Jessie Penn-Lewis & the Welsh Revival of 1904
Part 3 of Evan Roberts, Jessie Penn-Lewis, and the Welsh Revival of 1904-1905
Jessie Penn-Lewis was, in her day, “Keswick’s leading female speaker . . . the woman destined to make the most impression at Keswick.” “Only those who . . . kn[ew] her longest and most closely can fully appreciate how strongly [she] influenced . . . Evangelical life and thought of her time.” Indeed, a condensation of her bookThe Warfare with Satan and the Way of Victory was even found among the volumes of the epoch-making series,The Fundamentals. She came from a Quaker family, had significant “Quaker linkages,” and, among other events in her notably limited education, went, as she affirmed, to “a school . . . opened by a Quaker lady,” along with receiving training from a “Quaker gentleman.” Her husband William Penn-Lewis had a strong Quaker background as “a follower of George Fox, a professed Quaker and descendent of . . . William Penn,” so that Jessie’s married name of Penn-Lewis pointed back to that extremely influential early anti-Trinitarian Quaker who founded the state of Pennsylvania. Throughout their long married life, “every Sunday, [Mr. Penn-Lewis] and his wife went to . . . a Society of Friends Meeting,” except on certain occasions when they attended “an Anglican service” or, “sometimes, a lively evangelical meeting.” She could justify the disorder and confusion of the meetings led by Evan Roberts through an appeal to the Quaker principal of worship: “By the immediate operations of the Holy spirit, [Christ] as the Head of the church, alone selects and qualifies those who are to present His messages or engage in other service for Him; and, hence, we cannot commit any formal arrangement to any one in our regular meetings for worship.” Mrs. Penn-Lewis would, on various occasions, give the “message” at “the Friends’ Meeting House” up to the very end of her life. Both Mr. and Mrs. Penn-Lewis were buried in a Quaker graveyard, “the Friends Burial Field at Reigate,” their funerals being held in Quaker meeting houses, thus identifying with the Quaker movement and its heresies in the choice of their final resting place. Furthermore, Mrs. Penn-Lewis’ “mother was one of the first to join . . . the Good Templar Movement” in her town, and Jessie “was keenly eager to be a Templar too,” so she followed her mother as a “Templar” in the demonic cult of Freemasonry. The “very first Lodge night after [her] twelfth birthday . . . [she was] initiated into the coveted circle.” She soon became “Chief Presiding Officer of the juveniles . . . [in the Minor] Lodge,” while her husband-to-be was “Treasurer of [that same] Lodge at th[at] time.” She “continued as secretary of the Lodge by re-election quarter after quarter until . . . compelled to give it up” because of her father’s death. Her Quaker and Masonic influences were connected, as a “Quaker . . . undertook to teach [her] the secretarial work [of the Lodge].” However, Mrs. Penn-Lewis’ parents and she did not stick exclusively to Quaker and Freemason meetings; she had Calvinistic Methodism in her background also, since, for example, her grandfather was a minister in the “C. M. Connection,” and, what is more, was “said to be the most metaphysical preacher of his day” in that movement. Jessie’s devout mother consequently “had ideas that children could be brought up without the knowledge of sin.” Jessie also attended Anglican services. For instance, after marrying William, the Penn-Lewis family attended “the Church of the Annunciation . . . [where Mr. Penn-Lewis had been] attending [before their marriage],” an Anglican congregation where the “Vicar was an extreme High Churchman” who believed in a damnable sacramental salvation, the Papist confessional, and other “strong Anglo-Catholic views.” During the second year of her marriage, Jessie “began to feel very ill at ease about the Lord’s Return” and she was professedly converted to Christ, although she did not say a word to anyone about this professed conversion until a year and a half later, when, having moved to the Anglican parish where Evan Hopkins was the minister, she was simply “asked if she were ‘a Christian,’ and her . . . answer ‘Yes’ was her first open confession of Christ,” this response allegedly proving not merely her religiosity, but her supernatural true conversion and regeneration. She soon became “a fluent and powerful” woman preacher in “open air” meetings connected with Hopkins’ congregation, although because of a difficult ministry experience she “would have cracked” without the stabilizing influence of some other women. Also, opposition because of “her unorthodox views . . . caused [her great] pain.” Nonetheless, throughout her life she regularly preached in congregations, conventions, and settings of the most varied kinds to both men and women, despite “strong prejudice based upon misunderstanding of Paul’s” prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15, but in accordance with the Quaker practice of “encouraging women to be ministers.” Generally, “the pastors [were] strongly opposed,” but women were to reject pastoral counsel, receive women preachers anyway, and preach themselves; many did, being “faithful to the power of the Lord” against their “local clergym[e]n, who said women should not speak at meetings.” Penn-Lewis knew that Paul did not really mean to prohibit women preaching to men when he wrote: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church,” and “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Rather, Penn-Lewis knew that “Psalm lxviii 11-12 (see R. V.) must surely have been a prophecy of these days in which we live,” proving that women in the New Testament dispensation are “to prophesy and preach” to men, although nothing of the sort is in view in the psalm if one adopts a grammatical-historical interpretation of the Hebrew text, the Authorized Version, or even the Revised Version to which Penn-Lewis refers. However, “God had given her the text of a ‘new translation’ of [the] Psalm.” Soon after beginning her public work, she “saw that [she] should know the Holy Spirit as a Person . . . through reading Andrew Murray’s Spirit of Christ,” leading her to a variety of special spiritual experiences, although she testified, “I could not understand why it made so little difference in my service . . . [i]n these respects [of serving Christ in different ways], I was just the same as before, until, some three years later,” she received a “Baptism of the Spirit for service.” She later was able to meet “Mr. Murray” and have “a long talk” with him, “the first contact of a fellowship in God which deepened into a bond in the Spirit between [their] two souls.” Penn-Lewis also discovered, after staying at Bethshan, Boardman’s faith-cure “House of Rest,” the doctrine of healing espoused by Mahan, Boardman, and Murray, learning “what it meant to take [Christ’s] life and strength for [the] body when needed for His service.” Shortly after adopting the Faith Cure doctrine, she began seeking a “Spirit baptism” of the sort “Finney and Asa Mahan” experienced, and, not able to figure out whether or not the Bible taught their doctrine, set aside Scripture and all “books” of theology to simply pray until God revealed directly to her what she could not figure out by means of that Word of God that is “more sure” than even His audible voice (2 Peter 1:16-21). She then, by means of a vision and “revelation” where she saw a “hand holding up in terrible light a handful of filthy rags” and heard what was allegedly God’s voice, adopted what became an influential Keswick doctrine of crucifixion with Christ and the central aspect of her later preaching and writing, based on a misinterpretation of Romans 6, and as a result of receiving that crucifixion doctrine by revelation also received the kind of baptism that Finney and Mahan had experienced. She further explained, in continuity with the Keswick healing doctrine stretching from Boardman through to Simpson, Murray, Nee, and many others, that she was “healed . . . when the Baptism of the Spirit came . . . in 1892 . . . when there came to me that revolution in Christian life which can only be described as a ‘Baptism of the Spirit’ . . . [and which] enabled [me], physically, to endure and to accomplish labour . . . beyond both natural and physical powers,” since the believer’s co-crucifixion with Christ gives him both spiritual victory over sin and Satan and physical healing. Penn-Lewis wrote:
If you have learned the inner life of victory . . . you . . . have in union with Christ . . . life and healing for soul and body. . . . [It is the weak Christian] who is not able to trust beyond the use of means for recovery[.] . . . Isaiah said, “By His stripes we are healed.” . . . I got the inside clue [when] . . . I saw this Hebrew rendering . . . “IN HIS HEALED WOUNDS THERE IS HEALING FOR US!” . . . [J]ust as we are “crucified together with Him,” and share in His victory over sin and Satan, so in a still deeper sense “crucified with Him” when we stand in victory over sin and Satan, the life of Jesus ministered by the Holy Spirit indwelling the spirit, can heal the bruised and broken bodies of all who thus by faith apprehend their identification and union with Him . . . as I stand in identification with His death, the VERY LIFE that healed Him, which comes to me as I am joined to Him in spirit, can heal my broken body . . . It is “identification” again, with Him in His death, and a deeper appropriation of His Risen and healing life. . . . [H]ealing . . . is all for each believer in the finished work of Calvary.
Thus, bodily healing is part of the Christian’s inheritance for today and also a product of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so that the truly spiritual Christian will reject medicine for the Faith Cure; Penn-Lewis bore her “testimony to the truth of Matt. viii. 17, and Rom. viii. 11” and “st[ood] by faith upon these Divine facts,” for “[h]ealing is part of the finished work of Calvary[,] [and] ‘In His healed wounds there is healing for us[.]’ . . . The same life-power that healed and restored His broken body can heal and quicken my broken body.” Consequently, “on the basis of Romans Six you may put in your claim for the healing of any bodily disease.” One simply “definitively drop[s]
‘body’ at the Cross” and then becomes “quite well” as Christ’s bodily life then begins to flow into the person who has entered the Higher Life; healing comes by “taking the Risen Life of the Crucified Christ to quicken the mortal body,” since “diseases spr[i]ng from inward soul sicknesses such as lust and anger . . . [and] deliverance and victory over the soul’s imprisoning passions was a part of Christ’s victory on the Cross.” Evan Roberts exercised this healing ability on himself, so that he was “bubbling over with joy and shouting about his wonderful new body that had become strong by faith,” delivered from “nine years” of sickness—delivered, that is, at least for a few hours, since “twenty four hours later he was knocked out completely with strain” and continued to be as ill as before. Similarly, “fellow-Welshman, Stephen Jeffries, in the early stages of his ‘Faith healing’ that caused scores of conversions in South Wales . . . became a celebrated figure in London,” at least until “some of the healed people testified that they had not been healed permanently.” Such a loss of the effectiveness of a Keswick healing had an explanation, however; just as the Higher Life will spiritually be lost by ceasing to maintain the decisive act of faith, so bodily healing is lost whenever one ceases to maintain faith, in radical discontinuity with the type of healing practiced by Christ and the Apostles. In further discontinuity with the truly miraculous healings recorded in the Bible, which brought about actual and perfect physical deliverance from disease, Mrs. Penn-Lewis’ “healing” at the time of her alleged Spirit baptism left her with “large cavities” in her lungs which were from thenceforth in perpetual danger of “active disease,” and she continued to endure terrible “ill-health and suffering” and “constant poor health and much pain” for the rest of her life as “the lung weakness” grew ever the “more manifest.” The poor woman suffered from “bouts of pleurisy and neurasthenia . . . weeks of asthmatic attacks and hypertension . . . weeks each year . . . plagued with chills, migraines, and bronchial attacks, which left her too exhausted to think . . . pneumonia [that left her] just a shadow of herself . . . pain and helpless weakness . . . over-straine[d] heart . . . recurrent flu . . . enforced convalescence . . . serious hemorrhage . . . almost fatal illness . . . [and other] sicknesses for forty years.” Her doctor told her, “Your lungs have been weak ever since I have known you—now 30 years or more,” and she lived in “constant expectation of a ‘final release’ from her pain-racked body.” Finally she died, with work she felt she still had left to do, although she had taught that, because of “the fifth to the eight [sic] of Romans,” she “expected to be enabled for full service in all the will of God until the Lord comes.” She did not, however, manage to live until the Lord came, or even until all the work she thought she was supposed to do was accomplished—instead, she died just like people who did not share her revelatory insight into Romans. However, there were other explanations for her continuing and severe illnesses, and for her death, than that her Keswick doctrine of healing was erroneous; for example, when she suffered three serious attacks of pneumonia in 1926-1927, each time being “brought very near the gates of death,” and each one leaving “her weaker in body,” until, at length, she actually died in 1927 at the age of 67, her ill health was not because of a false doctrine of healing, but because, in line with the teaching at the Broadlands Conference and later Keswick meetings, by getting pneumonia she was enduring “the ‘fellowship of the sufferings of Christ . . . for His Body’s sake, the Church,’ which made it difficult for the physical frame to respond to the life which the Risen Lord was ready to give.” Those who are skeptical of her extra-biblical revelations and doctrines, instead of accepting such an excuse as valid, would rather greatly pity both her severe bodily sufferings and her continuing Keswick Faith-Cure delusion.
While Mrs. Penn-Lewis’ Spirit baptism produced a kind of bodily healing that fell far short of the apostolic pattern, it produced a spiritual state that far exceeded what was experienced by the Apostles, for, she wrote, “I have never had to fight a battle of ‘surrender of will’ from that time,” having entered by Spirit baptism into a realm of spiritual experience higher than any promised in the Bible or experienced by men like the Apostle Paul in their lifetime (Galatians 5:17; Romans 7:14-25). However, while her entry into the Higher Life came to her, she affirms, directly by a revelation and mystical experience—one of the vast numbers of supernatural revelations and visions she received—she also had the help of “Madame Guyon,” who was most “influential” upon Mrs. Penn-Lewis when introduced to her by “Mrs. Evan Hopkins” as Jessie sought Spirit baptism and Higher Life sanctification in 1888. Penn-Lewis did not compare Guyon’s writings with Scripture to see if they were trustworthy (Acts 17:11; 2 Peter 1:16-21), but adopted Guyon’s spirituality because “the Lord spoke” to her and told her that “this is the path.” Having discovered by revelation from the spirit world the value of Guyon’s writings, Penn-Lewis testified: “I owe a great deal to the books of Madame Guyon, and the way she showed me the path to life ‘in God’ . . . her ‘Life’ . . . [led me to] clearly s[ee] the way of the Cross . . . [and the need for] ‘dying’ not ‘doing’ [to] produce spiritual fruit.” That is, Penn-Lewis learned from Guyon the alleged truth of Quietism, “an effortless spiritual life” that is “stripped of [even the] vestiges of self” by passing beyond “effort or feeling or even faith” to mystical union with the Divine, “the Christ-life,” where “your own personality as a separate identity [is] merged in Him,” and “God is—we are not.” Connecting her Quietism to the teachings of the “old Quakers” and her peculiar view of the soul and spirit, Penn-Lewis taught that one must reject “creaturely activity . . . [which] is manifestly the energy of the creature being used in the service of God rather than the creature seeking in spirit to co-operate with the Holy Spirit given to him as the Gift of the Risen Son of God.” The Quietism learned from Guyon and the spirit world that produced her writings brought Penn-Lewis “into the stream of life at Keswick . . . in one spirit with . . . all” the ministers and spiritual teachings at the Keswick Convention of 1892, where speakers included the annihilationist George Grubb. Penn-Lewis also “prepared reprints of works by . . . Madame Guyon” to spread Guyon’s Roman Catholic mysticism to others.
