Saturday, November 30, 2019

More On Ghosting

Part One      Part Two

The Irish Independent is the most prominent newspaper in Ireland, and yesterday, November 29, 2019, in that paper, Larissa Nolan writes about ghosting in an article entitled, "Into thin air: How 'ghosting' became the new normal":
We've all heard about ghosting: the spineless trend of severing a relationship by disappearing from contact. No calls, no texts, no emails - and no warning, explanation or chance to discuss. It's a particular kind of narcissism, a form of emotional cruelty, according to psychology. It's a mixture of cowardice, immaturity and modern technology.
I think anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize this as the truth about this odious, heinous practice, primarily by young people, who very often justify it as a means to "wellness."  Dropping out, they justify, preserves themselves, keeps them well or improves them.  In my last post, I spoke about how that psychiatry is notoriously untrustworthy and a pseudo-science.  Nevertheless, a major mark psychiatrists give the narcissist is "the silent treatment":
The silent treatment is probably one of the most common forms of emotional abuse used by narcissists . . . .   Narcissists use the silent treatment as a form of punishment for not acquiescing to their point of view or as the way to gain the upper hand and control in their relationships. It’s also a way to avoid discussing important issues in the relationship and avoid taking accountability for their wrong-doings. When a narcissist uses the silent treatment, they will do it in a way that is so out of proportion to the situation. Narcissists will also tend to demand a perfectly delivered apology. If the apology is not said correctly or in the right way, the narcissists will extend the length of the silent treatment. By demanding a perfectly delivered apology, narcissists confirm their dominance and support their exaggerated importance.
If someone reads the entire above article from which this paragraph comes, to possess narcissistic personality disorder, one must check off several markers.  Even if ghosting or the silent treatment are narcissistic, this isn't a biblical means of analysis of human problems.  It's way too subjective and seems as though it is invented to weaponize against a chosen target. The truth about someone is not a matter of an arbitrary culling from studies or articles to conform to an already settled conclusion.  This isn't how the Lord Jesus Christ or any of God's men in scripture function in service to God and men.

The Bible is sufficient as it speaks to behavior, and ghosting is in no way scriptural.  It is a form of extreme separation, but not biblical separation.  Separation in and of itself is fine, required even by God in His Word.  However, certain forms of separation are evil.

Evangelicals do not practice biblical separation, but I have observed they still practice separation, and an unbiblical version more like ghosting.  They are not attempting reconciliation, which is a requirement in biblical separation.  Real reconciliation centers on the truth, the basis of reconciliation, bringing two entities back together.  The point on which they come together is the truth, aligning with the historic, biblical teaching of the church.

Ghosting is not about reconciliation.  It's many different variations of selfishness.  At it's best, if even possible, someone who desires to avoid the pollution of sin separates in an extreme manner to preserve personal purity.  Out of sheer desperation about sinning, a person turns monastic without any warning to those around him.  I've never seen it.  People truly concerned for sin want to help sinners.  They know the truth and want others to know it too, because they care.

Someone really can judge belief and behavior based upon scripture.  The goal is to get to the right position and practice for God.  A person can know that.  Some people don't want that.  They want what they want and they don't want to be challenged -- at all.  This is the new generation Z and millennials. They have picked upon this new standard of human relations, even with the encouragement of evangelical leaders.

A kind of ghosting behavior actually is not new.  It is an extreme form of self-centeredness.  I understand it, because I've done it.  I can't imagine that any human being hasn't at least given the "silent treatment" to someone at some point.  I remember two instances.  It's a form of throwing a fit, a childish type of tantrum behavior.  Instead of reconciling along the lines of Matthew 5:21-26, someone sulks, ignores those around him, and goes silent.

An antidote for ghosting or the silent treatment for a true believer is Ephesians 4:26, let not the sun go down upon thy wrath.  It's a command.  It's not, let not a week, a month, or a year go down upon thy wrath, but the sun.  A dispute or division has got to be settled between believers out of love.  It's not right to hold a grudge, hold onto resentment, none of that.  It's self-destructive and dishonoring to God.  Much of this goes on between children and their parents today, but also between siblings, and childhood friends. It's not acceptable, but it is still happening and at an alarmingly increasing rate.

Again, scripture requires initiation of reconciliation, including possible mediation.  At the foundation is the love of the neighbor, the love of the brethren, according to the Word and will of God and as fruit of the Spirit.  It is also endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit.  Ghosting and the silent treatment don't please God and sin against God in their hateful treatment of others.

Friday, November 29, 2019

Miracle Moss Cures Cancer--watch the video!

The cure for cancer has been discovered--on YouTube!  Watch the short video below to find out about the miracle moss that cures cancer, although the cure has been suppressed by Big Pharma. (Note: I am not endorsing the music on the video.)

Learn about Dr. Johan R. Tarjany, who discovered the Miracle Moss in the 1800s, and how in the early 1800s he found out that the moss could alter the double helix structure of DNA.  He added the moss to his diet and he never developed cancer!  After watching the video, I have done what it suggested and I also have never developed cancer!!! The active ingredient in the moss has been banned by the FDA, but you can find it online--buy now!

Comments are welcome below, but please only comment after watching the entire (two minute) video.

If you wish to buy the moss from me, please note that I also do real estate deals.  The bridge below is one that has a huge amount of traffic in the San Francisco area, and I can sell it you for a very low price.  I can sell it because, as you can see below, I have a picture with the bridge in it:

Both for the moss and the bridge, just so you know, I do not take credit or debit cards, only prepaid gift cards, money orders, and cash wrapped in plain brown wrappers mailed to my international address.

