Monday, September 30, 2019

The New Gratitude without an Object

The new gratitude isn't grateful to or for anyone, including God.  It separates gratitude from an object.  It is a psychological ploy, a game that subjects play in their minds.  It's looking into the mirror and saying, ala Stuart Smalley, "I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!"  It is redefining gratitude, actually shaping ingratitude into merely professed, "gratitude."  It revolves around self, a kind of self-congratulation for being grateful, except to no one.

The new gratitude compares good circumstances with conceivable poor circumstances.  The circumstances are at least as good as they are, because they could be worse.  When things seem bad, the subject thinks about how bad they could be.  Upon comparison, he expresses gratitude to no one, which is the recognition that things could be worse.

What or who brought the preferred conditions of the new gratitude?  Was it God?  Was it parents?  Why can't the subject say where the good things came from?  Does he know?

The new gratitude bifurcates truth in contradiction to a Christian worldview into the secular and the sacred, the private and the public.   Here is public gratitude that cannot include God, because God is relegated to the sacred, which is private.  If someone can't mention God or Jesus, then he cannot be grateful to God or Jesus.  He's just grateful.  This is public, secular gratitude for a bifurcated world.

In Romans 1, Paul describes the lost or the apostate as, "neither were they thankful."  They know God though and glorify Him not as God.  Everyone made in the image of God knows He has God for which to be thankful.  He knows this.  Gratitude makes sense to everyone, so why can't God receive gratitude?  This would require mentioning God.  This would require some kind of commitment to God.  If someone says, "Thank God," then it seems that he owes God something.  He would know, of course, that he owes God everything, but he doesn't want to give God everything.  He wants to live for himself, which is why he suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.

An underlying rebellion separates gratitude from God.  Yes, God is the object of gratitude.  He should be.  Parents should be up there, a ways below Him, but next in order.  Children, and I see it in millennials especially, can't thank their parents either, because that reads as a commitment to listen to parents, to communicate the thought that they owe their parents something.  They do.  Scripture is very clear here.  They don't want to feel the guilt of ingratitude toward God or parents, so they separate gratitude from an object.

I wrote above that the new gratitude is a game, maybe better, like a game.  The goal of new gratitude is the feelings, the internal calm of the subject.  The subject could focus on the problems, the loss, the emptiness, failure, or pain, and feel the wave of futility overwhelm him.  Instead, he looks at the good things, and he feels better about it.  He's got it better than he could or might have it.  He should feel good.  It helps him to feel good.  No one, however, gets the credit for it.  In a sense, as I wrote above, he's giving himself the credit for it or good luck, which I like to call, "Thank my lucky stars."  It really isn't gratitude, because it is selfish.

The repulsion with commitment to the source of goodness detaches the subject from an object of gratitude.  He or she "built" a business with no mention of those who paid and sacrificed for almost everything he or she needed.  He or she drove someone else's car to get there, who also paid the insurance and for all the repairs.  He or she got into college.  Sure.  He or she made it.  The subject is grateful -- no object.  Nothing about God.  Nothing about those who did a hundred things for the subject to get in.  The recognition, the acknowledgement, of an object means obligation and commitment.

Selfishness and gratitude sound or seem contradictory.  They are.  They are the opposite.  Someone who is not grateful to God or anyone else, including parents, isn't grateful.  He is lying to himself and everyone else.

Despite the selfishness of the new gratitude, it is still accepted as a legitimate gratitude by those who also do not want commitment to God or any possible authority.  They block out the source of their good things.  It is God.  They block Him out.  They are refusing a relationship with the One who gives them these good things.

Professing believers are some of the main culprits of the new gratitude.  What's happening?  They are afraid of professing faith in Christ.  God hasn't given us the spirit of fear.  Perfect love casts out fear.  They aren't loving Jesus.  They don't want to exclude unbelievers, when they should.  They should boldly let unbelievers know that God deserves their gratefulness.  That is a move toward the gospel and salvation.  They are risking the eternal destiny of others to continue in good relations with unbelievers.  This is a form of love for the world that is incongruous with true Christianity.  They don't want the commitment that accompanies stating or acknowledging an object of their gratitude.  They have their own goals and they don't want their objects of gratitude to get in the way of their own goals.  This is part of their selfishness.

God will be fine without gratitude.  He deserves it, but gratitude can't add to God.  He will always be complete.  Others who deserve it, like parents, could be encouraged by expressions of gratitude.  I get why children won't give it.  They see commitment as a tie to gratitude.  Instead, the children take the credit for their own lives in a very selfish manner.  I don't know what to call this, but sick and pathetic come to mind.  The accurate term is rebellious.  If someone is really thankful, he feels, and rightfully so, an obligation to listen and obey with either God or some other authority, who has given and given to the ungrateful.

The new gratitude isn't gratitude at all.

Saturday, September 28, 2019


The Apostle Paul ends the first chapter of Romans in 1:28-32
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Because those Paul describes "did not like to retain God in their knowledge" and were given over by God to and with "a reprobate mind," they "committed such things" "worthy of death," as a practice.  This is why in the list of "such things," we read adjectives, because it describes a lifestyle, not individual acts.  One in the list in verse 31 is "implacable."  Saved people will not be "implacable."  So what's that?  Who is "implacable"?

BDAG, foremost New Testament lexicon, says the Greek word, aspondos, means:  "of one who is unwilling to negotiate a solution to a problem involving a second party, irreconcilable."  Louw-Nida Lexicon agrees:  "pertaining to being unwilling to be reconciled to others "  John Gill in his commentary writes:  "when once offended there was no reconciling of them."

"Implacable" is an English word I have never used in my vocabulary except when I have read aloud Romans 1:31 and explained the word.  I have used "placate" rarely, but I have heard it more too.  It's a related English word.  Merriam Webster says "placate" means:  "to soothe or mollify especially by concessions."  Someone implacable can't be mollified, will not be placated, has decided to stay resentful, unforgiving, and irreconcilable.  This is unchristian behavior, no matter what the proponent says about himself and his belief in Jesus Christ.  No one, who says he wants to grow as a Christian and is close to Christ, remains implacable.  It relates to a lot of other biblical teaching.