Indeed, Jessie Penn-Lewis produced her writings under inspiration, she believed, just like Madame Guyon did, and the writers of the Bible did. Just like “Madame Guyon again and again describes how she wrote, under the hand of God, many things which it was not in her own mind and spirit to write . . . writing . . . treasures of knowledge and understanding that [she] did not know [her]self to possess . . . with incredible quickness, for the hand could hardly follow the Spirit,” writing, that is, under a supernatural inspiration, Penn-Lewis commented in her “heav[ily underscor[ed] . . . two-volume edition of Madame Guyon’s ‘Autobiography’” the “similarity of experience” between the two women, in that Jessie felt that Guyon’s description of her writing by inspiration was “exactly how I have always written.” The same spirit that moved Guyon to write by inspiration—which, unfortunately, was the very god of this world that worked in Hindu and other pagan mystics, and that authored Rome’s many wretched heresies, such as justification by imparted righteousness, salvation by works, transubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, image worship, and the acceptance of non-canonical Apocrypha as inspired—also moved Jessie Penn-Lewis, in accordance with the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light, to write by inspiration. Penn-Lewis’ writings were thus nothing but “determined obedience to the ‘heavenly vision,’” and, she said, “I cannot write one sentence unless I receive it from God” by “inspiration,” thus producing her “Overcomer Literature” in this manner. For example, by means of a “special vision,” she described how she had one of her books revealed to her: “[A]s I was going to bed, there suddenly flashed upon me [the book] The Message of the Cross with every chapter marked—the whole scheme, every heading, chapter and title. Next morning I arose with every bit of it printed on my mind. I went to my study—locked the door—took each passage and wrote it as rapidly as it was possible. . . . Will the devil leave me alone over this?” In association with this book she also narrates: “In a dream I arose and went downstairs and sat alone far away in the vision. A voice came to me from the glory . . . [t]he knowledge was unspeakable.” She wrote:
I was suddenly within the veil. . . . It seemed as if I and the Lord were one. He stood before the Father holding out His pierced hands, but it was I who stood there, too, in Him. He was saying ‘Father I have died,’ but I was saying it, too. Calvary seemed far away down on the hillside.
This was the Risen Lord with marks of the wounds, in the presence of the Father—and I was there. I saw Calvary within the veil. My whole being was melted.
These visions built upon her supernatural encounter earlier in the year:
I suddenly began to feel pressed and burdened. My head fell on my breast with heavy breathing and for some time I groaned heavily. Then God spoke, ‘He who knew no sin was made sin on our behalf.’ I felt as if part of myself or a member of my body was corrupt and loathsome. It was part of me and tied to me by life and I could not be separated from it.
Thus I knew what it meant for Him who knew no sin to be made Sin, to have identified with Him and the accursed ones, corrupt with the fallen life and yet joined to Him their Redeemed. For a week I walked so strangely under ceaseless condemnation. All I did seemed wrong. My conscience void of offense seemed to become all offense without a cause. . . . The lesson was that it was all permitted of God to teach me how truly the Pure and Holy One suffered as He became SIN on our behalf.
It was a fellowship of Christ’s sufferings in the one sense, that it lets one understand His agony as the sin-bearer. . . . This was the first deep knowledge of the Cross.
Thus, the material for her books came from the spirit world, visions, dreams, voices, experiences with heavy breathing, groaning, parts of her body feeling corrupt and loathsome, and so on. Her teaching on “those deeper aspects of Romans 6 and Colossians 2” were “revealed” to her in such a manner—rather than from the study of the Bible, which teaches, on the contrary, that while Christ endured the punishment of the sinful world in a vicarious way, sin being imputed to Him, He nevertheless was never personally sinful. Thus, by her visions and revelations, she gained that “deep knowledge of the Cross” which contradicts what Scripture teaches about the work of Christ on the cross. Writing to F. B. Meyer, she said, “I have been given by the Divine Spirit the interpretation of the Cross to the Christian.” She “was specially chosen . . . and equipped with deep spiritual truths in these last days for the Church, truths that no one else held,” since they are not in the Bible. Furthermore, the spirits that gave her revelations not only miraculously produced The Message of the Cross, “every bit of it,” although she did not delight in writing it, but enabled her to know the future by “reveal[ing] to her that the book would be greatly used”—and it was, in fact, “being studied more and more on the very eve of the Great Awakening” in the Welsh holiness revival “in 1904.” Nor was The Message of the Cross by any means her only book inspired in this manner—her other books were “God-inspired” as well. “God’s Hand was upon me . . . and I wrote . . . all He showed me,” she claimed, “chapter[s]” of her writings coming through “vision[s]” and “revelations,” “God . . . pouring light . . . and [her] pen running without halting,” as she “wr[ote] what He gave me . . . even as Moses in the Mount with God.” Likewise, her magazine articles were inspired. Even historical reports of events “were sounding like prophetic messages,” for “she simply refused to separate her reports from her burden messages given directly by the Lord.” She could also, free from the constraint of careful study of the Bible because of her inspiration, write “the actual matter [of a book] in one week” as “there poured from her pen . . . message[s] . . . so definitely given of God . . . truly prophetic . . words.” However, although she wrote every sentence and word of her writings under inspiration from the spirit world, she still needed to spend “ceaseless labour in proof correcting . . . and [other] details” that, it seems, supernatural inspiration did not get right at first. So great were the new revelations associated with her that she told others that the “Holy Ghost [could] tak[e] hold of” them also, “according to 1 Chron. xxviii:19,” a passage which describes how David received truth under the infallible inspiration of God, and “inspire” even those who “translate” her writings into other languages; “God will take hold of your mind and your pen,” she affirms of her translator-to-be—so one does not even need to learn English to read her inspired writings, but can read inspired translations of her works in foreign tongues. Nor was inspiration limited to her as a prophetess, and to those who translated her writings; inspiration was given to many who had entered into the highest levels of the Higher Life—all those, for example, who were to rise in the partial Rapture were the recipients of “revelation” and “inspiration” from God. Furthermore, not Mrs. Penn-Lewis’ writings alone, but sundry other books, inspired as were the books of the Bible, could be written in modern times. The process of 2 Peter 1:15-21, where “prophecy” and “scripture” came from “holy men of God . . . moved by the Holy Ghost,” was taking place in her day, she knew. Penn-Lewis described how one could write in the present day under the same kind of inspiration that was involved in the production of the Bible, both exalting modern writings to the level of Biblical inspiration and downgrading Biblical inspiration by affirming that it did not involve “dictation,” when every jot and tittle of Scripture was indeed dictated, although not mechanically, by the Holy Spirit through holy men of old. In her exaltation of modern “inspired” writings she also attacked the plenary character of Biblical inspiration, affirming that there were levels of inspiration in the Bible, some parts being from God and some parts being what the human writer simply felt like recording. Thus, Penn-Lewis—under inspiration herself, of course—wrote:
True writing under the hand of God [takes place today]. . . under Divine guidance . . . moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21) . . . writing under the guidance of God . . . by the movement of the Holy Spirit in the man’s spirit[.] . . . The Scriptures bear the marks of their having been written in this way. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21). They spake from God, but as men they received and uttered, or wrote the truth given in the spirit, but transmitted through the full use of their divinely enlightened faculties. Paul’s writings all show the fulfillment of the[se] . . . requirements[.] . . . In Paul, too, we see the clear discrimination possessed by a spiritual man, able to recognize what came from God in his spirit, and what was the product of his own thought. . . . Note the varying language in 1 Cor. 7:6, 8, 10, 12, 25, 40, “I say,” and “Not I but the Lord.” . . . [W]riting under the guidance of God . . . is not given by dictation[,] but] . . . “supernatural revelations” [are for] today[.]
Thus, by means of the inspiration of her writings and their inspired translation, Jessie Penn-Lewis followed Madame Guyon and became “a teacher of the deep things of God.”
Indeed, Mrs. Penn-Lewis tied in her inspiration with her role as a woman preacher, for those “passages of the Apostle Paul’s writings” that plainly proclaimed the sinfulness of women preachers “were bound to be in harmony with the working of the Holy Spirit in the Nineteenth Century” during which she had “proved . . . in her own life” the propriety of woman preaching by her spiritual experiences and “God sp[eaking] with mighty power through His handmaiden.” Had not the preaching, teaching, counseling, public prayer, and other acts of female leadership over men in the Welsh Revival demonstrated that the Most High accepted such disobedience to Scripture, just as the marvels Penn-Lewis further proclaimed: “The Lord has set a the seal of blessing on my messages at Keswick [and elsewhere],” and she knew that “the whole current of life moving through the spiritual Church is towards clear and open ground for women in the work of God,” so failing to preach would be “disobedience,” regardless of what the plain statements of the Bible might affirm to the contrary. As she wrote in her apologetic for women preachers, The Magna Carta of Women, “The Spirit of God has never been poured forth in any company in any part of the world without the ‘handmaids’ prophesying”—at least in the types of alleged revival with which she was associated—and we “dare not quench the Spirit . . . by saying that only men were inspired by the Holy Spirit.” Her argument from Acts 2 for woman preachers anticipated the Pentecostal position exactly. Thus, “[w]omen could be entrusted with prophetic and teaching ministries of the highest kind.” If, by “a special vision . . . [her] sermon[s] [were] inspired,” and she was “God’s special messenger” who properly “asserted her special status as a messenger of God,” who would dare to question her preaching? She warned: “you will fear lest you touch His revealings to me in the least degree . . . given by Him directly to me.” When Jehovah spoke directly from heaven on Mount Sinai, or speaks in His Word the Bible, men must fear and tremble before Him: “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken” (Isaiah 1:2). But now hearken—Jessie Penn-Lewis has spoken. Who dares not fear? Indeed, she wrote that she received by revelation her special doctrine of the Cross and sanctification at the time “it pleased God to reveal His Son I me that I might preach Him.” After consulting with others who saw visions, and feeling “a strange prompting to sing and preach,” Penn-Lewis “was no longer reluctant to share her [own] visions with others,” and shortly thereafter “began her public preaching” in earnest, receiving supernatural ability to “speak to men’s meetings and fe[el] not a twinge of nerves.” Naturally, a “woman who is called to preach is likewise called to an understanding of the Word which will agree with that inward voice”—Quaker Inner Light and direct revelations must be used to interpret the Bible, which, therefore, must not be the sole and sufficient authority for faith and practice, despite 2 Timothy 3:16-17. For that matter, “there were times when she” did not “compose an address” but simply “appeal[ed] to the Holy Spirit to give her a message” to preach, or supernatural influences “told her to throw away her notes” or to simply “arise, nothing doubting, and speak,” bestowing upon her supernatural “power . . . and liberty” apart from study of the Scriptures; while sometimes a “minister was not pleased” by this preaching without study, “it matters not.” Her writings and messages thus reflected her “personal experience” and were “confirmed by numbers of letters in [her] possession, as well as by the witness of God to many another soul,” rather than by careful attention to sound principles of Biblical exegesis; she had “no desire to dogmatise or systematize,” and, for that reason, pressed upon Christian workers as a dogma not to be questioned: “Do not dogmatize over anything.” She “return[ed]” theological “books” when sent to her with “nothing to say about them” because she was “not concerned about ‘systems,’ . . . hav[ing] no time for” them, preferring what she could learn by mystical experiences, visions, and revelations.
Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s disregard for systematic theology was evident in her confusion and false doctrine about who God Himself even was. As at the Broadlands Conferences preaching that “Jesus Christ is . . . the Holy Spirit” was acceptable, so Mrs. Penn-Lewis could make modalistic affirmations about God as a single “Person manifested as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.” She could deny the omnipresence of God the Father and God the Son, claiming that they were not on earth, and deny the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit by affirming that He was on earth, but not in heaven:
God the Father, as a Person, is in the highest heaven. His presence is manifested in men as the “Spirit of the Father.” Christ the Son is in heaven as a Person, His presence in men is by His Spirit. The Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of the Father, and of the Son, is on earth in the Church. . . . The Person of God [which, it seems, is again only modalistic and solitary, not Trinitarian] is in heaven, but the presence is manifested on earth, in and with believers; through and by the Holy Spirit; in, and to the human spirit, as the organ of the Holy Spirit for the manifested presence of God.