May the video above encourage us to obey Isaiah 1:18's command to "reason."


Wednesday, November 27, 2019

A Hearing or Listening the First Rightful Response as Thanksgiving

Deuteronomy 5:7 begins the ten commandments in Deuteronomy:  "Thou shalt have none other gods before me."  There are at least two and maybe three stages before one arrives at that first command from God.  One, God does a lot of good stuff for people.  That first one could be divided into more than that one stage.  He gave them mercy, He delivered them, and He blessed them physically in numerous ways.  These are seen in the first four chapters of Deuteronomy, and in several other places in the Bible.  A representation of these are seen, in essence a summation, in chapter 5 and verses 2 to 6:
2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. 4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, 5 (I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;) saying, 6 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
Reading those there, one can see at least:
  1. Our God -- He possesses them and they Him.
  2. God made a covenant -- He made promises to them that He always kept and would keep.
  3. With us, even us -- He chose them out among many other people, and it could have been other people but it wasn't.
  4. Alive this day -- The very fact that they were alive was a testimony of multiple deliverances by God.
  5. The LORD talked with you face to face -- God kept it personal with the people.
  6. I am the LORD thy God -- He is the LORD their God; enough said.
  7. Brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage -- He saved them from a very difficult situation, Egypt and bondage.
As an example of the repetition of these terms, read all of Psalm 136, and especially these verses (vv. 10-16):
10 To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever: 11 And brought out Israel from among them: for his mercy endureth for ever: 12 With a strong hand, and with a stretched out arm: for his mercy endureth for ever. 13 To him which divided the Red sea into parts: for his mercy endureth for ever: 14 And made Israel to pass through the midst of it: for his mercy endureth for ever: 15 But overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red sea: for his mercy endureth for ever. 16 To him which led his people through the wilderness: for his mercy endureth for ever.
This is a review of a lot of good stuff from God for the same people.  The assumption here is thanksgiving.  Someone recognizes and acknowledges, has affection for, who God is and what He has done in comparison to as bad as it could have been.  The reason these things keep getting mentioned in other places like Psalm 136 is spoken in the first few verses of Psalm 136:
1 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. 2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. 3 O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Thanksgiving could be stage two, if we wanted to give it a separate stage to make three stages.  Some don't get to thanksgiving after all that God has done.  Unbelievers don't (Romans 1:21).

Stage two is Hear or listen, which is in the first verse of chapter 5:
And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day.
Last, I'm saying is obeying God's commands, which is the second half of verse one:  "that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them."  Other stages, important ones, could be inserted, namely learn and keep.  I don't want to devalue learning, but to keep it simple, the end is obey.  However, for the purpose of this post, I'm parking on stage two, hear or listen, saying that stage one is thanksgiving for God's provision.

"Hear" or "listen" is found at least 34 times in Deuteronomy.  It's a vital component of the overall message of the book.  Proverbs 1:5 says, "A wise man will hear."  Then in Proverbs 1:8, "My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother."  Children, and in particular sons, hear the instruction of their father.

There is a relationship between hearing or listening and thanksgiving.  Those saved on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 gladly received the Word of God.  A justification for church attendance, besides praise and prayer, is listening to the preaching of the Word of God out of thanksgiving to God.

If children are thankful for their parents, they will listen to them.  If they don't listen, they aren't thankful for them.  The term, ingrate, comes to mind.  Most likely they felt entitled for all the things they were given, a pride that leads to another pride of a stubborn refusal to listen to wisdom.

A humble Israel would with thanksgiving listen to the commands of God with the disposition to do them.  The same God that gave them all these things had blessing embedded in the obedience to the commands.  They were a better life with blessing built in and cursing with the disobedience.  The same comes with godly parents who give and give and give to their children and then beg them to listen to and then obey godly instruction. In the obedience to that instruction is blessing, as a microcosm of the giving and giving and giving of God that deserves thanksgiving, hearing, and then obedience.

Those thankful to God listen to God.

Monday, November 25, 2019

Faithless Music? The Belief in a Transcendent God Requires Objective Beauty

Part One

A material universe exists.  Modern science shows that it is not eternal.  It had a beginning a finite time ago out of nothing.   It is absurd to to say that the universe just popped into existence out of nothing.  The existence of the universe requires a transcendent cause that must be spiritual, because it can't already be a part of the material universe.  That cause also must be a lot of other qualities that fit a description of God.  Based on the complexity of the universe, the cause must have been the personal choice of an intelligent designer.   Vast evidence shows the existence of the universe requires elaborate initial conditions to sustain intelligent life.  This has been called the fine-tuning of the universe.

In this complex, personal, and intelligent universe, there are also values.  Like the natural laws bind the universe, so do the values, indicating that they too proceed from God.  Everyone for instance knows that certain objective, moral laws exist that are wrong to break.  The same cause of the universe is the cause of the moral values -- God.

The process I'm traversing here fits what Psalm 19 says in the Old Testament and Romans 1 in the New.  Psalm 19:1 says:
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Romans 1:19-20 say:
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Nature reveals not only the existence of God but also various attributes of God.  Sir Isaac Newton at the end of his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy wrote:
[T]hough these bodies may, indeed, continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. . . .  This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.
The founders of science called science "the wisdom of God."  The Royal Society began in 1660 and in 1667 John Ray became a fellow of the society, writing The Wisdom of God manifested in the Works of the Creation.  David said "their words," the words of the handiwork of God through His creation, go out "to the end of the world" (Psalm 19:2-3).