The Lord Jesus preached about "implacability" in His Sermon on the Mount.  He was illustrating a lost condition manifested by irreconcilability.  In Matthew 5:21-26, Jesus says that not reconciling with someone is hateful and as much as being guilty of murdering someone.  The foundational point of this is the second table of the law.  If someone loves God, He loves His neighbor.  Love for God manifests itself in loving the neighbor.  A person is required to attempt reconciliation, even looking for mediation if necessary (cf. Philemon).

Other related truths are forgiveness and then the negative traits that are found in the same verses in Romans 1:  "maliciousness," "despiteful," "without natural affection," and "unmerciful."  If it is children with parents, it is "disobedient to parents."  Other passages list similar traits, such Ephesians 4:31-32:
Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
People hang on to bitterness and anger and their implacability is often a form of malice.

When God created man, He created man in His image.  He said, "Let us make man in our image," which shows the relationship within the Godhead -- "let us" and "our image."  The Persons in the Godhead wanted men to be like them.  Jesus brings in this teaching in His prayer in John 17 to the Father.  A fundamental violation of God's purpose of mankind is an unwillingness to reconcile based upon the truth.  It isn't just "getting along," but a surrender to align with God in a relationship with others.

Why does someone remain "implacable," in rebellion against God and His Word?  He loves himself.  He's a lover of his own self (2 Timothy 3:2).  His lust or love for the world supersedes his love for people.  He doesn't want to be hemmed in or pent up or held back from anything that he wants or likes.  He is unthankful.

Implacability should not be allowed in a true church.  It isn't allowed in ours.  People have to reconcile with one another.  It is at the root of Christian behavior, to both get things settled with other people and to want others to get things settled with you.

Friday, September 27, 2019

Jessie Penn-Lewis: War on the Saints (part 11 of 22)

Not only did Penn-Lewis see the Welsh holiness revival as a phenomenon similar to the Pentecostal revival, but the movement in Wales led her also to the composition of The War On The Saints[1] with Evan Roberts.  This book, which was part of the preparation for the end of the world in 1914, was intended “[o]nly [for] those who have experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit,” as all others would not be able to “understand and benefit”[2]—Christians who simply searched the Scriptures and therefore rejected the doctrine of a post-conversion Spirit baptism certainly would find no value in the book, as it was not based on grammatical-historical interpretation of the Bible, but upon “inquiries and testings . . . evidence . . . of counterfeit signs, visions, exercises, and manifestations . . . [and] testimonies.”[3]  Indeed, “Evan Roberts disclosed later that [the book] had included his spiritual autobiography because he had long since realized that he too had been deceived and harassed by Satan,” although by the time War on the Saints was written, he had now obtained “power to understand and discern,”[4] so one did not need to fear that the book itself was a product of Satanic deception—after all, the book had cosmic dispensational significance in preparing for the end of the world in 1914, so no deception could possibly be involved.  Roberts called “War on the Saints . . . my unnamed biography.”[5]  War on the Saints stated that believers, even those who have received the second blessing of the baptism of the Spirit, “devoted believers . . . honest and earnest believers . . . who have been baptized with the Holy Ghost . . . who sigh and cry over the powerlessness of the true Church of Christ, and who grieve that her witness is ineffective . . . can be deceived, and even possessed by deceiving spirits.”[6]  Deception is usually associated with possession:  “Christians are as open to possession by evil spirits as other men, and become possessed . . . in most cases, unwittingly . . .  apart from the cause of willful sin.”[7]  However, sometimes believers, without any known sin, and without even being deceived, may be possessed; through  “unknown . . . sin . . . even by a believer, an evil spirit may take possession of the mind, or body, without there being any experience of deception.”[8]  Demons can not only possess ordinary believers without known sin, and who are not deceived, but even the most spiritual believers can be possessed.  Indeed, “the most spiritual believers, baptized with the Holy Spirit, and most fitted to be used of God in Revival service, may become deceived and possessed by demons in their outer being through accepting the counterfeits of Satan.”[9]  In fact, War on the Saints teaches:
[S]ouls who are (a) not disobedient to light, or (b) living in any known sin, but the contrary . . . become possessed by evil spirits, through deception over absolute surrender to God (as they supposed), and wholehearted reckless abandonment to ‘supernatural power’ which they believed was of God, but through ignorance, were not able to discern as counterfeits by demons of the Spirit of God. . . . Evidence of believers wholly consecrated to God in spirit, soul and body, in will and fact, becoming possessed in mind and body by demons, is now available, having all the symptoms and manifestations . . . described in the Gospels.  Multitudes of believers are possessed in various degrees[.]
Vast multitudes of believers were possessed, Mrs. Penn-Lewis knew, and possessed, not in some lesser sense, but to the fullest extent and in every way that people were indwelt and controlled by Satan and his demons recorded in Scripture:
 Evidences are now available, proving that . . . possession in its fullest degree, has taken place in believers . . . such cases having all the symptoms and manifestations described in the gospel records. The demon answering questions in his own voice, and speaking words of blasphemy against God through the person . . . the demon, or demons, in the body, using the tongue, and throwing the body about at their will.”[10]
Mrs. Penn-Lewis knew that the teaching that believers could be possessed to the uttermost extent by demons was extremely important, for:  “IF THEY [demons] GET INSIDE THEY WILL MAKE HIM [the Christian or other possessed person] DO WHAT THEY WILL.”[11]  Unfortunately, nobody could know if he had sinned enough to allow demon possession to occur,[12] so demons could be possessing and controlling Christians without their being the slightest bit aware of the situation.  It was all the more necessary, then, to study War on the Saints to find out what to do in what could seem to be the almost inevitable onset of demon possession as one came under Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s influence.