Scripture teaches that all three Persons of the Trinity are within the believer (John 14:23), not the Holy Spirit only (which is necessary, in any case, since the Divine essence is undivided), so that while the Spirit certainly is in the Christian (Romans 8:9), Christ is in the believer also: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Corinthians 13:5; Galatians 2:20). However, Penn-Lewis wrote: “The thought with many is that the Person of Christ is in them, but in truth, Christ as a Person is in no man,” an affirmation which, happily, is false, as then all would be reprobates. Nevertheless, she knew that it was necessary to adopt all this confusion and false doctrine on the Trinity and the Divine attributes in order to “understand the counterfeiting methods of evil spirits”—confusion about and blasphemy against the Triune God would certainly be of great help in resisting evil spirits, at least to those who think it is well to reject theology for mindless mysticism. Thus, while Penn-Lewis did not have time for theology, she had plenty of time to pour over the writings of Madame Guyon, be “influenced by . . . mystical treatises . . . by Fenelon,” and read other mystics and heretics, so that “[s]ome of her language . . . sounded like the mystic cults.” “It is the mind, not the heart, that is the trouble,” she wrote; “experience may easily be of God and yet the mind” can get in the way. “Christians . . . know too much[,] [and therefore are] sinking . . . further away from the true life in God.” Thus, her preaching and writing “c[ame] from, and appeal to, the heart rather than the intellect.” God “could not use me for writing,” Penn-Lewis wrote, when her “natural mental activities [were] aroused.” Thus, rather than carefully examining the context of passages of the Bible and recognizing the fact that a genuine work of God employs a “sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7), one could instead know one had the correct interpretation of Scripture by emptying one’s mind and having “the Holy Ghost commen[d] the message to every man’s conscience” through direct revelation. Penn-Lewis’ writings therefore do “not contain ‘mental’ matter, i. e., matter which is merely the product of the mind, even a spiritual mind,” but material gained by “fresh and living experience” that showed what the true meaning of the Bible was. It is, then, not unexpected that those who use their minds—as the Spirit that inspired the Scriptures commands (Isaiah 1:18; Romans 12:1; 2 Timothy 1:7)—come to reject both her claims of inspiration and the theology of sanctification she allegedly received by inspiration. To recognize the inspiration of the writings of a woman who plainly contradicts Scripture, exalts ignorance of theology, promulgates a doctrine of healing that does not actually heal, believes she has deep knowledge of the Cross because parts of her body begin to feel loathsome, and predicted the end of the world in 1914, one must truly set aside his mind.
Nonetheless, Mrs. Penn Lewis preached worldwide in Quaker, Anglican, Lutheran, Salvation Army, Y. W. C. A., China Inland Mission, and many other settings to audiences that readily adopted the theology of sanctification and healing she had received from the spirit world by inspiration. She “joined the staff of the women’s meetings . . . [at] Keswick . . . by the invitation of the Trustees” in 1899, having already “been present at the Convention . . . [y]ear after year” before this time, and continued her “service in the Women’s Meetings at Keswick . . . [until] 1909.” She preached “[a]t Keswick also, for many years, [at] open meetings . . . addressed on the Sundays preceding and concluding Convention week,” for she was as “an influential figure in the Keswick Convention,” being asked to deliver Bible Readings to mixed gender audiences at Keswick. Many people came to Keswick specifically to hear her preach. After 1909 “she still continued one of the Trustees of the Convention,” simply “retir[ing] from the leadership of the Women’s Meetings and from the heavy organizing work” to focus on her message of warfare with Satan and the coming end of the world. She remained closely associated with Keswick until her death; shortly before her passing she was found “at Keswick in July 1927 . . . [and] travelled to Llandrindod Wells [the Welsh Keswick] on July 29th, as one of the speakers of the Convention.” She was also “a standing member . . . [of] the Council of Reference” for the Welsh “Llandrindod Keswick Convention” that she helped to found, and it “was Jessie’s special task to introduce [Keswick-type] conventions to North Wales.” Indeed, she was the initiator of the process through which the Llandrindod Wells Convention began. She also “helped organize . . . many new Keswick-type local conventions.” She did, however, give up some of her responsibilities in 1909 to focus on that “message of the Cross” she had received by direct revelation accompanied with feelings of corruption in her body parts, a message which needed to be “proclaimed anew” to prepare “the Church . . . for translation at the Lord’s appearing,” and to that end her booklet “The Word of the Cross” was printed in the millions of copies and translated into “no less than one hundred languages and dialects” as a result of a vision of “someone coming in shining armor covered with precious stones[,] and this being was filled with God”—Dr. Rudeshill, the printer of her works himself, although not long afterwards he “lost all his enthusiasm for her work.” At times a new book she had received by revelation would be “by far the most popular book at Keswick th[at] year.” Her works filled “Japan, China, . . . India[,] . . . Jamaica, Mexico . . . other Caribbean centers . . . Canada . . . the Australian States . . . Singapore . . . [and] Kenya . . . [were translated into] German, French . . . Swedish, Russian, and other Baltic languages . . . also into Yiddish . . . Italian . . . Hungarian, and other languages,” and influenced Christendom in many other nations. In short, her “message was reaching the whole world,” as distribution of her works was taken over by the “Christian Literature Crusade,” prominent publisher for Christian and Missionary Alliance literature. In America, “the name of Jessie Penn-Lewis had become a household word and . . . her books were in great demand.” Her doctrines spread so widely that they have “permeated the teaching of the Church of God, even in circles where her name is scarcely known.”
Penn-Lewis’ theology “of the Cross was the Lord’s preparation of a group of His servants who should carry the message to Wales,” just as her influence as a “founder of the ‘Welsh Keswick’ at Llandrindod Wells” and her influence in the continued development of the Welsh Keswick, the Llandrindod Wells Convention, which began in 1903, 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 of 1904 in Wales, a movement of which she also served as chronicler and doctrinal guide. 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.” She, herself Welsh, “founded Keswick in Wales, and was the inspiration behind many other conventions.” 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.” 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, 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.” 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.” She found acceptable the teaching, coming from “Los Angeles, California . . . [of] many [Pentecostal] Azuza 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” and Evan Roberts. 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. 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 Azuza Street 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.” Ramabai, an avid supporter of women preachers like Mrs. Penn-Lewis, had spoken at Keswick in 1898 after learning the Keswick theology of receiving the Spirit from a missionary, and not long after the rise of the Welsh holiness revival “Pandita Ramabai’s witnessing and praising bands . . . adopted tongues.” By 1906 they both warmly welcomed Pentecostal leaders and were contributing to the spread of tongues internationally. “Jessie . . . commended the leaders of [her] group,” 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
head, and . . . burning inside [that was] rather hard to bear.” 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] Azuza Street Mission in Los Angeles, California, and other places . . . sought the same blessing and found himself worshipping the Lord in ‘new tongues.’” 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.” 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.” 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,” and, therefore, “was criticized by strict evangelicals as one who took too soft a line.” Her writings on Pentecostalism were “not written in a spirit of opposition or adverse criticism,” 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.” It is, therefore, not in the least surprising that Mrs. Penn-Lewis believed that “the best qualities of the Pentecostal movement could be accepted,” although she criticized certain of its more extreme aberrations. Her teachings also contained the seeds of a variety of Word of Faith heresies.
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 Saintswith 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”—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.” 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,” 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.” 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.” 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.” 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.” 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.” 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 whole‐hearted 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.”
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.” Unfortunately, nobody could know if he had sinned enough to allow demon possession to occur, 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.
In fact, as Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s teachings spread, it was “becoming more and more prominent . . . [for] CHRISTIAN[S] TO BE POSSESSED BY EVIL SPIRITS,” but this was certainly not because her teachings were themselves demonic. No, the recognition that the most spiritual believers, those who have drunk the deepest of the Higher Life Mrs. Penn-Lewis and Evan Roberts were propagating, those who have risen to the level of perfection so that they do not have any known sin, may nevertheless be demon possessed, makes it clear how absolutely essential War on the Saints truly is—for with the Bible alone, nobody would be able to know such things as these, now brought to light under inspiration by Roberts and Penn-Lewis in preparation for the end of the world. Indeed, Scripture would indicate that believers cannot be demon possessed (1 John 4:4), so it is essential to read War on the Saints to discover, from “experience” and “evidences” and “fact” outside of the Bible, that the literal interpretation of God’s holy Word must be rejected on this subject:
The fact of the demon possession of Christians destroys the theory that only . . . persons deep in sin, can be “possessed” by evil spirits. This unexamined, unproved theory . . . serves the devil well[.] . . . But the veil is being stripped off the eyes of the children of God by the hard path of experience; and the knowledge is dawning upon the awakened section of the Church that a believer . . . can . . . be possessed.
Indeed, the “facts” Penn-Lewis speaks of made it so clear that Christians could be possessed that texts to the contrary—such as 1 John 4:4 & 5:18—are not only not exegeted anywhere in the course of the hundreds of pages of War on the Saints, but they are not even cited. What need is there of exegesis when one has experience? An exegetical and theological argument against believers being demon possessed, such as the following, could surely be simply rejected out of hand:
Christians cannot be possessed . . . [daimonidzomai]. This is true for the following four reasons.
1.) The believer has new life in Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if Spirit indwelling means anything, it should mean that Christians cannot be victimized, indwelt, and/or possessed by demons. John seems to conclusively say this when speaking of false teachers in the lineage of the Antichrist who bring a “spirit” of false doctrine. He asserts, “You [believers] are from God … and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). Likewise, believers are God’s temple. Thus, God promises that He “will dwell in them and walk among them; and … will be their God, and they shall be [His] people” (2 Cor 6:16). In short, while Satan and his minions unceasingly attempt to assail believers, it is unthinkable that they could come in and possess, control, or victimize the saints with the apparent benign acquiescence of the indwelling God.
2.) The believer also has the guarding protection and preservation of the Son of God. As John says, “We know that no one who is born of God sins [i.e., habitually sins; present tense]; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him” (1 John 5:18). Of course, no Christian can live without sin or without being attacked from Satan. Still, the believer here is promised that he will not be overcome by the devil and his forces. John’s verb for “touch” is hapto, which denotes to take hold of,not a mere superficial encounter but rather afastening onor overpowering encounter. What John means is that Satan cannot finally overtake and possess the believer. Further, the believer is described as one “born of God,” a state of continuing eternal life (perfect passive of gennao); as such, he cannot practice sin (present tense of hamartano). The reason for this is the keeping power of another who has also been born of God in a similar, though infinitely greater, sense.
3.) Satan has been defeated through the cross work of Jesus Christ. This guarantees that a believer is forever freed from Satanic control and victimization. Jesus Himself, in view of His coming death, pronounced this defeat, saying, “Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out” (John 12:31). Paul similarly speaks of Christ’s “disarm[ing] the rulers and authorities … [and] ma[king] public display of them, having triumphed over them through” the cross (Col 2:15). Christ, by His infinite atonement for sin forever broke the hold of evil angels on those who have been forgiven. In another place, Christ’s death is said to have rendered the devil “powerless” (Heb 2:14). Further, the believer’s union with Christ . . . assures him that the merit and validity of the Savior’s infinite and eternal cross work is forever efficacious against any hostile takeover attempt by Satan or any of His angels. The believer’s position of being in Christ, of being already judicially-seated in the heavenly places with Christ (Eph 2:6), makes Satan’s attempts to successfully dominate him futile.
4.) Demon possession requires complicity. Strong observes that “the power of evil spirits over men is not independent of the human will. This power cannot be exercised without at least the original consent of the human will.” For instance, when Satan desired to afflict Peter, it was within Peter’s power to pray for help in resisting the temptation (Luke 22:31, 40). Similarly, the expelled and wandering unclean spirit in Mark is said to be “seeking rest,” perhaps implying that he is looking for someone hospitable to his homeless plight (Matt 12:43). As such, the complicity would approximate an active availability for or exposure to demonic takeover. And, a true, Spirit-indwelt believer could not participate in such drastic accessibility. Granted, a Christian may be harassed by Satan and demons due to moral failure or willful sinning, but this sort of harassment is not coterminous with demonization.
While Scriptural exegesis and legitimate conclusions from literally interpreted Scripture—that is, God’s own self-testimony—could be rejected out of hand, what the demons themselves had testified was important. In fact, the demons had themselves taught that believers could be possessed, and that they could be cast out by the sign gift of exorcism and by the binding of Satan and his compatriots—that is, these affirmations were, in truth, the doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1)—so, clearly, it was a good idea not to listen to the Word of God, but set it aside and take heed, instead, to such seducing spirits and use what devils said through people who were possessed to figure out the truth. While Scripture teaches that the sign gift of exorcism has ceased and believers are not to command, talk to, or in any way dialogue with demons, Jessie Penn-Lewis knew better. The fact that believers could be possessed was validated by people who had the sign gift of “discerning of spirits” in modern times, as the sign gifts, whether exorcism, or “discerning of spirits . . . the gifts of healing . . . the working of miracles . . . tongues,” and the rest (1 Corinthians 12:9-10), did not pass away in the first century, but, in accordance with Penn-Lewis’s Quaker and Keswick continuationism, are for modern times also; through post-conversion Spirit baptism “the Holy Spirit. . . . is able to distribute to each the gifts of the Spirit, for effective witness to the Risen Head, ‘dividing to each one severally even as He will.’ (See 1 Cor. 12:4-11).” Furthermore, post-conversion Spirit baptism, with its distribution of miraculous gifts, is the essence of revival. In revival, as the gifts are distributed, not only can believers who are spiritual, not living in any known sin, and not disobedient to any light, be demon possessed, but revival, Spirit baptism, and the contemporary distribution of the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 actually leads to demon possession. Few who are revived are not also deceived by Satan at that time, with vast numbers of the most spiritual believers becoming possessed and vast numbers of less spiritual believers simply being deceived, for revival is the hour of Satan’s power, and Satan’s most effective harvest time:
We have seen that the period in the believer’s life wherein he receives the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the special time of danger from the evil supernatural world, and the Baptism of the Spirit is THE ESSENCE OF REVIVAL. Revival dawn, is, therefore, the great moment for deceiving spirits to find entrance into the believer by deception through counterfeits, resulting sometimes in . . . possession[.] . . . Few go through the crisis without deception by the enemy in more or less degree[.] . . . If the believer does become deceived by evil spirits at the time that he is baptized with the Spirit . . . he begins through deception to descend into a pit which ultimately means depth of darkness, bondage and misery. . . . Those who do not discover the deceptions sink into deeper deception, and become practically useless to God and to the Church. Revival is the hour and power of God, and of the devil[.] . . . [T]he devil [is] . . . DOING HIS WORK, FROM THE DAWN OF REVIVAL. . . . Revival . . . is his greatest harvest time. He is netting his victims, mixing his workings with the workings of God, and beguiling the saints more effectively than he was ever able to do with his temptations to sin. Satan was never more active among the sons of God. . . . To put it in bluntest language, the Revival hour is the occasion for evil spirits to obtain ‘possession’ of spiritual believers[.] . . . Believers who are not so abandoned to the Spirit escape the acute ‘possession,’ but . . . are equally open to deception[.]