The words of creation, providence, and conscience match the Words of God in scripture.  Values are transcendent and the scripture, which reflects natural law, manifests those in categories of truth, goodness, and beauty.  Since God originated everything, so truth, goodness, and beauty spring from and, therefore, mirror Him.  Believing in the existence of God is believing in objective beauty.  Rather than state that argument myself, I use the statement of Augustine in his City of God:
Beauty. . . can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this `idea' of beauty were not found in the mind in a more perfect form. . . But even here, if this `idea' of beauty were not subject to change, one person would not be a better judge of sensible beauty than another. . . nor the experienced and skilled than the novice and the untrained; and the same person could not make progress towards better judgement than before. And it is obvious that anything which admits of increase or decrease is changeable. 
This consideration has readily persuaded men of ability and learning. . . that the original `idea' is not to be found in this sphere, where it is shown to be subject to change. . . And so they saw that there must be some being in which the original form resides, unchangeable, and therefore incomparable. And they rightly believed that it is there that the origin of things is to be found, in the uncreated, which is the source of all creation.
Furthermore, Augustine writes in his Confessions:
[M]y sin was this, that I looked for pleasure, beauty, and truth not in him but in myself and his other creatures, and the search led me instead to pain, confusion, and error.
If something can be beautiful, then something can be ugly.  Scripture backs up the logic, the natural law of which I and many others through history speak.  I provide three verses, two from the Old and one from the New, first 1 Chronicles 16:29 and Psalm 27:4:
Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness. 
One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to enquire in his temple.
From the New Testament, I quote Philippians 4:8:
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Paul commanded, "[T]hink on. . . whatsoever things are lovely."  God defines the lovely.  There is ugly music and it is music that does not reflect the nature of God.  It cannot be lustful, sexy, and many other negative traits that can be communicated by the language of music, including and even without the words.  I'm talking about music.  People listening to this music are not thinking on the lovely and they are moving away from the nature of God.  It's worse than that, but it's at least that bad.  I'm saying that it is faithless, because someone cannot both believe in God and not believe in objective beauty.  The latter follows the former.  It isn't in the eye of the beholder or a person's taste.  That is subjective or relativistic.

The church above all needs to talk and show the lovely, the beauty of God.  "Holiness" is in accordance with the attributes of God, separated unto His characteristics. Someone will not change into His image, be holy as He is holy, when they are channeling or guzzling godless music.  In the spirit of this Thanksgiving season, this isn't thankful.  This is not thanking God.  It is not wanting God.  It is feeding the flesh and wanting what self wants.

I apply this truth about God and beauty to you professing pastor, who has his play list filled with vile music.  I apply this to you professing Christian, listening to your worldly tunes on your road trip or on your way into work in your car or when you work out.  I write this to you, who when you hear the ugly, do not turn it off, when you can.

Believing in God is also believing in objective truth, objective goodness, and objective beauty.  I've focused on the last of these.  One isn't believing in God and turning beauty relative or subjective, shaping it according to his own lust.  Beauty proceeds from God, what characterizes Him.  That's what He wants us to value and we should value highest.  Someone is not seeking the kingdom of God and is not setting his affections on things above, when he subjects his passions to what is incongruent with either.

Saturday, November 23, 2019

The Continuous Practice of Sin in Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism with Its Music

In the preface to Geistliches Gesangbuchlein, Martin Luther wrote (16th century):
Young people. . .  should and must receive an education in music as well as in the other arts if we are to wean them away from carnal and lascivious songs and interest them in what is good and wholesome.
In particular, I point to "carnal and lascivious songs," as opposed to "what is good and wholesome."  Things have gotten much, much worse with music.  Greater warning is needed, but far less is provided.

I assert that music possesses self-evident meaning as expressed in a consistent, regular way through history by men as to its moral significance, influence on character, and then shaping of morality.  The internet is filled with references to "lustful music" (57,000 results), "erotic music" (490,000 results), "sexy music" (2,610,000 results), and "lust music" (36,800 results) among many other similar type references.  People recognize the qualities of something lustful in music without the component of words.

Many know the story of Marilyn Monroe singing "Happy Birthday" to John F. Kennedy in a lustful manner, not related to the enigmatic lyrics of the song.  Music conveys lust minus words.  Without any context, someone understand the language by which music communicates its message.  Music not only expresses meaning, but it also arouses or influences other impressions upon its listener.  Everyone knows this.  Those who deny it do so for dubious, pernicious reasons or because of dark deception, the kind usually characteristic of an unbeliever.