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]              Note that the seventh and subsequent editions of War on the Saints commend the articles and subsequent book by John A. MacMillan, The Authority of the Believer; see the analysis of MacMillan below.
[2]              Pg. 228, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones, citing the preface to reprinted editions of War on the Saints.
[3]              Pg. 228, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[4]              Pg. 229, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones; cf. pgs. 180-183.
[5]              Pg. 102, An Instrument of Revival, Jones.
[6]              Compare William Boardman’s earlier warning that entry into the Higher Life can lead one into fanaticism, an affirmation he proved, not with Scripture, but with the testimony of a lady who consecrated herself and then became a Shaker (pgs. 144-149, The Higher Christian Life, Boardman).
[7]              Chapter 4, War on the Saints.
[8]              Chapter 5, War on the Saints.
[9]              Pg. 283, War On the Saints, Roberts & Penn-Lewis.  Roberts & Penn-Lewis follow Robert P. Smith in this affirmation.  Smith explained:  “You may have special temptations of Satan after this time of [Spirit] baptism at Oxford. . . . Never forget that the highest elevations of experience involve the most fearful dangers” (pgs. 257, 259, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago:  Revell, 1874).  Of course, since Robert’s Baptism involved the “thrill” and “intense emotion” (pg. 259, Ibid) of his erotic bridal Baptism doctrine, it was not surprising that the Baptism and Higher Life he proclaimed led to fearful dangers and special temptations by Satan.
[10]            Chapter 5, War on the Saints.  Some apologists for War On the Saints have affirmed that the book employs its own peculiar definition of demon “possession” that does not really mean “possession” in the manner recorded in the Bible, but something lesser, such as mere demonic influence, so that it allegedly does not affirm that believers can be possessed in the full sense of the term.  However, such a view is entirely false, as the plain declarations by Mrs. Penn-Lewis above make clear.  While War on the Saints affirms that there are degrees of demon possession—another doctrine that, according to the Bible, at least, is false—when Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis taught that believers can be “possessed,” as possessed as the worst case of possession recorded in Scripture, their words were not an accidental slip of the pen.  Then again, since Penn-Lewis wrote under inspiration, her word choice obviously could not be an accident.
[11]            Pg. 205, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones, citing The Overcomer.  Capitalization in original.
[12]            “The needed degree of ground given to an evil spirit in order to possess, cannot be clearly defined” (Chapter 5, War on the Saints).

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Do Pastors Have Any Authority?

I have the youtube app on my phone, which feeds me what it thinks I want to watch.  Toward the top of the offerings today as I ate my lunch was a post by Wretched, entitled, "John MacArthur:  Your pastor has NO authority over you."  Todd Friel played a clip from a Q and A, where a lady asked MacArthur whether pastors have authority in a church:  "To what extent a member of a church is required to obey his pastor, how much authority does a pastor have in the lives of his congregants?"

MacArthur answers:  "Um. None.  No authority.  Um.  I have no authority in this church personally. . . . I have no authority.  My position doesn't give me any authority."  Friel talks about it a little, remarking that it demonstrated humility.  If it isn't true, it isn't humble.  He continued.  "Only the Word of God has authority.  Christ is the Head of the church, and He mediates His rules through His Word.  I have no authority.  I have no authority beyond the scripture.  I cannot exceed what is written."  Anyway, here is the clip.
I thought it would be worth thinking about.  I would be fine having no authority as a pastor, if scripture taught that I have no authority.  I agree with MacArthur that I don't have authority that exceeds scripture, although I believe that MacArthur and others like him often misuse 1 Corinthians 4:6 and also in a convenient manner.  The exact quote follows:  "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."  When judging men, we should not hold men to a standard more strict or greater than what scripture says.  Paul warned against that.

Later Friel, as you listen, applied the same teaching of MacArthur, that parents do not have authority either, just from scripture.  What's the problem?  Is there pastoral authority?  Elder rule?  Parental authority?  Related to what MacArthur said about 1 Corinthians 4:6, we are not to add to scripture, but we also are not to take away.  Friel was joking, I think, but he called the teaching of MacArthur "kooky."  It is kooky.  Of course, pastors have authority.  I'm sure some church members are glad to hear that pastors have "no authority," but is that what scripture teaches?  No.  Pastoral authority is taught in the Bible.  Here are some of the places:
Hebrews 13:7, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation."
Hebrews 13:17, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."
1 Thessalonians 5:12, "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you."
1 Timothy 5:17, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour,, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."
Titus 2:15, "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee."
You read, "rule over you," "obey them," "over you," "elders that rule," and "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority."  Those are some plain places that reveal pastoral authority, but there are others, including those that use the term "bishop" or "overseer" (Acts 20:28, Philip 1:1, 1 Tim 3:2).  Other principles apply that imply pastoral authority.  Women can't rule in the church (1 Corinthians 14:29-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-15), but what difference does that make if no one rules in the church?  Pastors must exert authority.  That is clear.  In 1 Timothy 4:11, Paul told Timothy, "These things command."  In Revelation 2-3, the messengers to the churches are in the Lord's right hand, which is symbolic of authority.  These are men with authority in these churches.  A way that Jesus rules through the churches is through an under shepherd (1 Peter 5:4).

Scripture also teaches congregational authority. The pastor is also under the authority of the church and he must fit into the body like a church member, but he has a separate, God-given authority to use in the church.  Pastors do not have authority to expect something unscriptural.  This fits into Peter's words in Acts 5:29, "We ought to obey God rather than men."  Anything that contradicts scripture cannot be required by a pastor of the members of the church.  However, many ways that a church functions require authority from a pastor in areas that are not in scripture, which belies the "beyond what is written" interpretation of MacArthur.

Scripture does not say when to meet.  It does not say how to take up an offering.  For a wedding, the pastor might give a number of commands.  Someone needs to be in charge.  If he says, stop talking, does he have that authority?  Yes.  Scripture does not say what hymns to sing.  It does not instruct on what teachers are to teach in smaller groups.  It does not tell where to evangelize.  Many of the applications of scripture require pastoral leadership, which is why Paul commanded in 1 Corinthians 11:1 (literally), imitate me.  Do what I do in areas of liberty (1 Corinthians 6-10).   Even though Corinth had liberty to do them, they were still required to imitate Paul.

It's hot on a Sunday morning.  No air conditioning here in California.  Just a ceiling fan and some floor fans.  I say, "Open windows."  What verse do I use?  It's cold outside, a church member opens windows.  I tell him, "Close those, it's too cold."  What verse?  He argues with me, tells me I have no authority.  Is he wrong?  Yes, he's wrong.

Friel relates this to ruling a house, even as Paul taught Timothy to rule his own house well (1 Timothy 3:5).  Ruling a house might require a bed time.  It might mean eating all your vegetables.  Dad could say, go mow the lawn.  Dad has authority in the home and this compared to pastoring or ruling in a church.  Parents have authority, so anything they tell their children to do, except to disobey scripture, they have that authority.  It doesn't have to be something from the Bible.  Why?  Because God gives authority to parents.  He also gives authority to a pastor, a qualified pastor.  That's an important reason why he needs to be qualified, because he is being given that authority, due to those qualifications among other reasons.