Consequently, the “revival . . . in Wales . . . [was] followed [by] . . . evil spirit possession . . . under the guise of the Holy Spirit,” so that the “Awakening in Wales” led, by 1906, to “what may be called the ‘hour and power of darkness’ upon the Church of Christ.” The “outpouring of the Spirit of God in Wales” was followed by an “outbreak of demons upon the spiritual Church” in the country. Indeed, “since the Revival in Wales . . . almost without exception, in every land where revival [that is, revivalism of the sort experienced in Wales under Evan Roberts and promoted by Mrs. Penn-Lewis] has broken forth, within a very brief period of time the counterfeit stream has mingled with the true . . . [in] the Church of God.” The rampant spread of demon possession and devilish counterfeits of true spirituality was not, however, evidence that something was terribly wrong with the theology and practice of Evan Roberts, Mrs. Penn-Lewis, and their followers in the Welsh holiness revival, nor did the fact that nothing like a horrific domination by Satan and his demons take place in connection with true revival in the book of Acts seem a cause for concern. The fact that those who adopt and practice the theories of consecration, revival, and Spirit baptism of Penn-Lewis and Evan Roberts, and advance the farthest in the Higher Life, are especially in danger of demon possession is simply a corollary of truth about Christian sanctification received by Mrs. Penn-Lewis and Mr. Roberts through visions, voices and inspiration, and can therefore be trusted, although few things sound, to the ear of one who has not experienced the power of the spirits that have influenced Penn-Lewis and Roberts, more unbiblical and dangerous.
However, since “PURE Revival . . . has to do with the spirit, not the intellect,” the fact that one’s intellect cries out that War on the Saints is filled with unscriptural and irrational nonsense is not important. Rather, one can have hope, because “[t]he Church of Christ will reach its high water mark when it is able to deal with demon possession; when it knows how to ‘bind the strong man’ by prayer; ‘command’ the spirits of evil in the name of Christ, and deliver men from their power,” by practicing what War on the Saints teaches, including both a doctrine of “binding the strong man,” Satan, by a type of warfare prayer that is not found in the Bible, and a false doctrine of how to deal with demon possession, all of which were passed on to John A. MacMillan, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, Pentecostalism, and the Word of Faith movement. Indeed, the deity set forth by Evan Roberts and Mrs. Penn-Lewis is helpless and unable to defeat sin and Satan without people binding the devil. Binding Satan and evil spirits was even necessary to allow Jesus Christ to return and catch up His saints (or at least those saints who had passed beyond justification, and the second blessing of the Higher Life, and the third blessing of the Warfare with Satan Life, into the Highest Life, the Throne Life “far above” Satan); the Lord was helpless until the Higher Life practitioners had bound all the evil spirits so that the Rapture could take place, and even then He could only catch away those believers who had achieved the Throne Life and Translation Faith and consented to Him taking them—the rest God would have to leave behind: “We must first get what may be called the ‘translation’ spirit. . . . We have to put our wills for this. God must get the consent of our wills for everything that He does. . . . Just as you give your consent to your spirit being ‘far above,’ so you must say, ‘Lord I consent to translation.” Happily, the evil spirits had all been bound in 1913, brought down to a great extent by the almost omnipotent prayers of Evan Roberts, and people were learning through The Overcomer magazine that, as they had exercised a distinct act of faith for justification, another distinct act of faith for sanctification, a third distinct act of faith for bodily healing, a fourth distinct act of faith for the Throne Life of overcoming Satan, so now they could exercise a fifth distinct act faith to bring Christ back, allowing the Redeemer to catch them up—therefore, Christ could and would return in 1914. Penn-Lewis recounts how the Higher Life practitioner is to bind Satan:
In Matthew 12:29 the Lord said, “First bind the strong man,” and then “spoil his goods.” . . . The Church must learn this “binding” power of prayer for it is written, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Mat. 18:18). And what can this “binding” mean except restraining the working of the enemy by appealing to the conquering power of Him who was “manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil”? . . . Christians . . . [should] t[ake] Christ at His word, and aloud, with united hearts and voices . . . “bind” the adversary.
While, since her articles and books were received by inspiration, Penn-Lewis might appeal to her own authority as a prophetess and her experience as one who knew of the deep things of Satan to validate her doctrine of “binding the strong man,” she certainly could not appeal to anything in the Bible to support it, as neitherMatthew 12:29, nor Matthew 18:18, nor any other text of Scripture supports her contention. InMatthew 12, Christ proved that He as the Messiah (v. 23) and the Son of God, by the Spirit of God was casting out devils that had possessed men, thus validating that He was stronger than Satan, the “strong man,” and all his fallen angels (v. 29), because He could “enter . . . [Satan’s] house” or kingdom and free those Satan had kept captive, “spoil his house,” by casting out demons. While it is perfectly appropriate for believers to pray that Satan and his devils would be hindered in their attempts to stop the work of God, Matthew 12 is specifically about Christ casting out demons and so validating His Messianic claims, not about the work of God going forward in a general sense, or an alleged “‘binding’ power of prayer.” None of the hundreds of prayers in Scripture mention believers binding Satan to advance the work of God in some general sense, nor, for that matter, is there the least hint that any Christian in the Bible thought that he was to bind Satan in prayer or in any other way at all. In fact, Scripture is very clear that when the Millennial kingdom begins “an angel [will] come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he [will lay] hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and b[i]nd him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled” (Revelation 20:1-3; cf. Revelation 9:14). Satan is not bound now (1 Peter 5:8; Job 2:2), and when he will be bound in the Millennium, a powerful angel, not a Christian, will bind him, and cast Satan into the bottomless pit. A Christian, who is far weaker than Satan, should also consider if it is wise to seek to bind that mighty angel when the devil is far more powerful than any fallen man—especially since he will not have the blessing of the Spirit in his endeavor, since God has never stated that men are to bind the devil in the dispensation of grace. The Lord Jesus, by contrast, both with His inherent power as God and the power of the omnipotent Spirit working in Him without measure as the Messiah and God-Man, has every right and ability to bind Satan according to His will. Furthermore, unless a Christian is praying for the coming of the Millennial kingdom when he prays for Satan to be bound, he is asking for something that is not going to happen, and if a Christian claims, or a group of Christians claim, that they can bind Satan, they are actually opening themselves up for Satanic delusion—at least if one goes only by the Bible, rather than by the inspired writings of Jessie Penn-Lewis. The fact that Christians cannot bind Satan explains why, although countless Pentecostals, Word of Faith advocates, and practitioners of Keswick continuationism claim, all over the world, to bind Satan all the time, so that every minute of the day someone somewhere in the world is praying that Satan would be bound, Satan remains the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4) and is as unbound and active as ever. The radical change that will take place in the world when Satan actually is bound—and stays bound—in the Millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:1-3) stands in the sharpest contrast with the total absence of any such change when Pentecostals follow Jessie Penn-Lewis and claim to bind Satan, since he somehow is loosed from their “binding” and as active as ever the second after they make their prayer, and even while, deluded by his lies, they are praying it.
Likewise, neither Matthew 18:15-20 nor Matthew 16:18-19 have anything to do with Christians binding Satan. 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). Peter, as one of the Apostles, possessing Divine authority as represented by the metaphor of the “keys” (Matthew 16:19; cf.Isaiah 22:22), 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. InterpretingMatthew 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. Similarly, Matthew 18:18 indicates that every one of Christ’s true churches 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). 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) 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 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. 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. 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, and16:19 so much the more, do not apply in any case—fail to keep him bound for very long at all, 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.
Indeed, one need not fear that since War on the Saints records Evan Roberts’ own spiritual autobiography, while likewise affirming, in descriptions that speak of Roberts’ own experience, that even the most spiritual believers can be demon possessed, that Evan himself had been demon possessed—on his own admission—during the time of his preaching in the Welsh holiness revival. Nor need one fear when Jessie Penn-Lewis preached that “her chronic suffering” was a result of “possessions” and “the hold of the dark powers,” as she experientially “knew and proved,” for she had been delivered from such possession over “15 years” before the time of the production of War on the Saints. No, even if the authors of the book, both of whom had highly questionable testimonies of personal conversion, indicated that they had themselves been demon possessed, War on the Saints was excellent and wholesome material—and more. In fact, Penn-Lewis taught, “the only ones who will be able to stand as the influence of the Deceiver ensnares and engulfs the whole of the inhabitants of the earth” in the final days before the end of the world in 1914 will be those who accept the teaching of War on the Saints and the Satanic warfare doctrines set forth in the Overcomer magazine, so War on the Saints was the most necessary book on earth, as the Bible, by necessary consequence, was not sufficient on its own to protect people from the influence of the Deceiver. On the other hand, the “measure of hostility shown to [War on the Saints] by readers will be the measure of the deception by evil spirits into which he or she has fallen,” affirmed the “champions of the book.” The Bible alone was insufficient to deal with demons—instead of the Bible, one needed to learn things from familiar intercourse with the demons. However, Evan Roberts and Mrs. Penn-Lewis could “testify” that they had “no superficial experience” of the “deep things of Satan,” but could “fathom” those depths because they had themselves mined them through their “deep, varied, and awful experiences of the invisible powers of darkness . . . [h]ad we escaped the wiles, we could have written from conjecture and imagination about the arch-fiend, but then it would have been in the vital points essentially wide of the mark.” Since they had been deceived by the devil and had experienced the very darkest of the deep things of Satan, their writings were to be trusted in the way the teaching of those who had never been deceived by Satan and experienced his deep things—such as the sinless Author of the Bible, who had never been deceived by Satan, Jesus the Christ—could not. The reason that the teachings found in War on the Saints were “practically unknown, and unprepared for in the literature of the Church,” was not because the book was saturated with false doctrine, demonic apostasy, and fanaticism, but because the truths of the book could only be revealed after the “seven years [of] . . . dispensational warfare . . . [with] demons” that followed the 1904 Welsh holiness revival in “the Time of the End” shortly before the return of Christ in 1914. “Dispensationally the Book was in sequence to the Revival of 1904, and dispensationally it antedated the Translation Message given in October 1913, just one year after its issue.” Besides, the doctrines of War on the Saints led people such as the head of the Y. W. C. A. in Finland to experience supernatural healing, and victories over evil spirits took place by means of positive confessions that anticipated those of the Word-Faith movement, which was also anticipated in the book’s affirmation that prayer is more of a “manipulative ac[t]” than simply a “cooperative ac[t]” with God. For, while the Bible taught that sign gifts such as exorcism were miraculous powers possessed by Christ and given to the Apostles as one of the “signs of an apostle” (2 Corinthians 12:12) and as a confirmation of the Word proclaimed by them, as is evident from the fact that the generality of believers in Scripture never even claimed to have the ability to cast out demons at will, War on the Saints taught that every “believer” who has entered into the Higher Life has “power to wield [Christ’s] Name, and in His name to have authority to cast out demons.” Today “demons are cast out immediately after the simple prayer of faith by the Christians. . . . men [are] delivered from demon-possession after one prayer,” in the same way, allegedly, that demons were miraculously cast out in the first century, although, unlike when the Biblical gift of exorcism was truly and properly exercised, sometimes modern exorcists are unable to cast devils out. Similarly, today supernatural “[v]isions may have their source in . . . God . . . Divine ‘Visions’ [are] given . . . [d]reams can come from . . . God . . . [w]riting in its source may be from . . . God[.] . . . There is a true seeing and hearing . . . of supernatural things . . . of supernatural words . . . [and] of the revelations of God,” so cessationism is certainly false, and believers who adopt Keswick and Pentecostal continuationism can receive revelatory dreams and visions, and can produce inspired writings in this present age. By means of the truths of War on the Saints, “what happened when Christ was on earth, will happen again when the casting out of evil spirits will become a recognized part of all Christian and ministerial activity.” War on the Saints will lead men to practice exorcism and then lead to the restoration of all the first century sign gifts—it will destroy the cessationism believed and practiced by Christians and churches because of literal exegesis of the Bible and the acceptance of its sole authority for faith and practice. The spread of such Quaker, Pentecostal, and Word of Faith notions is certainly a great benefit to at least one side in the war between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. Besides, Evan Roberts himself wrote: “Satan came to me but he was driven to flight,” so Roberts had tested the doctrine in War on the Saints in his own personal experiences with Satan—the book, and the teachings of Roberts and Penn-Lewis in general, were “precisely true according to experience.” Surely such apparent victories over evil spirits and powerful answers to prayer were not themselves part of a deeper Satanic deception, but validated the teaching of Roberts and Penn-Lewis on Satanic warfare and the book War on the Saints. Certainly in modern times demons would not pretend to be cast out or actually leave human victims in order to advance a deeper deception by validating unbiblical Keswick continuationism, although in Christ’s day devils worked in exactly this sort of way by allowing the sons of the Pharisees to cast them out (Luke 11:19) in order to validate anti-Christ Pharisaic doctrine as true. No, although God’s Word records exactly such deception, today this Biblical warning should be set aside or ignored, just as it was by Evan Roberts and Mrs. Penn-Lewis. Besides, neither Evan Roberts nor Jessie Penn-Lewis thought they were demon possessed while writing the book, although they confessed that they had been possessed earlier—at least while writing the book under inspiration they testified that they were possessed no longer. Although they also taught that one could be possessed and not know it, one clearly had nothing to fear. Furthermore, while literal exegesis of the Bible would indicate that true Christians could not be possessed, since War on the Saints could simply ignore texts that support such a truth (what need to allegorize Scripture when it can be ignored?) and affirm the contrary, and as nobody could possibly think that Mrs. Penn-Lewis was herself unconverted, her experiences being demon possessed were surely salutary, as being filled with demons also leads one to be filled, not with spiritual blindness and darkness, but with spiritual discernment. While Roberts and Penn-Lewis record in their book many curious statements which are totally impossible to prove from Scripture, happily, they could still appeal to the fact that they were themselves recipients and oracles of revelation from the spirit world that supplemented the Bible and brought them to different conclusions than they would have made had they followed Scripture alone. Thus, War on the Saints affirms that the “Bible throws much light upon the Satanic powers, which cannot fail to be discerned by all who search the Scriptures with open minds, but these will not obtain as much knowledge of the subject from the sacred record, as will those who have understanding by experience”; one is to gain “through experience . . . a personal witness to the . . . Scripture . . . testimony concerning the existence of supernatural beings, and their works, and the way they deceive, and mislead the children of men.” That is, the Bible is perhaps not to be entirely discounted, but its testimony is not able to give as much knowledge as one can obtain by personal interaction with and experiential fellowship with misleading demons. Experience must supplement searching the Scripture with an open mind, and grammatical-historical interpretation of the Word of God must give way to experience-oriented interpretation. Rejecting the total sufficiency of the Bible alone, and the literal interpretation of Scripture, to favor experience instead, will not open one up to Satanic deception, but will help one to successfully fight the devil, Penn-Lewis informs her readers. In fact, perhaps experience is really to entirely replace Scripture in knowing how to deal with demons: “Believers will be taught the truth about themselves only by experience, therefore God permits experience . . . God has permitted Satan to sift His people.” Believers will not be taught by the Bible alone about how to deal with demons—no, they will be taught by experience alone. Out with sola Scriptura, and in with sola experientia. In any case, whether the Bible is to be set aside or simply supplemented by experience, as both Evan Roberts and Mrs. Penn-Lewis knew experientially, a “purified ‘theology’ . . . and a true demonology” certainly came not from the study of Scripture alone, but by being demon possessed and then becoming free from demon possession by means of the unscriptural techniques described in War on the Saints. “[T]he believer understands the systematic workings of the forces of Satan . . .[t]hrough aggressive warfare against the foe . . . [t]hrough the knowledge gained by reading the symptoms of deception and possession in his own case, he is now able to read them in others, and see their need of deliverance, and finds himself compelled to pray for them, and work toward that goal.” Through experiencing “the methodical, planned and systematic attacks of the forces of the enemy” one discovers truth: “By these attacks, the knowledge of the active operations of the lying spirits” comes to light. Not grammatical-historical exegesis of a sufficient Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but being possessed, being systematically attacked by Satan, and having experiences with demons that make one think he is free from their power through utilizing the techniques of War on the Saints are the way to true theology and demonology. The teachings of War on the Saints are themselves a product of such personal interactions with demons by people who have been demon possessed, and as such, they are necessary additions to the Bible, for accepting doctrine from people who have been self-professedly demon possessed, and received teachings from their personal interactions with demons, is not the height of folly, but obviously the smart way to go.