Scripture warns against lust.  It is forbidden for the believer, the true Christian.  I'm including this long list as a reference.  You don't need to read every verse right at this moment, but at some point do that, and I ask you to think about how that the verse applies to music.  I'm going to apply some of them myself in manifesting the point of this post.  Don't give up.
Mark 4:19, "And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful."
Romans 1:24, "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves."
Romans 6:12, "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof."
Romans 13:14, "But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."
Galatians 5:16, "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."
Galatians 5:24, "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."
Ephesians 2:3, "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."
Ephesians 4:22, "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts."
1 Timothy 6:9, "But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition."
2 Timothy 2:22, "Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity,, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart."
2 Timothy 3:6, "For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts."
2 Timothy 4:3, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears."
Titus 2:12, "Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world."
Titus 3:3, "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another."
1 Thessalonians 4:5, "Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God."
James 1:14-15, "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
James 4:1-3, "From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?  Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.  Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts."
1 Peter 1:14, "As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance."
1 Peter 2:11, "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims,, abstain from fleshly lusts,, which war against the soul."
1 Peter 4:2-3, "That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.  For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries."
2 Peter 1:4, "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."
2 Peter 2:10, "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."
2 Peter 2:18, "For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error."
2 Peter 3:3, "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts."
1 John 2:16-17, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."
Jude 1:16-18, "These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.  But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts."
I want to focus in particular on verses that make commands to a Christian.  Romans 13:14, you can see above, commands, "[M]ake not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."  Professing Christians who listen to pop music -- rock, rap, country, hip-hop, etc. -- disobey this command.  As they continue listening to this music, they live in continual disobedience to it.  The music makes provision for the flesh.  As a result, the command of 2 Timothy 2:22 is disobeyed, "Flee youthful lusts," and that of 1 Peter 2:11, "[A]bstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul."  With lustful music playing, the professing Christian isn't fleeing youthful lust and isn't abstaining from fleshly lust.  This wars against the soul.

Many more can be applied above.  They are very serious.  The popular music hurts the Christian and displeases God.  Those who "walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, . . . despise government."  I've never seen more anger than that from those who wish to keep their lustful music.  It is feeding their flesh, and they don't want to or can't give it up.  It becomes more important than God and usually godly parents.  Young people take the music over their parents at the same time savaging the parents with scoffing.  I've watched this again and again.  It almost always goes along with immodest clothing as well.

The popular music of the world does not deny "worldly lust," and so conforms to this present world, the lust of the flesh, rather than proving what is the good and acceptable will of God (Titus 2:11-12, 1 John 2:15-17, Romans 12:1-2).   Evangelicalism and fundamentalism is filled with those who disobey these passages in a continuous manner.  It leads to a hunger and fascination with many other worldly interests and behaviors.  Rather than deny worldly lust, they deny true fellowship with God.

I am not writing here about what is even used in churches today for worship.  I'm talking about what Christians do in their lives on an almost every day basis.  They not only listen to this music, but they promote it all the time in how they use it in their cars and podcasts.  All of this shapes a different view of God than a scriptural one.  They might have "God" in their doctrinal statements, but this forms God into the image of their own lust.  They subject God to their lust and invent a different, heretical view of the grace of God.  Rather than their lives being transformed by the renewing of their minds, they conform God to their lust.  It affects everything they do, how they make decisions, what they do and how they live, much more than the continuous practice of sin in disobedience to passages against lust.  What I'm explaining, Jonathan Edwards already described in his Treatise Concerning the Religious Affections:
The affections and passions are frequently spoken of as the same; and yet, in the more common use of speech, there is in some respect a difference. Affection is a word that, in its ordinary signification, seems to be something more extensive than passion, being used for all vigorous lively actings of the will or inclination; but passion for those that are more sudden, and whose effects on the animal spirits are more violent, and the mind more overpowered, and less in its own command.
David Wells in No Place for Truth writes:
It is this God, majestic and holy in his being, this God whose love knows no bounds because his holiness knows no limits, who has disappeared from the modern evangelical world.
God hasn't actually disappeared.  He is Omnipresent.  He sustains the universe.  He is missing from the imaginations of evangelicalism and fundamentalism, replaced by a god shaped by their passions, fed by their lust.  Edwards warned of this in his Treatise Concerning the Religious Affections.  A different god is shaped in the imaginations formed by lust or passion.  Someone chooses his music according to either passion or affection, or his music fashions the passions that lead to a different god in his imagination.

Friday, November 22, 2019

Jessie Penn-Lewis: Binding and Loosing (part 15 of 22)

