, 1914.  Pg. 278, Mrs. Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard, records an instance of a girl healed from some unspecified affliction by adopting Penn-Lewis’ view of Romans 6.
[11]            Pgs. 149-150, Mrs. Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.  See also pgs. 284-285.
[12]            Pg. 271, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[13]            Pgs. 273, 276, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[14]            Pgs. 248-249, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.  Thus, for the next number of months, he was so sick that he was “in no state to do anything,” even answer letters.
[15]            Pg. 271, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[16]            Pg. 149, Mrs. Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.
[17]            Pg. 65, Garrard; cf. pg. 93, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones; pg. 183, “An Autobiographical Sketch,” The Overcomer, December 1914.
[18]            Pg. 17, Mrs. Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.
[19]            Pg. xi, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Brynmor Pierce Jones.
[20]            Pg. 190, Mrs. Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.
[21]            Pgs. 14-15, 19, 67, 79-85, 91, 93, 113, 163-164, 204-207, 213, 231, 249-250, 277, 292, 298-299,  The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[22]            Pg. 298, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[23]            Pg. 15, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[24]            Pgs. 301-302, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones, for instance, records her plans for “a new syllabus” for various writings, articles for the next edition of The Overcomer, and “advance plans the Eccleston Hall Conference” where she had chosen the “Keynote speech.” 
[25]            Pgs. 263-264, Mrs. Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.
[26]            Pg. 25, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago:  Revell, 1874.
[27]            Pgs. 297-298, Mrs. Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.  While Mrs. Penn-Lewis employs words that are similar to those in Colossians 1:24, her meaning is certainly very different from that of the Apostle Paul.  Compare pg. 186, “Experimental Difficulties,” The Overcomer, 1911, for Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s doctrine of Christians “sharing His [Christ’s] suffering for souls, and for the world.”