After all, with the Bible alone, one could never discover such truths as those that War on the Saints describes as follows:
[E]vil spirits . . . bury themselves in the very structure of the human frame, some acting directly upon the organs or appetites of the body, others upon the mind or intellect, sensibilities, emotions and affections, and others more immediately upon the spirit. In the body they specially locate themselves in the spinal column, nervous system, and deepest nerve centers, through which they control the whole being; from the ganglionic nerve center located in the bowels, the emotional sensibilities, and all organs affected by them, to the cerebral nerve center in the head; the eyes, ears, neck, jaws, tongue, muscles of the face, the delicate nerve tissues of the brain. . . . Demons . . . are of various types, greater in diversity than human beings, and these demons always seek to possess a person congenial to them in some characteristic. The Bible tells us . . . of despotic demons, theological demons, screeching and yelling demons. There are demons that act more particularly on the body, or some organ or appetite of the body. There are others that act more directly upon the intellect, or the sensibilities, and emotions, and affections. There are others of a higher order that act directly on man’s spiritual nature, upon the conscience, or the spiritual perceptions. . . . Demons . . . seek out those whose make-up and temperament is most congenial to themselves and then seek to fasten themselves on to some part of the body, or brain, or some appetite, or some faculty of the mind, either the reason, or imagination, or perception; and when they get access, they bury themselves into the very structure of the person[.]
Furthermore, with only the Bible, one would never know that “evil spirits want the body, and . . . so persistently work to gain access and possession . . . [b]ecause in it they find ‘rest’ (Matt. 12:43), and seem to find some relief for themselves,” for Matthew 12:43 actually states that unclean spirits seek rest, and find none, so one would need the inspired writings of Mrs. Penn-Lewis to know that, when they possess men, unclean spirits seek rest, and find some, the allegedly true, allegorical meaning of the text of Matthew, although one with no support whatever from the literal interpretation of the passage. Nor would one be able to discover the fact that there are degrees of demon possession, so that demons can possess one’s left arm, or right ear canal, or facial muscles, or nerves, or divide up portions of one’s soul, or mind, or sensibilities, and possess some portion of them, or any other portion of the person whatever—an affirmation fundamental to the entire system of War on the Saints—from the Bible alone, as there is not a shred of evidence for it in the Word. The Bible never teaches that a “buzzing in the ears” is caused by an “evil spirit locating in the nerves of the ear,” or that “shortsightedness” so that “things look misty and blurred” should lead a man to fear that “evil spirits control the physical eyes,” or that “talkativeness” could well be because [e]vil spirits may ‘possess’ [people] . . . only in the organs of speech.” Much less would anyone ever conclude simply from the Bible that one needs to know what portion of the body, or soul, and so on, is possessed before exorcism is possible, but War on the Saintsrevealed what is truly necessary to escape from possession: “When the believer is fighting free from possession, he . . . must know the place of the spirit, the soul, and the body, in the conflict, e.g., if evil spirits have a hold on the muscles of the bodily frame there must be effort, and use of the muscles to dislodge them, and so in every other part of the being.” None of the texts in the Bible that employ the verbs for demon possession or exorcism indicate that either possession or exorcism has degrees, nor is there the slightest evidence that one must find out that demons are, say, in one’s muscles and then wiggle those muscles to dislodge the demons. Nor does the Bible indicate that manifestations of sin by believers are sometimes caused by demons, so that when a believer acts or thinks sinfully he may not really have sinned, because the devil made him do it. However, in War on the Saints Mrs. Penn-Lewis not only discovered that the devil can make believers act sinfully—after all, there are “unclean demons . . . demons . . . of drunkenness, of gluttony, of idleness,” and so on—but that believers should not confess their sins when the devil makes them sin. If Christians confess the sins that the devil allegedly did through them, they will become demon possessed. A believer who only had1 John 1:9, Luke 11:4, and related passages would simply confess all his sins and trust that God had cleansed him from all unrighteousness, and with the Bible alone he would never know that drunkenness, idleness, overeating, and so on, could actually be sins from demons rather than sins from himself—but War on the Saintsshows that, after engaging in various sins, one should first be neutral towards them, not ashamed of them, and then one needs to find out what percentage among sins committed were actually the responsibility of the devil, and be careful to avoid confessing those sins, for even one mistake in confessing a sin that the devil really did through the believer opens the believer up to demon possession. Furthermore, while the Bible teaches that the true God is sovereign, self-sufficient, and does not need anything (Acts 17:25), the deity of War on the Saints needs prayer or it is unable to do what it wants to, and it is unable to overthrow and destroy sin and Satan without people helping out by binding the devil and utilizing the techniques in Roberts’ and Penn-Lewis’ work, affirmations that call to mind both Word of Faith doctrine and the myths about how the Greek gods became hungry if enough people did not offer them sacrifices. Indeed, the deity of Mrs. Penn-Lewis and Evan Roberts is even helpless to initiate the second coming of Christ until people bind Satan and his demons and so clear the air—only then can the Rapture, the partial Rapture of the Overcomers, take place. However, the deity of War on the Saints is not the only being that has needs that only people can meet—demons can also need people to get a drink. “[F]acts gathered from experience [are] sufficient to prove that certain varieties of demons live on the juices in human blood.” How necessary War on the Saints truly must be—filled to the brim, as it is, with affirmations about demons and their wiles that are entirely absent from Scripture! While critics would affirm that the Satanic warfare doctrines in War on the Saints and The Overcomer are themselves occasions for awful spiritual delusion, and for evil spirits to gain power over people, those who recognize the inspiration of the writings of Roberts and Penn-Lewis need not trouble themselves about the bizarre, unscriptural, and idolatrous features that burst forth on page after page of their writings, nor about the great grief and quenching of the Holy Spirit that their unscriptural nonsense produces in a Christian soul, but can rest in confidence in their prophets in these last hours before the parousia in 1914.
Jessie Penn-Lewis and Evan Roberts taught, by revelation from the spirit world, and in the company of Keswick founder Hannah W. Smith, that power over Satanic forces takes place when a believer claims a position in heavenly places, basing this conclusion on, among other texts, Ephesians 1-2, although these chapters never command believers to claim anything. The foundation was in this manner laid for the throne-life and spiritual warfare doctrines nourished and developed from within a Keswick context by John MacMillan, the Christian and Missionary Alliance in general, and the charismatic and Word-Faith movements. In 1897 Mrs. Penn-Lewis was preaching to the China Inland Mission about the “throne-life victory with Christ in God” possessed by that subcategory of believers who had entered the Overcoming Life, what her Quaker ancestors had called the Hidden Life. The elite believer who has entered into this “place of victory ‘far above’ all the principalities and powers . . . sits with Christ in His place of victory” with “Satan and all his hosts under his [the believer’s] feet,” able to exercise “authority over the nations.” Such believers experience Christ’s “throne life of victory,” and, now “encased in Christ, and wielding His authority . . . can command all the hosts of hell” and make them obey.Ephesians 1-2 are said to teach that “the Holy Spirit . . . will certainly impart to us the life of the Risen Lord. He will lift us in real experience into our place in Him, seated with Him in the heavens far above all principalities and powers . . . far above the powers of darkness.” Mrs. Penn-Lewis used her authority as a believer to effect, for example, “the dislodging of the hosts of darkness from the atmosphere” over Russia, an action that was key for “the Holy Spirit . . . to work unhindered” in that place. Her revelatory gift was important in the discovery of the Throne-Life and its power over evil spirits, as neither the Lord Jesus nor the Apostles ever gave Christians an example of removing demons from the atmosphere over a country or taught that such a removal was key for the Spirit’s unhindered work. Penn-Lewis taught that the believer can use his authority to influence world events, such as the first world war, and even change the “day of the rapture and perhaps the day of final judgment.” The believer’s authority can change “all . . . a teaching in Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science magazine, Active Service, sounded very [much] like this.” Furthermore, based on a misinterpretation ofLuke 10:19 also picked up by MacMillan, Simpson, and Pentecostalism, Penn-Lewis wrote: “The soul hidden with Christ in God has authority over all the power of the enemy . . . he has power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and power to deliver and loose others from the bonds of the evil one.”
Mrs. Penn-Lewis taught further doctrines that differed greatly from those in the Bible. She denied central aspects of progressive sanctification, propagated the strange ideas that “the spirit . . . is severed or ‘disentangled’ . . . cut away . . . from the embrace of the soul” in sanctification, and taught that only the human spirit is regenerated, doctrines she passed on to Watchman Nee. Indeed, “[m]any of her teachings are echoed in the works of Watchman Nee, who acknowledged his many debts to Jessie Penn-Lewis.” She also taught bizarre notions obviously absent from Scripture, possibly derived in part from her many books on psychology, and illustrated by her concept of “soul-force,” a concept, rooted in the Broadlands Conferences, that she passed on to John A. MacMillan, Watchman Nee, and others. Penn-Lewis wrote:
[M]an . . . [can] generate ‘soul-force’ [by] . . . so bring[ing] his body under the control of his own soul, that he can project his soul and spirit, and, while living on this earth, act as if he were a disembodied spirit. . . . The man who attains to this power is called an ‘adept’ and . . . can consciously see the minds of others. He can act by his ‘soul-force’ on external spirits. . . . He can subdue ferocious wild beasts and send his soul to a distance, and he can exhibit to his distant friends his spiritual body in the likeness of that of the flesh. . . . Soul-force . . . [is] latent in the human frame. . . . psychic power [is] latent in the human frame.