In addition, neither Matthew 18:15-20 nor Matthew 16:18-19 have anything to do with Christians binding Satan.[1]  The “binding” and “loosing” of Matthew 16:19; 18:18 refer to making decisions about what is right and wrong, about the regulation of right behavior and teaching, comparable to Jewish use of the terms “binding” and “loosing” to declare what was permissible or impermissible (cf. Matthew 23:4, 13; Luke 11:52).[2] Peter, as one of the Apostles, possessing Divine authority as represented by the metaphor of the “keys” (Matthew 16:19; cf. Isaiah 22:22[3]), declared, based on the coming of Christ, the abolition of Old Testament ceremonies such as circumcision, dietary laws, and festival days for the Gentiles (Acts 15:10, 19) and the end of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the church age (Acts 10:28; 11:2-3, 18), “binding” believers to New Testament worship and lifestyle and “loosing” them from Old Testament worship and lifestyle.[4]  Interpreting Matthew 16:19 in light of its Jewish background in this manner has been standard practice for centuries, while Mrs. Penn Lewis’s view that the verse refers to binding Satan by prayer does not appear to have existed before her lifetime.[5]  Similarly, Matthew 18:18 indicates that every one of Christ’s true churches[6] has Divine authority to preach and teach God-given truth about doctrine and lifestyle, and consequently the ability to excommunicate members of the congregation (Matthew 18:15-17) who refuse to believe and practice the God-given truths of the Word that the church binds and looses (Matthew 18:18) by its preaching and discipline.  The church has authority to declare God’s will and pronounce the actions of its wayward member as sin.  Furthermore, Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 refer to teachings, issues, or actions, not to personal beings—not humans, and certainly not fallen angels—being bound or loosed; the passages refer to “whatsoever” is bound or loosed, not “whosoever” is bound or loosed (cf. also Matthew 5:19).[7]  If one were to insist, despite the “whatsoever,” that persons were in view, those being “loosed” by the church in Matthew 18 would be members of the assembly who had been “bound” by joining the congregation, so unless fallen angels or Satan himself had been immersed upon profession of faith into the membership of a New Testament church, nothing about binding Satan is contained in Matthew 18.  No modern advocate of Keswick or Pentecostal theology is the Apostle Peter, so Matthew 16:19 does not help advance Jessie Penn-Lewis’ position. Nor does the binding and loosing take place in Matthew 18:18 through prayer; rather, the congregation receives Divine guidance in prayer (Matthew 18:19)[8] so that its preaching and discipline, its binding and loosing, are in accordance with the will of Christ, who is God present in their midst (Matthew 18:20; 1:23), and in accordance with the preceding and directing antecedent will[9] of the Father in heaven.  Binding and loosing is practiced by a true church in conjunction with and as a result of prayer, but not by means of prayer.  Furthermore, the verb tenses for “shall be bound” and “shall be loosed” indicate that the binding and loosing constitutes a continuing condition.[10]  The doctrine taught by the Apostles and promulgated by true churches is permanently binding on the people of God, who have also been permanently loosed from Old Testament ceremonial regulations.[11]  However, it seems that those who abuse Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 to support their doctrine of binding Satan—the large majority of whom are not members of Biblical Baptist churches, and thus people to whom Matthew 18:18, and 16:19 so much the more, do not apply in any case[12]—fail to keep him bound for very long at all,[13] although no other congregation or individual is likely to be praying for Satan to be loosed, since prayers to loose Satan appear to be vastly fewer in number than those to bind him.  Scripture affirms that Satan will not be bound until the Millennial kingdom, and the texts Penn-Lewis employs to support her doctrine of Christians binding Satan are ripped out of context.  Therefore, since the Bible gives no support to her view, her conclusions are only as sure as her claim to extra-Biblical inspiration.  Only to the extent that the prophetic powers she and Evan Roberts possessed were validated by their prediction of the end of the world in 1914, to that extent, at best, can one rely on their advice for how to battle devils and bind Satan in War on the Saints.