I would be surprised if many agreed with MacArthur in his no authority teaching.  Scripture teaches pastoral authority.

Saturday, September 21, 2019

Salvation and the Call By Jesus To Be a Fisher of Men

When you read the four gospels, you see several "calls" of the twelve disciples.  There isn't one of them that says, this is when he was saved.  When was John saved?  Well, it was, um, I'm not sure.  He was saved, but I'm not sure when it was.  What about Peter?  The same.  They were all saved, but Judas, but it isn't clear what the moment of their salvation was, like someone would know when the Apostle Paul was saved.  That is clear.

I'm guessing that there are readers that think they do know the exact moment when some of the twelve disciples were saved.  For the sake of argument, let's say that Andrew, John, Peter, Philip, and Nathaniel were saved in John 1, which one might call the first call.  I would be fine with that.  I don't know, but I would be fine with calling those five saved in John 1.  John 1:37 says, "they followed Jesus," confessed that He was the "Messias," "the Christ" (1:41), and "thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel" (1:49).  Jesus said, "Follow me," and they did.

The second calling, however, sounds very similar to the first, just like it was a first calling, and I bring you to Matthew 4, just after Jesus began His ministry (4:17-20):
17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. 20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
That also sounds like a salvation call, which also reflects what the Lord Jesus taught in Luke 9:23-25:
23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. 24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. 25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
"If any man will come after me" is salvation language.  Someone who "comes after Jesus" is a saved person.

I direct you though to the Matthew 4 passage.  When someone follows Jesus, He keeps following Him.  That doesn't mean he will never sin again, but he's given up His life.  His life is Christ's, and the language for that is "deny self," "take up cross," "follow me," and "lose life," as in Luke 9.  In Matthew 4, Jesus adds, I will make you fishers of men.

I'm asserting that if Peter really started following in John 1 that he would continue following Jesus in Matthew 4.  Someone following will keep following or else he wasn't saved, and the Lord Jesus Christ will make him a fisher of men.  Following Him meant becoming a fisher of men.  Everyone following Jesus He will make a fisher of men.  One is supposed to assume that genuine believers will be fishers of men.  If they are not fishers of men, this implies that they are not saved.

Most churches have no expectations of their members to evangelize.  Most professing Christians have never won anyone to Christ.  They rarely to never preach the gospel, but their salvation isn't doubted.

The judgment of someone's salvation has moved away from what scripture says is following Christ.  Jesus preached the gospel in Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Caesaria-Philippi, Perea, and Tyre and Sidon.  He preached it everywhere, but His "followers" preach it next to nowhere.

Church members, as I see it, are less concerned about following Christ and really helping people in an eternal way, which is actual help, as they are into sentimentality and feelings.  Their Christianity is about whether the church makes them comfortable and happy, a place to make friends in a mainly non-judgmental fashion.  The idea of following Christ is hardly in their vocabulary.  They don't think they should be expected to be a fisher of men.

Following Christ is not some arbitrary arrangement, based upon a personal whim.  It includes all the Lord and Jesus and Christ activities, what He would be doing that we would be doing if we would be following Him.  Instead, people set up a Christianity that they favor and submit to that.  When real Christianity clashes with the replacement, they treat that like the violation of following Christ.  In fact, it violates them.  They aren't getting their way.

Some would like following Christ to be the music of their choice, not the kind that pleases God, but some kind of worldly rhythm that's fun for them, that makes them feel good.  They turn following Christ into that which will still be popular with the world, solving people's social or societal problems.  Following Christ doesn't have to be much different than not following Christ.

Can leaders expect fishing for men, or do they need to turn following Christ into something else?  They know.  It's got to be something else.  They've designed church around very few to no people being fishers of men.  What's really important is not hurting feelings and being sensitive, especially to felt physical or psychological needs.

As a result, people who don't follow Christ think they follow Christ.  They don't answer the call, because it is a call to be a fisher of men.  It is a salvation issue.  Salvation is not by works.  You don't get saved by being a fisher of men.  No.  You come after Christ, deny self, follow Him, and He makes you a fisher of men.  You know that when you follow Him, that He's called you to be a fisher of men.  You want that, because it's also what Christ Himself does.

Friday, September 20, 2019

Preservation Seminar Audio

I recently had the privilege of teaching a seminar on the perfect preservation of Scripture at Mount Zion Baptist Mission, a church-planting work led by Bro William Hardecker, who is sent out of Mount Zion Baptist Church in Pennsylvania.  Bro Hardecker and his wife are faithful servants of the Lord whom I have known since our time together in the Master's program at Fairhaven Baptist College.

The students present at the seminar. Bro Hardecker is right in front of my wife and I.

A goodly number of Filipino pastors and other church workers were present at the seminar, for which we were thankful. The audio for the seminar can be downloaded by clicking here. If Christians understand the twelve Biblical principles of preservation explained in the seminar, the question of the Textus Receptus and KJV versus the modern versions and the critical text is easily decided. There are also a few sermons I preached and a Sunday School lesson I taught that can be downloaded as well.  The syllabus can be downloaded here.

While in the Philippines I also had the privilege of preaching at Soulwinner's Bible Baptist Church in Tagbileran City, a solid, separated, KJVO, local-only ecclesiology, pro-Lordship Baptist church led by a local man sent out from a Baptist church with its own seminary on a nearby island.

The lady in the very front of the picture is an abortion survivor and a faithful servant of the Lord at the church.  I thought it was a blessing as well that, despite the cultural acceptance of getting to church late, the brethren at Bible Baptist had been trained to value the Lord's church by getting there on time.  The Bible, not culture,  must dictate how a church practices.

Lord willing, Heather and I will be back in the Philippines in the second half of November after the Word of Truth Conference at Bethel Baptist Church with Bro Brandenburg.  We would appreciate your prayers for wisdom about how best to serve the Lord while we are back in that part of the world at that time, and I'm sure that the Hardeckers and other servants of the Lord in the Philippines would likewise appreciate your prayers that "the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified" (2 Thess 3:1).  There are many people in that needy nation who are open to listening to the gospel--I do not believe a single person refused to take a gospel tract the entire time we were there.


Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Make Not Provision for the Flesh

The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 13:14:
But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
He makes two commands:
Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ
Make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof
The first one is positive, the second negative.