While Penn-Lewis denied that such a “force” should be cultivated, affirming rather that it was evil, she nonetheless believed that her extra-scriptural “force,” which is that of the chi of Eastern paganism and the New Age, is “very real . . . even when a man becomes regenerate.” It appears to be connected to nerves in the pit of the stomach, according to Penn-Lewis, for these nerves are the instrumentality for the performance of miracles. “[R]evelations and prophecies, speaking and singing with tongues, healing and miracles” come from the force through the “lower nerve-centers (the ganglionic system, or the ‘vegetative’ nerves, as they are called), which have their chief seat in the region round the pit of the stomach[.] . . . These nerves . . . display abilities which our ordinary organs of sense do not possess, and] they receive impressions from a realm usually closed to us, such as clairvoyance, presentiments, prophecy, speaking with tongues, etc.” As already noted, Penn-Lewis affirmed that only the spirit of man is regenerated. Thus, the “converted man [is] one who has had his spirit regenerated . . . his renewed spirit [is] indwelt by the Spirit of God. . . . The believer . . . has been quickened in spirit, is born of the Spirit and the Spirit of God dwells in his spirit.” She connected her doctrine that only the spirit is regenerated with her doctrine that believers can be possessed by demons:
[W]hen the spirit of the man has been quickened into life and he has been delivered from the power of sin, the soulish life and elements in the physical body are open to evil powers. . . . [T]he soulish life [is used by] . . . evil spirits . . . to accomplish their plans[.] . . . This working of the enemy through the mind of a believer, when the heart and spirit may be true to God, is a most serious fact in the Church of God today[.] . . . In the physical body, the adversary can work upon the nervous system and use the animal magnetism which is inherent in every human frame, as well as many other elements open to the powers of evil, in addition to ‘the works of the flesh’ and what is generally called sin. These elements are in the very ‘makeup’ of the human vessel and . . . give . . . ground . . . to the spirits of evil to attack, or gain admittance to mind or body. . . . For full elucidation of this aspect of truth, see War on the Saints, a textbook on the work of deceiving spirits among the children of God.
As the quotation above demonstrates, Penn-Lewis assumed the reality of “animal magnetism,” a Satanic concept developed by “Franz Anton Mesmer (1734–1815)” with clear “historical ties to pagan worship and folklore . . . pagan and occultic rituals . . . [and] old cultic practices and superstitions.” Mesmer, whose ideas undergirded the Faith and Mind Cure doctrines that were precursors of Pentecostalism, was rightly “accused . . . of being a magician and charlatan,” but his ideas led to later demonic and cultic errors, as well as modern psychotherapy, as “the term magnetism . . . [was] dropped . . . and . . . hypnosis . . . introduced . . . [becoming key to the development of] the New Thought movement (a religious, metaphysical healing cult) . . . [the] Christian Science [cult of] Mary Baker Eddy . . . [and] Freud’s . . . creat[ion] [of] a new field of therapy, psychoanalysis, which soon became the new rage.” David MacLeod noted:
The now discredited Franz Anton Mesmer (1734–1815) was a French physician who has been called the father of psychotherapy, the discoverer of hypnosis, and the progenitor of clairvoyance, telepathy, and communication with the beyond. . . . He claimed that a magnetic force emanated from his hands that enabled him to direct the actions and thoughts of his subjects. The effects upon his patients included: convulsions, involuntary movements of the limbs, rapid blinking and crossing of eyes, and piercing cries, tears, hiccups and uncontrollable laughter. He performed healings using an indwelling force he called . . . animal magnetism[.]
The recognition of animal magnetism was widespread in the early Higher Life and Keswick movement, as, for example, it was employed by many mediums whom the Mount-Temples knew and learned from at Broadlands, their home and center for Higher Life agitation and promotion. David Cloud wrote:
Mesmer . . . an astrologer and occultist, proposed a healing technique through hypnosis and the flow of “animal magnetism” from the practitioner to the patient. He held the occultic view that there are thousands of channels in our bodies through which an invisible life force flows and that illness is caused by blockages. The practitioner of animal magnetism could allegedly cure sicknesses by overcoming the obstacles and restoring the flow. The term “to mesmerize” is based on Mesmer’s hypnotic practices, and the field of modern hypnotism stemmed from his techniques. Mesmerization or hypnosis produced two occultic movements in the 19th century. One of these was the New Thought or Mind Science movement. Phineas Quimby (1802-66), a student of Mesmer, called his ‘mind healing’ theories the Science of Health and had a deep influence on Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science. The other occultic movement produced by hypnotism was spiritism. Another Mesmer student, Andrew Jackson Davis, published a book in 1847 which he said was dictated to him by spirits while he was in a mesmeric trance. The Encyclopedia of Psychic Science says, “The conquest by spiritualism soon began and the leading Mesmerists were absorbed into the rank of the spiritualists.”
Penn-Lewis’s acceptance of the reality of the myth of animal magnetism (even though she does not endorse it as good, but recognizes it as evil) is another false doctrine promulgated by her.
Jessie Penn-Lewis’s attempt to prove that only the spirit is regenerated from verses that actually connect the new birth and the spirit consists of one sentence, containing one allusion to uncited Scripture: “It is the spirit that is regenerated—‘a new spirit will I give you.’” Perhaps the fact that the actual references with the words “a new spirit” also mention “a new heart,” and thus newness in the entirety of man’s inner being, including the soul, explain her slackness in giving actual verse references (Ezekiel 11:19; 18:31; 36:26); nor does she explain why her argument from her uncited Old Testament is not the elementary and obvious logical fallacy of concluding that only the spirit, not the soul or the entire man, is made new because of a text that refers to a new spirit but never states or hints at her conclusion concerning the soul and body; nor does she try to explain texts such as 2 Corinthians 5:17 which prove that in the believer “all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17)—such verses are simply ignored, as perhaps the force that moved her to write by inspiration did not inspire her to offer an explanation of why she was contradicting plain passages of the Bible. While she did not have the Bible, at least she had Andrew Murray on her side; in any case, it was necessary that only the spirit be regenerated, for without this doctrine central ideas in her spiritual warfare theories are obliterated, and the experiences she wrote so profusely about would need to bow before the higher authority of the infallible and all-sufficient Word of God.
Penn-Lewis was influenced to her concept of soul-force, as well as her date-setting about the end of the world, from an obscure and odd theological writer named Mrs. E. McHardie. Penn-Lewis wrote: “There is no writer who appears to have given such full information on the dispensational aspect of . . . ‘soul-force’ . . . as the late Mrs. McHardie [in] her valuable books.” However, Mrs. McHardie richly deserves her obscurity. Reviews of her works, such as The Midnight Cry: An Inquiry into the Evidence of the Near Approach of the Second Advent, have described her writing:
[Mrs. McHardie wrote] much . . . that is strained, fantastic, and absurd [to set forth] special signs that the end draweth nigh. . . . [S]he constructs a table of way-marks which leads up to the conclusion that three years hence [after 1883, thus, in 1886] ‘the times of the Gentiles’ will end, while seven years after the personal Anti-christ will be revealed and destroyed.’ . . . [She discusses] the significance of the Great Pyramid . . . [for] the great Pyramid of Egypt . . . is accepted as a witness to Jehovah, and is held to enshrine evidence of when ‘the appointed times’ will befall. . . . [She interprets] [t]he vision of Ezekiel . . . [as teaching that the] cherubim are . . . counterfeits of the seraphim—really representing the evil powers, the unclean spirits in the children of disobedience. . . . [T]he wheels . . . [and the rest of the vision of Ezekiel 1, 10 prophesy of the] [‘]electric batteries [of the nineteenth century] . . . [and give] a symbolic representation of the forces of heaven and the batteries of hell.’ . . . At great length this idea is supported by the vagaries connected with modern spiritualism, which is assigned a very prominent place in connection with the phenomena that betoken ‘the coming of the end.’ . . . [By] the closing . . . of the book . . . [o]ne almost begins to lose patience . . . when she proceeds to cull from obscure journals . . . accounts of remarkable sights in heaven and earth, in the sun, the moon, and the stars, which she insists upon regarding as signs and portents. Nobody will attach any weight to this portion of the treatise; and the general verdict upon it as a whole will be that . . . by a slight extension and exaggeration of its method,
might succeed in proving, after a fashion as satisfactory as it attains, positions very unlike those which it advances.
It is unfortunate that Penn-Lewis wasted her time studying works by Mrs. McHardie, Guyon, and Hannah W. Smith, instead of studying the Bible and the works of those who carefully and accurately expounded and explained Scripture.
Furthermore, Penn-Lewis’s extreme lack of discernment about Satan and his ways is clear in that she reproduced in print and accepted as truth what “the great plot of Satan, the Master Strategist,” really was, not by exegesis of Scripture alone, but by means of what “was made known by a medium under the direction of the evil spirits controlling her,” as though evil spirits would not lie about Satan’s strategies through a medium to get Penn-Lewis to print and distribute in Christendom the ideas of the devil. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that Mrs. Penn-Lewis published what were confessedly the affirmations of evil spirits, as so much of her writings were, though unconfessedly, the product of such beings.
The writings of Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis have very large doses of heresy, Satanic influence, false prophecy, fanaticism, and plain foolishness. They should be avoided and warned against. Nonetheless, they were very influential in the unfolding trajectory of Keswick theology into Pentecostalism and the Word-Faith movement.
Applications from the Lives and Teachings of Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis
Beware of Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis. They are two dangerous and very influential false teachers and exponents of grievous Keswick, continuationistic, and demonological errors. Their works should be avoided and their influence in the preaching, writing, and theologizing of others should be detected, warned about, and rejected. Their strong imprint upon the Keswick theology, and upon the Pentecostalism that arose from it, blackens these movements and provides all the more evidence that they are corruptions of Biblical Christianity. They plainly stated that they had endured demon possession, and claimed that being possessed was key to the content of their writings on demonology. Will you follow and learn from those possessed by demons? Or will you reject the doctrines of demons and cleave to the Bible, the perfect and sufficient revelation of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
Beware of revisionist history. All historians are fallible, and even their most accurate histories have no authority for Biblical faith and practice—the Bible alone is sufficient to make “the man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). How much the less should historical errors influence the faith and practice of God’s people? But, unfortunately, writers who are more interested in hagiography than truth exercise a great influence over the saints, leading the Lord’s sheep to look up to and pattern themselves after wolves and devourers rather than fleeing from them. Following the writings of Jessie Penn-Lewis and patterning church practice after the person and methods of Evan Roberts will destroy sound Baptist churches and expose individual believers to extremely dangerous demonic deceptions, yet vast numbers of Christians have been exposed to this pair and spiritually weakened by them because of a mythical revision of events in Wales in 1904-1905. Recognize the truth—Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis were powerful instruments in the hands of Satan to destroy a true work of revival in Wales, bring to an end many years of growth among the true churches of that land, inaugurate decades of decay and desolation, and hatch the fanaticism and demonism that fills the Pentecostal, charismatic, and Word of Faith movements and has contributed to the spiritual destruction of innumerable souls worldwide. Do not allow true revival to be corrupted to false revivalism in your own life and congregation because of the influence of these two demon-possessed fanatics. Do not perpetuate the revisionist history that makes them into great servants of God and the center of a true work of revival in Wales, and if you have perpetuated this lie in the past, immediately repent of it and then confess your error to those you have misled. It is high time that the truth about the real revival in Wales, and the Keswick continuationism and fanaticism of Evan Roberts and Mrs. Penn-Lewis that so widely infiltrated and destroyed it, replace the distortions of reality that find their place in the hearts of too many of the precious people of God. If you love and long for true revival, be discerning, cleave to the Spirit-breathed Word with all your heart and soul, and reject and reprove the theology, praxis, and historical revisionism surrounding peddlers of Satanic revivalism like Evan Roberts, Jessie Penn-Lewis, and other Keswick and Pentecostal continuationists and fanatics.
One can glean numerous spiritual lessons from the negative examples of Mr. Roberts and Mrs. Penn-Lewis. They illustrate what spiritual dangers and destruction Keswick continuationism can lead to, and how important it is to reject it with all of its demonic delusions for a Scriptural cessationism. Evan Roberts also illustrates the danger of confusing true conversion and God-wrought regeneration with mere experiences of the supernatural (cf. Matthew 7:21-23). An unconverted Judas performed miracles (Matthew 10:4-8), an unconverted high priest Caiaphas prophesied (John 11:49-52; 18:14), nine unconverted lepers were miraculously healed by Christ (Luke 17:11-19), idolatrous Egyptian magicians performed miracles (Exodus 7:11, 22), an unconverted sorcerer named Simon did marvels and convinced many that he was the great power of God (Acts 8:9-10), unconverted men had supernatural dreams (Genesis 31:24; 41:7), and Evan Roberts experienced many visions, dreams, voices, and other marvels, but had no clear testimony of conversion and died with barely a glimmer of Christian piety. And if many genuinely supernatural occurrences—even those that are truly from God, not from Satan—are less than true conversion and regeneration, how much less than the new birth is simply having an emotionally charged experience—and how far, far less than the new birth is standing up or coming to the front of a church building? Such soul-damning acceptance of substitutes for regeneration filled the work of Evan Roberts in the Welsh holiness revival, causing immeasurable spiritual harm. Christians and spiritual leaders must learn from this disaster the extreme importance of clearly and without confusion preaching the gospel, recognizing true conversion, and cleaving to Biblical methods of evangelism rather than adopting methodology that, although it may appear effective in the short term, actually contributes to the everlasting damnation of eternal souls by confusing the nature and fruits of real salvation. Scripture is sufficient for both the doctrine and practice of evangelism. Your church should be preaching regularly in public places and seeking to reach large groups of people at once, while also preaching Christ house to house to systematically reach everyone in your community (Acts 5:42). You should be preaching the good news of Christ’s substitutionary death, His burial, and His resurrection, and salvation through repentant faith in Him. You should not be employing worldly promotion and marketing techniques or seeking to draw people to your church services with sensationalism. While providing people with spiritual counsel immediately after preaching is Biblically justifiable (Acts 2:37-38), including, for example, in an “inquiry room,” the elements of worship in the Lord’s church do not include the modern invitation system invented by Charles Finney. Furthermore, while Roman Catholic and liturgical Protestant religious organizations have altars at the front of their meeting places, true churches have no such altars, and so “altar calls” should be dispensed with. There is absolutely nothing sacred about the front of a church building, and there is no reason to conclude that because someone walks to the front of a church building, or is led to repeat the words of a “sinner’s prayer” after walking to the front of a church building, that he has been born again of the Holy Spirit of God. The replacement of true conversion with decisionism was central to bringing the time of Baptist church growth in Wales to an end as a result of the methods employed in the holiness revival under Evan Roberts, and its consequences have been inconceivably disastrous world-wide whenever they have been adopted. Nonetheless, there is hope—a rejection of unbiblical and nonbiblical doctrines and practices in evangelism, a recognition of the foundational importance of the Regulative Principle of worship, a wholehearted repentance for neglecting Biblical doctrine and praxis, and a return to Biblical and Spirit-empowered evangelism and preaching, both outside of and within the context of the instituted worship of the church, could be, in the hands of the sovereign God, the instrumentality for glorious and widespread true revival.