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]           It is true that the verb de÷w, “to bind,” appears in both Matthew 12:29 and Matthew 18:18.  However, this fact does not prove that the same idea is in view in both passages any more than the fact that Herod has John the Baptist bound (de÷w) in Matthew 14:3 or a donkey is bound (de÷w) to keep it from wandering away in Matthew 21:2 proves that the latter two texts refer somehow to demons being cast out and to the binding of Satan.
[2]           Commenting on Matthew 16:19, “And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” John Gill wrote:
This . . . [refers to] doctrines, or declarations of what is lawful and unlawful, free, or prohibited to be received, or practiced; in which sense the words, rtwmw rwoa, “bound and loosed,” are used in the Talmudic writings, times without number, for that which is forbidden and declared to be unlawful, and for that which is free of use, and pronounced to be so: in multitudes of places we read of one Rabbi rowa, “binding,” and of another rytm, “loosing”; thousands, and ten thousands of instances of this kind might be produced; a whole volume of extracts on this head might be compiled.
Similarly, the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (H. R. Balz & G. Schneider, Vol. 2, on lu/w) notes:
Binding and loosing are spoken of in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 as a figurative designation for authoritative ecclesiastical action. Here one may assume the presence of Jewish rabbinic usage [cf. Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch I-IV (1922-28), H. Strack & P. Billerbeck, I, 738–42; IV, 304–21]. ’Asar and hitîr in Hebrew and asar and šerā’ in Aramaic are used, in regard to discipline, for the imposition and repeal of the synagogue ban and, in regard to the teaching office, for binding interpretation of the law— “forbid and permit.”
Commenting on Matthew 16:19, Luz & Koester (Matthew:  A Commentary.  Hermeneia) write:
[T]he usual interpretation . . . proceeds from the rabbinic pair אָסַר/ הִתִּיר (Aramaic אֲסַר/שְׁרָא). The primary meaning is “forbidding” and “permitting” with a halakic decision of the rabbis, that is, the interpretation of the law. Less frequently, but documented in contemporary sources, a judge’s activity is meant. Then “to bind” and “to loose” correspond to “to put in fetters” or “to acquit.” . . . In later rabbinic terminology there is a source for “to impose the ban” or “to rescind” it . . . Furthermore, it is the rabbinic conviction that God or the heavenly court recognizes the halakic decisions and the judgments of rabbinical courts. Thus not only the concepts “binding/loosing” but the entire saying is rooted in Jewish thought. [Matthew 16:19] is presumably thinking of teaching, while in 18:18 the thought is of judging, without the two meanings being mutually exclusive.
            The concept of sitting in Moses’ seat (Matthew 23:2), as the following verses demonstrate, likewise refers to authoritative teaching (cf. Matthew 5:1-2ff.; 13:1-2; 24:3; 26:55), properly from the only true and ultimate authority for the believer, the Word of God.
[3]           It is noteworthy that in Isaiah 22:22, while the connection is not necessarily the most clear and direct, the verbs “open” and “shut,” jAtDp and rgDs, can be used for “loosing” and “binding.”  Thus, jAtDp can bear the sense of “loosen” (cf. in the Piel Genesis 24:32; Isaiah 20:2; 58:6; in the Qal, which is found in Isaiah 22:22, note Deuteronomy 20:11; Judges 3:25; 19:27; Isaiah 14:17; 26:2; 45:1; Nehemiah 13:19; etc., and the nature of the Piel as resultative in relation to the Qal), and the Hebrew jAtDp is translated with lu/w in the LXX in Genesis 42:27; Job 39:5; Psalm 101:21 (102:21); Isaiah 5:27; 14:17; 57:6; Jeremiah 47:4 (50:4).  For rgDs, compare Judges 3:23; 9:51; Isaiah 24:22; 45:1; 60:11, and the use of dja for this verb in the Targum and Peshitta of Isaiah 22:22.  Compare in the Mishna:  “And further did R. Eliezer say, ‘They unloose a vow by reference to what happens unexpectedly [a new fact].’ And sages prohibit. . . . R. Eliezer permits [declares the vow to be unbound]. And sages prohibit [declare the vow to remain binding].” (Nedarim 9:2: :NyrVswøa iImDkSjw ryI;tAm r‰zRoyIlTa ir . . . NyrVswøa iImDkSjw dAlwø…nA;b NyIjVtwp r‰zRoyIlTa ir iAmDa dwøo◊w). (Note: some Hebrew font issues may be taking place above.)
Note also that “Sipre to Deuteronomy 32:25 applies Isaiah 22:22 to rabbinic permission and prohibition of specific actions” (The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Nolland, in the New International Greek Testament Commentary, on Matthew 16:18-19.)
Unsurprisingly, Isaiah 22:22 has as little to do with binding Satan as Matthew 16:19; 18:18.
[4]           R. T. France notes:
Taking up the imagery of Isaiah 22:20–22, Jesus declares Peter to be the steward (the chief administrative officer) in the kingdom of heaven, who will hold the keys, so that, like Eliakim, the new steward (cf. Isa 22:15) in the kingdom of David, “he will open, and no one shall shut; he will shut and no one shall open.” The steward is not the owner. He has both authority (over the rest of the household) and responsibility (to his master to administer the affairs of the house properly). The keys are those of the storehouses, to enable him to make appropriate provision for the household, not those of the outer gate, to control admission. . . . [as in] the role of the steward in [Matthew] 24:45; also Luke 16:1–8. . . . The metaphor of “tying up” and “untying” speaks also of administrative authority. The terms are used in rabbinic literature for declaring what is and is not permitted. When the same commission is given to the whole disciple group in [Matthew] 18:18 it will be specifically in the context of dealing with sin within their community. . . . Such authority to declare what is and is not permissible will of course have personal consequences for the person judged to have sinned, but it is the prior judgment in principle which is the focus of the “tying” metaphor, and there, as here, the objects of both verbs will be expressed in the neuter, not the masculine; it is things, issues, which are being tied or untied, not people as such. The historical role of Peter in Acts well illustrates the metaphor, as it was to him that the responsibility fell of declaring that Gentiles might be accepted as members of the new ekklēsia (10:1–11:18), though of course the exercise of his disciplinary authority could also have dire personal consequences for those who stepped over the mark (Acts 5:1–11; cf. 8:20–24).  (The Gospel of Matthew:  The New International Commentary on the New Testament, R. T. France, on Matthew 16:19).