The first command isn't justification.  It isn't salvation language.  The clear sense is a wardrobe metaphor, so the already believer exercises the righteousness of Christ he has obtained by faith.  He gets up every day and puts on the practicalities of Jesus that He has already received through justification.  He can do this.  Gill says it is "the exercise of grace and discharge of duty; to walk as he walked, and as we have him for an example, in love, meekness, patience, humility, and holiness."

A good way not to do something is by doing something else that isn't that thing not to do.  If someone fills up his life with the ways of Jesus as taught in scripture, he won't be doing what is prohibited in the second half of the verse.  The Lord Jesus Christ clashes with a lot of what people view or treat as if acceptable.  Paul uses the whole name or title of Jesus, bringing in everything about Him.

He's Lord, obey Him.  He's Jesus, so He's saved you from sin, including the practice of it.  He's Christ, so He is all eternity for you, the King Who sits on the throne of David forever.

Putting on is unceasing and close.  You're wearing this, which means you're not taking it off.  It's on you, so it saturates, surrounds, and envelops.  It affects every area of life, whether eating or drinking or whatsoever you do.  This includes all cultural issues.  If you are wearing Him, you can't separate Him from your bar, your live music or concert, and your ungodly friends.

If you put on the Lord Jesus Christ, you won't tolerate the name of His Father in vain.  You will however work His glorious name into conversation, solutions, and testimony.  Out of the abundance of your heart, Jesus being that abundance, your mouth will speak Him.

Living out Christ in the world isn't a matter of avoiding the practice of specific violations in a list of sins.  Those lists are in the New Testament, but they are representative, not all-encompassing.  Paul describes living out Christ in Philippians 3:3 with three commands:  "worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh."

The second part is negative, but also reads as it is opposite of the first part.  Someone putting on the Lord Jesus Christ can't at the same time make provision for the flesh.  I see a lot of making provision for the flesh among professing Christians that they see compatible with Jesus.  It's another Jesus.  Jesus is not congruent with the flesh.  You are making up another Jesus so that you can still have Jesus.  He isn't Jesus.

Something has to give, Jesus or the flesh.  If someone concocts a different Jesus, one who likes rock and country music, he's already given up Jesus.  You can't keep flesh and Jesus.  This is to fulfill the lust thereof.  Rock and country were originated around pleasing the flesh.  This also includes sensual dancing, tight and immodest clothing, and entertainment with foul language, sex, and nudity.

You have to choose.  Put on the Lord Jesus Christ or make provision for the flesh.  Paul writes further in Galatians 5:24, "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."  If you are Christ's, you have crucified the flesh.  The flesh doesn't have dominion any more.

Making provision for the flesh is something less than flesh.  Flesh is prohibited, but even something short of that, making provision for the flesh, is also barred.  Flesh won't occur when making provision doesn't occur.  A legalistic path is to reduce everything to the rules one isn't breaking, when God stops short of an actual rule to not even making provision.  Making provision is why the fulfilling of lust happens.  This is why Paul issues other commands, such as flee idolatry and flee fornication.  Not fleeing is some of how someone also makes provision for the flesh.

You have to stop saying that you have permission to make provision for the flesh.  You're commanded make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill lust.  You're not putting on the Lord Jesus Christ, so you're disobeying that command as well.  You can say you love Jesus.  You're not loving the Lord Jesus.  You're not putting Him on.  You're ashamed of actual Jesus.  The flesh, your lust, is too important to you, more important than Jesus.

Sunday, September 15, 2019

The Real, Actual Reason Why the Capitulation on Almost Every (Maybe Every) Doctrinal, Practical, or Cultural Issue Today

Surpassed two million hits for this blog today.


The sinful nature of humanity wants what it wants.  It doesn't want to be hindered from what it wants even on the best of days.  It will do many things to get what it wants.  I see it in scripture and I've watched it.

Everyone is going to do what he wants to do against the will of God.  Everyone.  However, I'm not writing about that in this post.  I've done many wrong, sinful things that I regret.  I'm writing about permanent positions or activities, where someone doesn't turn from the belief or behavior.

All true believers have the same faith, based upon the same book, the Bible, with the same meaning.  God's Word means only one thing.  It hasn't changed.  2 Peter 1:1 says they (all true believers) "have obtained like precious faith."  They obtained the faith, so they didn't invent it or originate it.  True faith is of God.  Because of that it is "like," the Greek esotimon, which means "equal, of the same kind."

Peter begins his book by saying that faith isn't going to be different for anyone as it is obtained from God, so what happens?  What's the problem?  As you follow from the rest of the epistle, the problem is lust (1:4, 2:10, 2:18, 3:3).  Other related words or phrases are "self-willed" (2:10), "as they that count it pleasure" (2:13), "covetous" (2:14), "loved the wages of unrighteousness" (2:15), and "wantonness" (2:19).  In conjunction with the lust is the parallel problem with authority, essentially the same as lust, because if you want to do what you want to do, then you don't want to do what someone else wants you to do.  This is represented by these two phrases or clauses in 2 Peter:
denying the Lord that bought them, 2:1
not afraid to speak evil of dignities, 2:10
They don't like the authority of scripture (2 Peter 1) and they don't like the second coming of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3), when they will give an account for what they've done.

2 Peter mirrors what Paul writes in Romans 1.  They know God, so what's the problem?  It's not a knowledge problem.  Just because they know, doesn't mean they'll believe and then practice what they should.  They "hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18), that is, they suppress the truth.  It's rebellion.  It is a will or a want problem, which is why, when God gives them up, He turns them over to their own lust (1:24).  They don't want God or what He wants, so He gives them what they want, which turns to their own destruction.  It defiles everything in their life, and one tell-tale expression of their lives is "disobedience to parents" (1:30), the most rudimentary rebellion against authority for a person.

What I'm writing can be seen all over scripture, but right from the beginning, the two sides of the same problem manifest themselves.  Eve wanted the fruit from the tree that was forbidden.  She distrusted God against His commandment or authority, and the man, we know from 1 Timothy 2, abdicated his headship for her, which again indicates a problem with authority.  When Eve wanted to do what she wanted to do, her lust, she did it against the command of God and the headship of her husband, which he obtained from God.

John says that every diversion from the right path is lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and then pride (1 John 2:16-17).  Someone wants what he feels, he wants what he sees, and he's putting himself first to get it, pride.  Scripture is what gets in the way of lust and pride.  God says, no, I want you to do what I'm telling you, what I want.  A person either believes and does what God says, or he conforms what God says in some way into his own lust and pride.