Furthermore, learn from Evan Roberts’s destruction of true revival the fallacy of his practice of only preaching on God’s love. Reject this practice of Roberts, and instead preach boldly, pointedly, and with uncompromising conviction on specific sins, on hell with its fire and brimstone, on the wrath of God, and on the absolute necessity of the propitiatory work of Christ and the new birth to escape everlasting torment, as well as on God’s glorious love. If you truly love unconverted sinners, you will follow the practice of Christ and His Apostles in preaching the law and judgment as well as grace and love. It will not be easy to do so—if you preach so, you will need a true love for and trust in God, and a real love for the unconverted. Preaching that pricks and cuts men to the heart may, instead of seeing three thousand true conversions as did Peter (Acts 2), lead men to become so angry with you that they gnash on you with their teeth and seek to kill you, as they did Stephen (Acts 7), and as they sought to do to the Prophet of prophets and the perfect Pattern for all preachers, the Lord of love, Jesus Christ (Luke 4:29).
Consider also that marvels are no substitute for Spirit-empowered preaching of the entire Word. The visions and ecstasy of the Welsh holiness revival did not produce revival, but destroyed it. It certainly is possible that searching preaching is used by the Holy Ghost to bring people under such tremendous conviction of sin that powerful emotional responses follow. However, the preacher must never aim only for emotional response, nor must such responses be allowed to overturn the apostolic command that all things be done “decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40). Furthermore, someone who is truly filled with the Spirit will not see visions, pretend to the gift of prophecy, or adopt other continuationist errors. Rather, he will manifest the fruit of the Spirit in a Christ-like life and in great progress in that true Christian sanctification that is impossible without the supernatural efficacy of the Spirit of God.
Consider also the great importance of following Scripture alone in successfully resisting the devil and causing him to flee. Literal exegesis of the Bible will teach you all you need to know to overcome the wicked one, and its teachings are not to be changed in the least degree because of someone’s testimony to victory over Satan or experiences fighting demons. Your sufficient offensive weapon in your spiritual armor is the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God (Ephesians 6:10-18); no uninspired book is necessary for successful wrestling with Satanic principalities and powers. With a grasp of God’s Word, apart from any uninspired book on demonology, you can say with first century Christians, “we are not ignorant of [Satan’s] devices” (2 Corinthians 2:11). Indeed, you should recognize that a frightful proportion of modern literature on demonology is not an exposition of Biblical teaching on withstanding demons, but has actually come from the devils themselves through extra-Biblical revelations or experiences where devils deluded people into thinking that they were gaining the victory over the powers of darkness while they were, in truth, falling to the cunning trickery of the devil. Lucifer and his fallen angels are too smart, and too powerful, for you to figure out on your own how to fight them and win. Only in the strength and with the guidance of Jehovah, wearing the whole armor He has provided His saints, can you successfully withstand demonic wiles. The battle-plan for victory is plainly set forth in the pages of His infallible Word—nowhere else.
Since Scripture is sufficient for successful Christian resistance of Satan, accept the truths of Biblical demonology. Find the passages that speak of Satan or of demons in a concordance and study them in their context so that you can know how to successfully resist the wicked one. Spend your time studying God’s Word on how to deal with devils, rather than wasting your time and filling your mind with error by reading continuationist and experience-based demonology. The Scripture will lead you to truths such as the following. You should examine yourself to be sure you are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5), for if you have not been converted, you are still in Satan’s kingdom, not God’s, and are under the power of the devil, not under the protective power of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:1-9). You must submit to God and resist the devil, and he will flee from you (James 4:7). Be sober and vigilant in your resistance, and resist in faith (1 Peter 5:8-9), for through faith and God’s enabling grace, not through your own self-dependent might, you will defeat his temptations (Ephesians 6:16). Use the Word in your resistance (Matthew 4; Ephesians 6:17). Pray regularly for deliverance from temptation and the tempter (Matthew 6:13); watch and pray constantly (Ephesians 6:18), guard yourself (1 John 5:18), and fill yourself up with the evil of sin, the love of Christ, and the mercies of God to you, so that temptations lose their power (2 Corinthians 5:14; Genesis 39:9). Serve God in an assembly that both faithfully practices church discipline and lovingly restores disciplined members who repent (1 Corinthians 5; 2 Corinthians 2). Rejoice that Jesus Christ, your High Priest, effectually prays that you will be kept from evil and the evil one (John 17:15). Do not give an occasion, scope, or place for the devil to be active and tempt you by nursing sinful anger or other sins (Ephesians 4:26-27). Be honest and obey the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3). If you are married, regularly render to your spouse due physical benevolence (1 Corinthians 7:3-5). Forgive (2 Corinthians 4:10-11). Take to yourself righteousness and truth, fill yourself up with the knowledge of an assured salvation, and be devoted to proclaiming the gospel (Ephesians 6:10-18). Walk closely with God. Oh for greater fellowship with Him! And consider how spiritually refreshing, straight-forward, practical, and easily understood are Biblical instructions for dealing with demons. What a blessed contrast they form with the strange, obscure, and spiritually oppressive practices contended for in War on the Saints! Rejoice that by practicing what God has revealed about resisting the devil, you will be successful, for the Lord has not revealed the truth to His beloved people in vain.
Since Scripture is sufficient for Christian resistance to Satan, do not adopt unbiblical ideas of the sort that fill books such as War on the Saints and the many later handbooks on demonology that rely on extra-biblical ideas and revelations, and flee in horror from all misinterpretations of Scripture. Do not try to bind Satan, and do not pray that Satan will be bound in this age. He will not be bound until the Millennium. If you pray that an entire country or region of the world will be freed from Satanic influence because of an alleged binding, you are self-deceived, for it is not God’s will that wicked people who reject the gospel and hate Him will be free from demonic control—Satan’s rule over them is a righteous judgment from He who is truly Sovereign over all nations. Only at the point of the new birth are any truly delivered from the power of darkness, for then, and only then, are they transferred into the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Colossians 1:13); indeed, Scripture is so far from indicating that an entire country or region of unconverted people can be free from Satan’s control that it records an inspired prayer, which is to be sung by the people of God (Ephesians 5:19) and which indicates the will of God, that Satan be at the right hand of the wicked (Psalm 109:6). Do not rail on or rebuke the devil—if even Michael the Archangel did not (Jude 9), why should you? Do not seek for a post-conversion Spirit baptism that will give you special powers against the forces of darkness—Spirit baptism was a completed historical event that took place in the first century and is not going to happen again in the church age. Do not think that the devil has the ability to make you sin—your flesh is sufficient for that, and all your sins are your own fault, not the devil’s. If you are a child of God, reject the idea that the devil has the ability to inject thoughts into your head—the Bible only indicates that demons have such abilities with the unregenerate. We cannot know exactly what powers demons can exert externally upon saints, by God’s permission—and we do not need to know, because Scripture does not declare it—but we can surmise that if parents of ordinary intelligence can become very familiar with their children and know them very well without direct access to their minds, extremely intelligent fallen angels can watch and know with a high degree of accuracy what mortal men are thinking without direct access to their minds. Nevertheless, they do not have the knowledge and the ability to exert internal power upon the people of God that is possessed by the Almighty and all-knowing Father of the children of God. Throw away books by continuationists that corrupt the teaching of the Bible on demonology by examining the subject based on experience-based hermeneutics or that in any other way deny sola Scriptura in practice. Do not adopt any ideas about Satan or the occult from any sources other than the Bible. Satan appears like an angel of light, not like a red creature with horns and a red forked tail, and witches do not fly around on brooms. For that matter, no angels in Scripture look like cute, baby-faced creatures—they all looked like men. The only possible exception is certain demonic creatures that have the faces of men and the hair of women (Revelation 9:7-8). Nor do angels have a pair of wings coming out of their back; only the cherubim and seraphim have wings. Do not seek for signs and wonders after the fashion of an evil and adulterous generation (Matthew 12:39). Do not practice charismatic “warfare prayer” or “territorial mapping.” Do not follow Jessie Penn-Lewis and Pentecostalism in attempting to use “throne power” to defeat Satan in prayer, but follow Jesus Christ and pray the way He told you to pray (Matthew 6:9-13). If, out of the many hundreds of prayers recorded in Scripture, not even one example of the sort of prayer you wish to engage in can be found, your type of prayer cannot possibly be key to spiritual victory, to defeating Satan, or to any other Christian goal whatsoever. The devil has sowed vast amounts of confusion concerning his character and workings, and the only way you can be free from the lies he has filled the world with, and filled largely unregenerate Christendom with, is by careful study of and submission to the sole authority of the Word of God. You cannot successfully resist the devil without the power of God, but you will not have His power if you are employing your own devices rather than the means and methods of successful spiritual wrestling He has revealed.
Do not pretend that you have the sign gift of exorcism. Do not go around trying to cast out demons as if you were an Apostle. God did not record any procedure for normal Christians to practice exorcism in the New Testament epistles because the Lord’s people and churches were not to practice this sign gift. If an unconverted person appears to be possessed, you should pray and fast (Matthew 17:21), and preach the gospel to him so that he can be regenerated and freed from the control of the devil (Ephesians 2:1-4). Reject the idea that a regenerate person can be possessed—the temple of the Holy Spirit cannot be the dwelling place of devils, so the saints of God cannot be demon possessed, although they must certainly resist the devil and his temptations, looking to Christ in faith. Trying to do what the Lord Jesus did in validating His Messiahship by exorcising demons will lead you to give place to the devil in a terrible way. You should have no communication with demons whatsoever—only the Almighty and omniscient God (Job 1:8; Mark 5:9), or the head of the host of good angels, Michael the Archangel (Jude 9), is ever recorded as speaking to or conversing with Satan or devils in Scripture—no godly man is ever recorded as doing so. If not even the Apostles, who had the sign gift of exorcism, conversed with demons, how much the less should you? Indeed, even the Lord Jesus only spoke to demons in Scripture on very rare occasions and for very special purposes—the large majority of the time He “suffered not the devils to speak” (Mark 1:34), using His Divine power to force them to be silent and stop speaking (Mark 1:25; 3:11-12; Luke 4:35, 41). Recognize that the conversations with demons Keswick continuationists, Pentecostals, and other modern miracle-mongers engage in during their exorcism sessions and reproduce in their periodicals and books are nothing other than disobedience to Scripture and awful occasions to be both personally deceived by fallen angels and to spread demonic lies under the guise of Christian truth through the printed page. The demons are smarter than you are. Every time you converse with them you will lose, for God has told you, “I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils” (1 Corinthians 10:20).
Beware of, avoid, and warn against “deliverance” ministries and modern exorcists. The techniques of Jessie Penn-Lewis, Evan Roberts, and Pentecostalism to deal with demons flourish in environments where the gospel is corrupted, as it was in the Quakerism of Mrs. Penn-Lewis, the Anglicanism of the Keswick Convention, and in other continuationist paedobaptist groups. When many professing Christians are unconverted and are consequently liable to being possessed by demons, and continuationism is adopted, exorcism ministries have room to flourish, while when people are truly converted, have the special protection Christ gives to the church He purchased with His own blood, and in fellowship with Him and His faithful people, they will be able to discern and reject the unbiblical heresies that permeate modern continuationistic demonology. What is more, people who are demon possessed, and then are “delivered” through unbiblical techniques by false teachers, as the sons of the Pharisees cast out demons (Luke 11:19), are in extreme danger of falling into even greater spiritual darkness, in accordance with the goals of the demons themselves. Such persons, even if the demons have decided to leave their bodies for a time to convince them to follow the religious delusions advocated by their wonder-working exorcist, will still be eternally damned unless they are born again—yet the supernatural wonder that they themselves have experienced is a tremendous roadblock to their coming to the knowledge of the truth and being truly converted. Truly, Satan has laid his deceit very deep, and the unraveling of his wiles and deliverance from his power is a work far above the strength of mere mortal men. Nevertheless, the believer has no grounds for despair; with the God of Jacob as his refuge, victory over the forces of hell is indubitably obtainable: “With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible” (Mark 10:27).