[5]           Thus, a work such as A History of the Exegesis of Matthew 16:17-19 from 1781 to 1965, Joseph A. Burgess (Ph. D. Diss., University of Basel; Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, MI:  1976) notes the recognition of the Jewish background to the binding and loosing metaphor as signifying authoritative teaching in sources from Buxtorf (1639) and before, to Lightfoot (1655), to vast numbers of more modern writers (pgs. 62-64, cf. 77-78).  This view became “standard practice for Protestant exegetes” in at least very large portions of the time period Burgess focuses upon (pg. 92).  In contrast, not a sentence of Burgess’ dissertation breathes even a hint of the existence of Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s position before her lifetime (cf. pg. 105).
[6]           Note that close connection of the two references in Matthew to the e˙kklhsi÷a and to binding and loosing (Matthew 16:18-19; 18:17-18).
[7]           That is, in Matthew 16:19, o§ e˙a»n dh/shØß . . . o§ e˙a»n lu/shØß employs the neuter pronoun , rather than the masculine form, and Matthew 18:18 likewise employs the neuter o¢sa, not the masculine, in o¢sa e˙a»n dh/shte . . . o¢sa e˙a»n lu/shte.  Contrast Josephus, Wars of the Jews 1:111 (1:5:2:111), where the masculine pronoun ou§ß is employed when persons are in view: tou/toiß perisso\n dh/ ti prosei√cen hJ ∆Alexa¿ndra sesobhme÷nh peri« to\ qei√on oi˚ de« th\n aJplo/thta thvß aÓnqrw¿pou kata» mikro\n uJpio/nteß h¡dh kai« dioikhtai« tw◊n o¢lwn e˙gi÷nonto diw¿kein te kai« kata¿gein ou§ß e˙qe÷loien lu/ein te kai« desmei√n kaqo/lou de« ai˚ me«n aÓpolau/seiß tw◊n basilei÷wn e˙kei÷nwn h™san ta» d∆ aÓnalw¿mata kai« ai˚ dusce÷reiai thvß ∆Alexa¿ndraß. “Now, Alexandra hearkened to them to an extraordinary degree, as being herself a woman of great piety towards God. But these Pharisees artfully insinuated themselves into her favor by little and little, and became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs; they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed [men] at their pleasure; and, to say all at once, they had the enjoyment of the royal authority, whilst the expenses and the difficulties of it belonged to Alexandra.”
            In Matthew 5:19, o§ß e˙a»n ou™n lu/shØ mi÷an tw◊n e˙ntolw◊n tou/twn tw◊n e˙laci÷stwn, kai« dida¿xhØ ou¢tw tou\ß aÓnqrw¿pouß, e˙la¿cistoß klhqh/setai e˙n thØv basilei÷aˆ tw◊n oujranw◊n: o§ß d∆ a·n poih/shØ kai« dida¿xhØ, ou∞toß me÷gaß klhqh/setai e˙n thØv basilei÷aˆ tw◊n oujranw◊n, note the connection between “breaking” or “loosing” and “teaching,” which in the context (v. 20-48) is contrasted with the improper use of teaching authority by the Pharisees.
            Philo speaks of the binding and loosing of things and thus employs neuter forms in On the Eternity of the World 13; the material creation has the potential for nonexistence, it is argued:  “Now everything which has been bound together is capable of being dissolved, but it is the part of an evil ruler to dissolve that which has been well combined and arranged, and which is in good condition.” to\ me«n ou™n dh\ deqe«n pa◊n luto/n, to\ ge mh\n kalw◊ß aJrmosqe«n kai« e¶con eu™ lu/ein e˙qe÷lein kakouv.
            Note further that in Matthew 18:18 the pronoun o¢sa is plural; the church, by its preaching and teaching, binds and looses numbers of doctrines; contrast the singular “brother” mentioned in 18:15-17.  Were Satan the being in view in 18:18, the plural pronoun would be unexpected.
[8]           Note the continuation of the “two or three” idea of Matthew 18:16 in the “two” of Matthew 18:19.  Even the smallest true church has the promises of Matthew 18:15-20 and is bound to practice the passage’s teachings.
[9]           This fact is verified by both the future perfect passive periphrastics in Matthew 16:19; 18:18 and the context.  Mantey writes:
“I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, but whatever you bind (dh/shØß, an aor. subj.) on earth shall have been bound (e¶stai dedeme÷non) in heaven, and whatever you loose (lu/shØß) on earth shall have been loosed (e¶stai lelume÷non) in heaven.”  Or in other words, Christ was informing his disciples that he was elevating them to the same rank and privileges that the scribes enjoyed, but at the same time he warns them not to perpetuate the abuses of the scribes, who taught things contrary to the Scriptures.  Like scribes, they were to be interpreters of God’s will to men, but in this capacity they are cautioned not to exceed their authority.  Man is to ratify and obey God’s decrees.  This passage does not teach that God concurs in men’s conclusions; but rather it teaches that those who live in accordance with Christ’s directions will decide to do just what God has already decided should be done. (pg. 246, “The Mistranslation of the Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Mt 16:19, and Mt 18:18, Journal of Biblical Literature 58:3 (September 1939) 243-249; cf. contra Mantey, ‘The Meaning of John 20.23, Matthew 16.19, and Matthew 18.18,’ Henry Cadbury, Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939), 251–54; contra Cadbury and favorable to Mantey, The Greek Perfect Tense in Relation to John 20:23, Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, William Dayton.  Th. D. Dissertation, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1945)
 In accordance with the Greek, the Latin Vulgate translates:  “Et tibi dabo claves regni cælorum. Et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in cælis: et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in cælis. . . . Amen dico vobis, quæcumque alligaveritis super terram, erunt ligata et in cælo: et quæcumque solveritis super terram, erunt soluta et in cælo” (Matthew 16:19; 18:18).  “The Latin Vulgate also translates as ‘Will have been bound,’ ‘will have been loosed,’ exactly corresponding to the Greek.  It is the Church on earth carrying out heaven’s decisions, communicated by the Spirit, and not heaven ratifying the Church’s decisions” (Comment on Matthew 16:19, Matthew, The Anchor Bible, W. F. Albright & C. S. Mann.  Garden City, NY:  Doubleday, 1971).  Compare pg. 80, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, William Chamberlain (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Books, 1979); “Binding and Loosing,”  Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, gen. ed. Chad Brand, C. Draper, A. England.