I've established from scripture the real, actual reason for capitulation in doctrinal, practical, or cultural issues as stated in the title of this post.  There will always be the temptation to capitulate.  It's also what I've witnessed in my lifetime.  Let's take something doctrinal, like the doctrine of preservation of scripture.

Only two positions exist.  God either preserved all of His Words and they've been available to every generation of believer, or He did not.  In scripture, God says that He did.  The uncertainty of God's Words diminishes authority.  If we don't know what the Words are, then it's also less likely we would know what they mean.  There is also the pride of scholarship, fitting into the academy, which says we can't and don't know because we don't have the evidence to know.  This all describes the lust, very much akin to what we read in 2 Peter.

The false teachers say that we can't call scripture the Words of God.  They are closer to fables, writings that came by the will of man, not holy men of God speaking by the Holy Spirit.  What's real is uniformitarianism, no sign of direct divine intervention, explaining why no fulfillment of the guarantees of the second coming.  Those prophecies can't be trusted, because they aren't being fulfilled.  Real evidence debunks the authority of scripture and a real Jesus, one who would come back as he supposedly promised.  Hence, they can walk after their own lust and ask, where is the promise of his coming?  Eschatology itself is too hard to be understood, nothing to be certain about, so why should we deny ourselves the pleasures we desire to please someone we're not certain exists?

The preservation of scripture is intervention from God, but according to the critics, there isn't evidence of what God said He would do, so those promises are debunked.  If that's the case, why should they change on any number cultural or social issues either?  Maybe they will hold on to the major teachings, but why should they regulate everything in their lives based upon a book that they aren't certain about?

David in Psalm 16:4 writes:
Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips.
The truth is that sorrows will multiply for those who go after other gods.  Because of that David will not participate in their worship, nor will he take up their names into his lips.  David is trusting the Lord, so he will associate himself only with the true God.

What would tempt David to associate with other gods, take up their names into his lips?  The other god might be more popular than the true God.  This is where lust and pride have their affect.   Lust and pride motivate association with the world's music, entertainment, celebrity, and causes.  Rather than trust the Lord about their multiplied sorrows, they will take up their names into their lips.

Friday, September 13, 2019

Jessie Penn-Lewis: Welsh Revival and Pentecostal Preparation (part 10 of 22)

Penn-Lewis’ theology “of the Cross was the Lord’s preparation of a group of His servants who should carry the message to Wales,”[1] just as her influence as a “founder of the ‘Welsh Keswick’ at Llandrindod Wells”[2] and her influence in the continued development of the Welsh Keswick, the Llandrindod Wells Convention, which began in 1903,[3] and her preaching at its meetings from the first, were central developments in the rise of the Methodist and Anglican aspects, especially, of the holiness revival[4] of 1904 in Wales, a movement of which she also served as chronicler[5] and doctrinal guide.[6]  She “was . . . a special correspondent to several of the men most deeply involved in the Revival. . . . Few were more intimate with the workings of revival, few were in such constant touch with the chief instruments and their prayer partners, and few were so well-known abroad that their reports of miraculous events would be believed and responded to.”[7]  She, herself Welsh,[8] “founded Keswick in Wales, and was the inspiration behind many other conventions.”[9]  As the Keswick theology contributed to the work of the Welsh holiness revival under Evan Roberts, the holiness revival, in its turn, strongly influenced those worldwide who accepted the Keswick theology:  “Keswick leaders helped to bring Keswick emphases to Wales and there was a determination to introduce the Welsh Revival to a wider audience.”[10]  It is not surprising, in light of her claims to miraculous gifts, supernatural visitations, and inspiration, that she put the Welsh Revival on a level with the religious excitement that birthed the Pentecostal movement in Los Angeles, California, from which the entire Pentecostal and charismatic movements have originated, since she believed, as did Evan Roberts,[11] that people in their day were experiencing the “gifts of prophesy, tongues, healings, and other spiritual experiences, connected with the work of the Holy Ghost.”[12]  Just as the “heavens [were] opened” in a powerful “working of the Holy Spirit . . . [in] Revival . . . in Wales,” a like heavenly stream was at work in “the Pentecostal Movement in Los Angeles.”[13]  She found acceptable the teaching, coming from “Los Angeles, California . . . [of] many [Pentecostal] Asusa Street leaders and of the Pacific Apostolic Faith Movement” that set forth teachings on sanctification and miraculous gifts “[l]ike the Overcomer Testimony founded by Jessie Penn-Lewis”[14] and Evan Roberts.[15]  Those “Americans who had visited each revival center in Wales, especially places where Evan Roberts could be seen,” returned home, and soon “new signs and wonders had begun in the United States,” as “the Spirit had come in power upon Los Angeles” and other places.[16]  Not only did people come from the Welsh holiness revival to America to raise up and support Pentecostalism, but the literature of the supernatural work in Wales through Evan Roberts circulated widely at Asusa Street[17] and other roots of the Pentecostal movement as the worldwide influence of the Keswick continuationism so zealously promoted by Mrs. Penn-Lewis prepared the way for the rise of worldwide Pentecostalism.  As the revivalism in Wales spread into India, “Pandita Ramabai, a high-caste widow . . . heard the news of the Welsh revival.”[18]  Ramabai, an avid supporter of women preachers like Mrs. Penn-Lewis,[19] had spoken at Keswick in 1898 after learning the Keswick theology of receiving the Spirit from a missionary,[20] and not long after the rise of the Welsh holiness revival “Pandita Ramabai’s witnessing and praising bands . . . adopted tongues.”[21]  By 1906 they both warmly welcomed Pentecostal leaders[22] and were contributing to the spread of tongues internationally.[23]  “Jessie . . . commended the leaders of [her] group,”[24] although “[c]onfusion reigned” there as people, “with shoulders and bodies twitching and jerking” experienced  “extreme agony” as they “had been speaking in tongues,” while others experienced, based on a gross and blatant misinterpretation of Luke 12:49, a “baptism of fire” that involved a “flood of fire poured on [one’s] head, and . . . burning inside [that was] rather hard to bear.”[25]  Bartleman provides a further description of the work of the spirit world, accompanied with tongues, that Jessie Penn-Lewis commended:

The girls in India so wonderfully wrought upon and baptized with the Spirit (in Ramabai’s mission), began by terrifically beating themselves[.] . . . They jumped up and down . . . for hours without fatigue[.] . . . They cried out with the burning that came into and upon them. Some fell as they saw a great light pass before them[.] . . . About twenty girls went into a trance at one time and became unconscious of this world for hours; some for three or four days. During that time they sang, prayed, clapped their hands, rolled about, or sat still. . . . The Spirit was poured out upon one of the seeking girls in the night. Her companion sleeping next to her awoke [and] s[aw] fire envelope her[.] . . .Many of these girls were invested with a strange, beautiful and supernatural fire. . . . At Kara Camp pictures appeared on the walls to a company of small girls in prayer, supernaturally depicting the life of Christ. The figures moved in the pictures and were in colors. Each view would last from two to ten minutes and then the light would gradually fade away, to reappear in a few moments with a new scene. These appeared for twelve hours . . . [as] [i]n Wales colored lights were often seen, like balls of fire, during the revival there. [26]

While trances, beating of oneself, and the rest, when evaluated by the Bible, were far more in line with what took place in connection with demon possession than with the work of the Holy Spirit, Jessie Penn-Lewis nonetheless commended Ramabai’s work—for it was of the same character as the work that took place in Wales through Evan Roberts and which was encouraged by Mrs. Penn-Lewis herself.  The “Pentecostal . . . revival was rocked in the cradle of little Wales.  It was ‘brought up’ in India, following; becoming full grown in Los Angeles” [27]
Furthermore, “Vicar Alexander Boddy . . . had stood with Evan Roberts in revival meetings and been thrilled by the evidences of the Holy Spirit’s work in their midst,” and “by the following year . . . he heard with joy about [the] Asusa Street Mission in Los Angeles, California, and other places . . . sought the same blessing and found himself worshipping the Lord in ‘new tongues.’”[28]  Penn-Lewis’s “old frien[d] . . . Mrs. Groves . . . [was a] missionary who had joined in the [Pentecostal] Latter Rain experience,” and Jessie Penn-Lewis wrote to her that when one “reach[es] the very roots of faith down in the Cross, and from there ascend[s] into a life of purity and worship . . . ‘Tongues’ c[an] be one expression.”[29]  She printed “a long tribute to the [Lutheran] pastors who met at the Barmen Conference” in 1907 and stated:  “We acknowledge that God might give all the gifts of the Spirit in our own day.  The church should allow herself to be ready.”[30]  Mrs. Penn-Lewis was thus “[f]ar from denying the gift of tongues,” but “asked only that those who had no gifts would exercise patience, and that those who had received the gift would stay humble,”[31] and, therefore, “was criticized by strict evangelicals as one who took too soft a line.”[32]  Her writings on Pentecostalism were “not written in a spirit of opposition or adverse criticism,”[33] for, as a Quaker, she agreed with the fundamental continuationism of Pentecostalism.  Indeed, Charles Parham, that key founder of the modern “tongues” movement, recognized the affinity of his fanaticism with that of Quakerism by affirming that extra-Biblical “Divine inspiration is the basic principle of Quakerism,” as it was central to his own theology, leading him to believe that the “Holy Spirit” by “inspiration” spoke through him in the various “language[s] of the world.”[34]  It is, therefore, not in the least surprising that Mrs. Penn-Lewis believed that “the best qualities of the Pentecostal movement could be accepted,”[35] although she criticized certain of its more extreme aberrations.[36]  Her teachings also contained the seeds of a variety of Word of Faith heresies.[37]