            Comparable future perfect passive periphrastics in the LXX are found in Genesis 30:33:  pa◊n o§ e˙a»n mh\ h™Ø rJanto\n kai« dia¿leukon e˙n tai√ß ai˙xi«n . . . keklemme÷non e¶stai par∆ e˙moi÷, “Every one that is not speckled or spotted among the goats . . . if found with me will have been stolen by me,” and Genesis 43:9 (LXX; also Genesis 44:32):  e˙a»n mh\ aÓga¿gw aujto\n pro\ß se« kai« sth/sw aujto\n e˙nanti÷on sou hJmarthkw»ß [perfect active] e¶somai pro\ß se« pa¿saß ta»ß hJme÷raß; the sinful negligence took place before the time of the failure to present Benjamin before Jacob, with resultant durative blameworthiness. The LXX overall is generally supportive of Mantey—see the perfect passive periphrastics in:  Genesis 30:33; 41:36; Exodus 12:6; 28:7; Deuteronomy 28:33; Judges 13:5; 1 Samuel 25:29; 2 Samuel 7:16; 1 Chronicles 17:14; 2 Chronicles 7:15; Nehemiah 5:13; Tobit 13:14; Sirach 10:1; 42:8; Nahum 3:11; Zephaniah 2:4; Isaiah 9:18; 11:5; 17:9; 27:10; 33:12; Jeremiah 14:16; 43:30; 51:14; Ezekiel 24:17; 29:12; 30:7; 44:2; 46:1; 48:12; Daniel 2:20, 41 (var.), 42.  Extrabiblical examples include:  “‘I feel that if I clear myself before you I shall have cleared (apolelogemenos esesthai) myself through you before the rest of the Greeks’ (Lucian, Philaris, I, 1).  ‘Now if you do this, you will have bestowed (ese katatetheimenos) a great favor upon me’ (Papyri BGU 596,13).  ‘And if you send them away scot-free, much security will have been voted (epsephismenoi esesthe) to them to do whatever they wish’ (Lysias, XXII, 19). . . . Other future perfects occur in Lysias XII, 100; Papyri Par. 14, 50:8.24” (pg. 135, “Evidence That the Perfect Tense in John 20.23, Matthew 16.19 Is Mistranslated,” Julius R. Mantey. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 16 (1973), 129–38).  In the New Testament, Luke 12:52; Hebrews 2:13 are the only other future perfect periphrastics, and Hebrews 2:13 is active; Luke 12:52 is the only future perfect passive periphrastic other than Matthew 16:19 & 18:18.  Compare the future passive periphrastics in related generally contemporaneous corpora, in which the sense of future periphrasis argued for by Mantey finds support, although not universally so; thus, see in the apostolic patristics 1 Clement 10:3; 58:2; Barnabas 11:3, 6; Shepherd 51:9; 55:4; compare, in Justin Martyr, Trypho 60, 81, 123; in Josephus, Antiquities 13:70; also Protoevangelium of James 12:1; Enoch 3:8; 98:6; Sibylline Oracles 1:286; Testament of Levi 4:6; Letter of Aristeas 40; Ordinances of Levi 58, 61, 64.
[10]         The examination of the future perfect periphrastics in the preceding footnote validate that the continuing state notion of the Greek perfect remains present in future periphrasis; indeed, one would expect the periphrastic construction to emphasize the state.  It is noteworthy that even (incorrect) critics of Mantey’s (correct) “shall have been” translation do not dispute that an abiding state is brought about by the action of the future perfect periphrastic; thus, Cadbury writes:  “In the two passages of Matthew [16:19; 18:18] the future perfects seem to imply a permanent condition . . . I would suggest for Matthew’s future perfects an expression ‘shall be once for all” (pgs. 252-253, ‘The Meaning of John 20.23, Matthew 16.19, and Matthew 18.18,’ Henry Cadbury, Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939), 251–54), and Stanley Porter, while advocating his erroneous atemporal view of Greek tense (cf. pgs. 504-512, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace), nonetheless translates Matthew 16:19 as “whatever you might bind upon the earth shall be in a state of boundness in heaven; and whatever you might loose upon the earth shall be in a state of loosedness in heaven” since he affirms the sense is “shall be in a state of being bound or having boundness” (pgs. 155, 160, “Vague Verbs, Periphrastics, and Matt 16:19,” Filologia Neotestamentaria (Córdoba, Spain) 1 (1988), 155–73).  Indeed, every future perfect in the New Testament retains the idea of a continuing resultant state (Matthew 16:19 (e¶stai dedeme÷non . . . e¶stai lelume÷non); 18:18 (e¶stai dedeme÷na . . . e¶stai lelume÷na); Luke 12:52 (e¶sontai . . . diamemerisme÷noi); 19:40 (kekra¿xontai); Hebrews 2:13 (e¶somai pepoiqw÷ß); 8:11 (ei˙dh/sousi÷n).
[11]         One who wished to argue that binding and loosing pertain specifically and directly to the joining of and excommunication from a congregation in Matthew 18 (they indirectly do so, since when the congregation, on the basis of Scripture, declares the actions of a member “sin,” it is then to act upon that teaching authority and remove the sinning individual from membership), also are consistent with the abiding state involved in the verb tenses; one does not need to add a person to a membership roll (cf. Acts 1:15; 2:41, 47) or remove a disobedient church member over and over again; once is enough.
[12]         The authority to bind and loose, entrusted to Peter as representative of the Apostles as members of the church in Matthew 16:19, is perpetuated through the congregation of saints, as verified by Matthew 18:18.  Parachurch institutions and all religious denominations that exist outside of the succession of Bible-believing and practicing Baptist churches that has existed from the first century until the present day have no authority to bind and loose, to teach the Bible (cf. Matthew 28:18-20), or even to exist.
[13]         Thus, in the book Binding and Loosing:  How to Exercise Authority over the Dark Powers, by K. Neill Foster and Paul L. King, Mr. Foster had “believed in the principles of binding and loosing for many years and had published some material on the subject[,] [that is, a book entitled Warfare Weapons.] . . . We liked how it worked[,] [although] I no doubt would, [at this time], have admitted that my views could have been part of a private interpretation” (pgs. 2-4), until at length he finally came to conclude that the Bible actually taught what he already knew, without Biblical proof, “worked,” had practiced “for many years,” and had written a book about, without being able to defend it exegetically.  The authors are sure that their doctrine “works,” although their book has an entire chapter called “When It Doesn’t Happen,” trying to explain what is going on when “[b]inding is a farce, loosing a dream,” and it “simply doesn’t work . . . simply does not take place” (pg. 209, see 209-216, Ibid.), although Matthew 18:15-20 guarantees the binding or loosing with no exceptions whatsoever.  The doctrine taught by the Apostles and by Biblical churches is always binding, with no exceptions, no “farces,” no instances where the truths of the New Testament are only a “dream,” and no instances when the promises of God fail to take place.