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. 199, Mrs. Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Garrard.
[2]              Pg. 525, “Demythologizing the Evan Roberts Revival,” Pope.  Thus, Calvinistic Methodists were already by February 1904 spreading Penn-Lewis’s beliefs and Keswick theology in Wales as a precursor of the holiness revival there (pg. 517, Ibid).
[3]              Pgs. 145-146, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.  Compare the discussion of the connection between the beginning of the Welsh Keswick conference at Llandrindod Wells and the Welsh holiness revival under Evan Roberts on pgs. 44-45, Vision of the Disinherited:  The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson.
[4]              However, the holiness revival movement weakened denominational distinctives and ecclesiastical separation so that people “from all denominations drew together” (pg. 129, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones).  Indeed, Roberts and Penn-Lewis affirmed in War on the Saints that a mark of “counterfeit” revival is “a spirit of separation” over “non-essentials” (pg. 143, Ibid.); contrast Matthew 5:18-19; Luke 16:10.  Nothing that the King of heaven commands is non-essential.
[5]              Her reporting sought to be “factual, but . . . also selective” (pg. 128, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones).
[6]              Pg. 221-226, Mrs. Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Garrard.  For example, her doctrine of women preachers was advanced because of the Revival; “women were now taking a principal part . . . just as she had foreseen” (pg. 120, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones).  She influenced not only the most prominent preacher, Evan Roberts, but also led other ministers of the holiness Revival, from Seth Joshua to R. B. Jones; she had led the latter, for example, “into a new understanding of how to obtain victory over all defeatedness through the Cross.  Using the very same proof-texts that she had shown him, he had preached with new authority . . . about renewed revival . . . and never looked back again.” (cf. pgs. 120ff., Ibid.)
[7]              Pgs. 119-120, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[8]              Pg. 155, Transforming Keswick:  The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[9]              Pgs. xi, 94-95, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.  Her preaching and influence also contributed to holiness revival movements in other lands; for example, after she preached in Egypt in 1904, there was revival “blessing among both Coptic and Methodist congregations” (pg. 132, Ibid.), despite the fact that the Copts believed in a false sacramental gospel akin to that of Roman Catholicism and never repented of their accursed heresies.
[10]            Pg. 169, Transforming Keswick:  The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
[11]            Roberts believed in the continuation of “tongues and prophesyings and visions,” but only for those who had wisdom and experience as Christians (pg. 173, An Instrument of Revival, Jones).  Others would be deceived by Satan and be wild fanatics.  Nonetheless, Roberts was very far from calling wild fanatics all those who were shouting “shabbalaboba, shawannabogo, sinwanafaco,” and so on, and thinking that such gibberish was the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.
[12]            Pg. 53, War On The Saints, Full Text, Unabridged ed., by Jessie Penn-Lewis & Evan Roberts.  New York, NY:  Thomas E. Lowe, 1974.  Roberts & Penn-Lewis warned that Satan was counterfeiting these gifts as well.
[13]            Pg. 38, The Overcomer, II:3 (March 1910).  She did think that there were elements of dangerous pseudo-spirituality, a stream from beneath, as it were, in both the Welsh holiness revival and in the tongues movement (e. g., in addition to pg. 38, also pgs. 9-10, Overcomer, 1910), but any mainline Pentecostal would issue the same sort of warnings, as even those at the heart of the Azusa Street meetings did.  The problem was by no means the tongues themselves or the continuationism.
[14]            Pg. 179, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[15]            “Jessie and Evan . . . jointly found[ed] and staff[ed] The Overcomer . . . [and] signed documents naming them as co-sponsors of” the magazine.  “The two founders contributed about seventy five percent of the contents” for the first few years (pgs. 211, 213, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones).
[16]            Pg. 170, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[17]            See, e. g., pg. 29, Keswick: A Bibliographic Introduction to the Higher Life Movements, David D. Bundy.  Wilmore, KY:  B. L. Fisher Library, Asbury Theological Seminary, 1975.
[18]            Pg. 193, “The Gift of Tongues and Related Phenomena at the Present Day,” Frederick G. Henke.  The American Journal of Theology, 13:2 (April 1909) 193-206.
[19]            Pg. 161, Transforming Keswick:  The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.  Amy Carmichael, who “had lived . . . as the widowed [Quaker Keswick founder] Robert Wilson’s adopted daughter since the age of twenty-two” (pg. 89, The Keswick Story:  The Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.) and the faith cure healing evangelist who turned Pentecostal Carey Judd Montgomery, among others, similarly believed in women preachers (cf. pgs. 125-127, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, Dayton; however, Mrs. Montgomery could not heal herself, nor her husband, pg. 132; cf. pgs. 51-52, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee).
[20]            Pg. 154, Transforming Keswick:  The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.  Ramabai came to associate herself with the Christian and Missionary Alliance and other Keswick continuationist groups (pg. 154, Ibid).
[21]            Pgs. 27-28, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee.  Tongues had spread like wildfire by 1907; note the extensive coverage of the tongues movement under her ministry on pg. 4, The Apostolic Faith I:10 (Los Angeles, September 1907); pg. 1, The Apostolic Faith I:12 (January 1908); pg. 1, The Apostolic Faith II:12 (May 1908), reprinted on pgs. 44, 49, 53, Like As of Fire:  Newspapers from the Azusa Street World Wide Revival:  A Reprint of “The Apostolic Faith” (1906-1908), coll. Fred T. Corum & Rachel A. Sizelove; cf. also pg. 7, The Pentecostal Evangel:  The Official Organ of the Assemblies of God, 442-443, April 29, 1922.
[22]            Pg. 147, Azusa Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan; pgs. 28-29, 47, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee.
[23]            E. g., Donald Gee records how Ramabai’s propagation of tongues contributed to many in the United States adopting the practice and to the formation of the Methodist Pentecostal Church in Chile (pgs. 57-58, The Pentecostal Movement, Gee).
[24]            Pg. 183, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[25]            Pgs. 193-194, “The Gift of Tongues and Related Phenomena at the Present Day,” Frederick G. Henke.  The American Journal of Theology.
[26]            Pgs. 35-36, Azusa Street: The Roots of Modern-day Pentecost, by Frank Bartleman.  Plainfield, NJ:  Logos International, 1980.
[27]            Pg. 19, Ibid.
[28]            Pg. 183, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones; pg. 6, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee.  Note the reception and commendation by American Pentecostal and Azusa Street leader Frank Bartleman on pg. 148, Azusa Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.
[29]            Pgs. 192-193, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[30]            Pgs. 194, 175, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.  Compare the background in Germany that led this conference at Barmen in Perfectionism, Vol. 1, Chapters 6-7, B. B. Warfield.
[31]            Pg. 142, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[32]            Pg. 169, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[33]            Pg. 227, Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis:  A Memoir, Garrard.
[34]            Pg. 67, The Everlasting Gospel, Charles F. Parham.
[35]            Pg. xv, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
[36]            For example, Penn-Lewis was happy that the followers of “Lady Pandita Ramabai” in India “had adopted tongues but forbidden rollings, groanings, and other body movements” (pg. 142, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones).  Thus, a “careful study of all her correspondence in 1907-1908 would silence those who have misrepresented Jessie Penn-Lewis as an uncompromising enemy of all forms of Pentecostalism” (pg. 143, cf. pgs. 177-194, Ibid.).  Nor is one surprised that a “full set” of her works has been compiled and is stored at the “Assembly of God College, Mattersey . . . England” (Pg. 317, Ibid.).
[37]            For example, she anticipated the Word of Faith heresies that speaking words create reality in a manner comparable to the way in which God created the world ex nihilo by His speech, and that God Himself lives by faith.  Commenting on Mark 11:22-24, and assuming that the text of the Authorized Version is mistranslated in Mark 11:22 and the correct rendering should be “have the faith of God,” she wrote:
The words . . . “Have faith in God,” are really . . . “Have the faith of God[.]” . . . The “faith of God” is this, that when He speaks the word the thing is done. God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. The words you speak are of the greatest importance in the prayer life. In this spiritual sphere, what you say creates. . . . “The faith of God” is the faith which God had when He said: “Let there be light.” God does not doubt that it will be as He has said. . . . Remember that your words are of importance in the spiritual realm. “They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony.” [Revelation 12:11, which, it seems, is also supposed to support the idea that words create reality.] . . .Apply this to everything in your life, and it will make you beware of your words” (pgs. 56-58, The Spiritual Warfare, Jessie Penn-Lewis.  Italics in original.)
The heresy that God lives by faith found its way from Penn-Lewis, through Keswick and Higher Life leaders such as A. B. Simpson, who misinterpreted Mark 11:22-24 likewise to teach that God lived by faith (pg. 40, “Does God Act by Faith?” A. B. Simpson.  The Alliance Weekly 59:3, July 19, 1924), into the Pentecostal and Word of Faith movements; see, e. g., pg. 98, In His Presence, E. W. Kenyon.  Kenneth Hagin stated:  “God ha[s] faith. . . . Evidently God had faith in His [own] faith, because He spoke the words of faith and they came to pass” (“Having Faith in Your Faith,” Kenneth E. Hagin.  Tulsa, OK: Faith Library, 1980, 4-5, cited pg. 346, Charismatic Chaos, John MacArthur).