Rejoice in true worship in the house of God—the holy angels rejoice in it (1 Corinthians 11:10). Recognize the glorious promise that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18). Christ exercises a special care over the members of His assemblies and over His congregations, protecting them from enemies as a man cares for and protects his bride. The church is Christ’s holy temple, but being removed from His house is being delivered to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:4-5). Special protection from the powers of the wicked one is therefore found in the assemblies of the saints that Christ started in the first century, and which have existed to this present time under many names, but are now found among historic Baptist churches. Godly worship and praise brings the special presence of Jehovah (cf. 2 Chronicles 5:13-14), and godly music makes evil spirits depart (1 Samuel 16:23). Let such worship, and such music, be found in your church and in your home. God’s saints should sing His inspired psalms, and uninspired hymns should be patterned after the Biblical content found in the psalter, as they regularly were in the age of hymnists from Faucett to Doddridge to Toplady. They should hold fast to the Regulative Principle of worship as the sole solid defense against the introduction of humanly or demonically designed corruptions in worship. On the other hand, false religious organizations are Satan’s hunting-ground (Revelation 18:2). God is not the source of all religious experience. The worship of all pagan and non-Christian religions is the realm of the devil (1 Corinthians 10:20). The gatherings of the church of Rome are filled with demons, demons that work through the idols, demons that work supernaturally to bring the unregenerate into ever greater darkness as bread is allegedly transubstantiated over altars that have occult relics of “saints” in them, demons that rejoice in their extrabiblical festival days, demons that are attracted to their unholy and Spirit-quenching liturgy, and all sorts of other demons. Assemblies of Protestant religious organizations that preach a corrupt gospel are likewise places where demons and demonic influence abounds. When charismatics turn off their minds and engage in ecstatic religious phenomena, they are often having a genuinely supernatural experience, but one that shares its source with that of the ecstatic worship of demonized idolaters in first century Corinth (1 Corinthians 12:2). When neo-evangelicals bring rock music or the rock beat into their assemblies, they are bringing in music that attracts demons, rather than leading them to leave. Do you, then, wish to avoid the presence of devils? Unite yourself to and worship faithfully in a historic Baptist church that cleaves to and contends for Biblical worship, including an uncompromised stand for traditional, classical-styled music that follows Biblical principles. Such a church can assault the gates of hell in the strength of Jesus Christ. Flee all other religious organizations—unholy angels, rather than holy ones, gather in them.
Remember that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)—the church, the local, visible, Baptist congregation, is the place of God’s special presence, His special protection from Satan and his kingdom, and His promises of perpetuity and blessing until the return of Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18). No promises of Christ’s special presence or protection are made to the mythical universal, invisible church, Para church institutions, human denominations, or inter-denominational movements such as evangelicalism. Do you claim to be a fundamentalist? If, by this term, you mean that you seek to militantly defend all the truths of the Christian faith, and militantly stand against and separate from all error, well and good—you will then, if your confession is true, be a servant of Christ in a historic Baptist church. Do you think that such a line is too strict, for “historic fundamentalism” was a parachurch movement that only recognized a handful of “fundamentals” that were worthy of separation? If that is truly “historic fundamentalism,” then you should reject such fundamentalism for the God-honoring true separatism only possible within a Biblical Baptist church that is unaffiliated with denominationalism, associationism, and all other humanly devised denominational structures. However, you should also consider that there never was a unified “historic fundamentalism.” The Fundamentals, for example, printed an essay by George Sales Bishop, who believed in the dictation of the autographa and its perfect preservation—including the perfect preservation of not the Hebrew consonants alone, but also the vowels that were originally given by inspiration—in the Textus Receptus. Yet The Fundamentals also reprinted articles by Edwin J. Orr, who “was unconcerned to defend a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, and [who] took the view that an insistence on biblical inerrancy was actually ‘suicidal.’” So who represents “historic fundamentalism”—Bishop or Orr? Does “historic fundamentalism” defend an inerrantautographa, an inerrant autographa that is perfectly preserved in the Received Texts of Scripture, or errant autographs and apographs? Indeed, while cessationists are amply represented in early fundamentalism, the writings of Jessie Penn-Lewis appear also in The Fundamentals—so does “historic fundamentalism” follow Scriptural cessationism and the sole authority of Scripture, or Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s fanaticism, radical demonology, Quakerism, date-setting for Christ’s return, and allegedly “inspired” extra-Biblical writings—one of which is condensed in The Fundamentals? A unified “historic fundamentalism” is a chimera, and even if it had existed, it would possess no independent authority—the Christian’s sole authority is the Bible alone, and the Bible teaches that every religious organization on earth in this dispensation, if it wants to have the special presence of Jesus Christ, must be under the authority of one of His churches. Fundamentalist parachurch institutions are not churches. Do you value the Lord’s church in the way that One does who bought her with His blood (Ephesians 5:25)? If you do not, but are following some movement, whether evangelical, fundamental, or by any other name, your organization does not possess the promises Christ makes to His church alone. Beware lest Christ say to you, and to your organization, “cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?” (Luke 13:7).
Furthermore, beware other settings that are naturally the haunts of Satan. If Paul warns about the places where idol worship takes place as the haunt of devils and a setting to avoid (1 Corinthians 10:14, 20), places that are haunts of devils today should be avoided also. Since idols are attractive to demons, do not bring any idols into your house, whether as symbols of foreign “culture,” or mementos of past tourism, or for any other reason. If you have such objects in your house, whether of an openly pagan god or an allegedly Christian semi-deity such as the allegedly perpetual Virgin Mary, destroy such idols immediately. Destroy other demonic objects, such as Ouija boards, and abhor the symbols of idolatry, whether crucifixes or Christmas trees. Avoid the places where the medium and the psychic ply their trade. Do not seek to contact the dead. Do not let the practitioners of demonic and New Age alternative “medicine” deceive you, whether through the occult water of homeopathy, the traditional chiropractic of D. D. Palmer, or some other form of pagan energy medicine. Expect the modernist theological seminary, as a place of blasphemy against Jehovah, to be infested with demons. Assume that demons will delight themselves and congregate in the movie theater as its wide screens vomit forth violence, filthiness, occultism, and all kinds of ungodliness, just as they would at the rock concert or the bar. What concord is there between Christ and Belial?
Maintain a Biblical balance in recognizing the power of Satan. First, while recognizing the real power of the devil and the unquestionable spiritual danger he poses to you, do not deify him or treat him as if he were God—do not displease and dishonor the only God by treating his creature and angel, Lucifer, as if he truly were like the Most High. Satan is not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. His power is not equal to that of God—indeed, it is infinitely inferior to that of El Shaddai. While a very powerful creature, he is nonetheless a defeated and doomed foe. Remember that he is so. Second, do not react against the fanaticism of works such as War on the Saints by turning to a rationalism that denies or denigrates the reality of the demonic. Doubtless many pagan marvels are simple impostures with as much reality to them as the body of Mary Baker Eddy’s Mind Cures or the fake healings of a Word of Faith wonder-peddler. However, in our Bibles we can hold infallible evidence in our hands that, although they cannot equal the miraculous power of the Almighty (Exodus 8:18-19; 9:11;Daniel 2:27-28), demons can perform real miracles (Revelation 16:14). Neither fear the devil as if he were God—reserve that reverential awe for your Creator and Redeemer alone—nor diminish the power of that roaring lion, who ferociously roams about seeking whom he may devour, as if he were a de-fanged and de-clawed pussycat.
 Pgs. 120, 155, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
 Pg. iii, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard, 2nd ed. preface by Bernard W. Matthews, 1930.
 “Thankfully, too, may be placed on record the fact that a concise summary of ‘The Warfare with Satan and the Way of Victory’ was selected as one of the papers for insertion in Vol. X of ‘The Fundamentals,’ a series of volumes re-stating the Fundamental Truths of the Christian Faith, issued free by the generosity of ‘Two Christian Laymen’ to workers throughout the world” (“The Overcomer Literature Trust Fund,” pg. 203, The Overcomer, December 1914; cf. Chapter 13, “Satan and His Kingdom,” Jessie Penn-Lewis, pgs. 183-199, The Fundamentals, vol. 4, ed. Torrey).
 Pg. 274, An Instrument of Revival, Jones.
 Pg. 5, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard; cf. pg. 6, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Brynmor Pierce Jones.
 George Fox (1624-1691) was the “Founder of the Society of Friends, otherwise known as Quakers. . . . In 1646 he announced his reliance on the ‘Inner Light of the Living Christ.’ . . . [H]e taught that truth is to be found primarily not in Scripture or in creed but in God’s voice speaking to the soul. . . . his colleagues . . . included William Penn” (pg. 425, “Fox, George,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell).
 Pg. 139, I Saw The Welsh Revival, David Matthews. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1951. After his marriage to Jessie, Mr. Penn-Lewis’ Quaker background still showed itself (pg. 11, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones). At Mr. Penn-Lewis’ funeral, preached by F. B. Meyer, “Dr. Meyer remarked that [the] quiet garden attached to the Friends [Quaker] Meeting House was peculiarly appropriate as the last resting place of William Penn-Lewis, as he was a descendant of William Penn, one of the Pilgrim Fathers, the founder of Pennsylvania” (pg. 290, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary Garrard). Mrs. Penn-Lewis, buried by her husband in this Quaker graveyard, would also refer to what one or another “old Quaker” or “old Quakers” had said in her writings (cf. her letter from Coonoor, S. India, March 3, 1903, reprinted in “The Life of Faith” of March 25th 1903; Chapter 3,Soul and Spirit, by Jessie Penn-Lewis, etc.).
 Before her marriage she was “Jessie Jones” (pg. 7, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones). More details about her early life and marriage are contained in her diaries and her booklet The Leading of the Lord.
 Pg. 155, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 “Public Worship” in the Orthodox Quaker Declaration of Faith Issued by the Richmond Conference in 1887(http://www.quakerinfo.com/rdf.shtml).
 Pgs. 300-301, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 295, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pgs. 290, 306, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.
 Compare “Freemasonry and the Christian,” Eddy D. Field II & Eddy D. Field III. Master’s Seminary Journal, 5:2 (Fall 94) 141-158; also The Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge, John Ankerberg & John Weldon (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1990).
 Pg. 4, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard. Garrard was Mrs. Penn-Lewis’ secretary and confidant for decades, and after Penn-Lewis’ death Garrard “serve[d] as general secretary and magazine editor” of The Overcomer “for sixteen years” (pgs. 305ff. The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones; cf. pgs. 10, 86, 156, 250, 297).
 Pg. 6, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 6, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 1, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.
 Pg. 2, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard; cf. pg. 4, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Brynmor Pierce Jones.
 Neither Jessie nor William even professed conversion to Christ before their marriage (cf. pgs. 8-10,Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard).
 Pgs. 6-7, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pgs. 6-7, Garrard; cf. pg. 9, Jones. Describing her professed conversion, Penn-Lewis testified: “[I had] a deep inward desire to know that I was a child of God[.] . . . [T]aking . . . my (too little read) Bible from the shelf, [I] turne[d] over the leaves, and [my] eye f[ell] [upon] the words, ‘The Lord hath laid upon Him the iniquity of us all’: again a casual turn of the sacred pages, and [I read] the words, ‘He that believeth hath Eternal Life.’ . . . [I considered] whether I did believe that God had laid my sins upon the Lamb of God on the Cross: a pause of wonderment that it really said that I had Eternal Life if I simply believed God’s Word: a quick cry of ‘Lord, I do believe’—and [I] passed from death unto life.” One hopes that Mrs. Penn-Lewis was truly regenerated, although the facts that she wished to know that she “was” a child of God, befitting her Quaker background, rather than desiring to “become” one (cf. Luke 5:31-32; 19:10), that her description of her professed conversion sounds dangerously like an affirmation that the new birth is a matter of a “believe that,” a mental assent to certain facts (James 2:19), rather than a supernaturally wrought and spiritual coming to the Person of Christ in repentant faith and trusting in His death and shed blood (cf. John 6:37), and that she entirely omits any mention of repentance (cf. Luke 13:3), including repentance of the false gospels taught in Quakerism, Masonry, and Anglo-Catholicism (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1), make the genuineness of her conversion a matter of serious doubt, especially as she continued to associate with Quakerism and other false religions that taught a false gospel (Galatians 1:8-9) the rest of her life, and she certainly was never immersed into the membership of a Bible-believing and practicing church upon profession of faith as did regenerate people in the Bible (cf. Acts 2:41-47;Mark 16:16).
 Pg. 8, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard. Any soul-winner with even a modicum of discernment knows that in a “Christian” culture like 19th century Britain the fact that someone, when asked if he is a Christian, will respond with the word “yes,” by no means proves his regeneration. A large majority of 21stcentury Americans would say “yes” to the same question, yet they are no more the true children of God than were the majority of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Hopkins himself professed to be converted after reading 1 John 1:9. He testified: “I saw that there was a covenant . . . and if I was among those who confessed their sins, I was in the agreement, and that He was faithfulto the Son, and just to the promise made to the Son, to forgive me then and there. I saw, at once, that I had pardon” (pgs. 27-28, Evan Henry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander Smellie). One hopes that Hopkins was truly converted, although 1 John 1:9 is not about how one is born again, and justification is granted to those who come to a particular point where, as lost sinners, they come to Jesus Christ in repentant faith (Mark 1:15;John 3:16; 6:37), while there is no promise in the Bible that says that as long as one is “among those who confessed their sins” one will enter the kingdom of God. Whatever one may conclude from Evan Hopkins own testimony of conversion—one can be happy that, unlike so many Anglican priests, he at least had something he could say, and he never adopted Anglo-Catholicism—the rampant confusion within Anglicanism about the way of salvation helps to explain why Jessie Penn-Lewis could be accepted as a true believer, rather than as simply a religious but very possibly unconverted person, simply because she said “Yes” when asked if she were a Christian.
 Perhaps Penn-Lewis’s weak view of conversion and regeneration contributed to her passing beyond the more typical Keswick division of Christians into those who are spiritual and those who are perpetually carnal into her own four-fold division, a division in which she was followed by Watchman Nee. She taught in her Four Planes of the Spiritual Life that “[b]elievers in Christ . . . all lived on one of four planes: the evangelistic plane, the revival or Pentecost plane, the path of the Cross plane, or the spiritual warfare plane. Each of these had a commencement, a continuation, and a consummation before you went on to the next” (pg. 224, cf. pg. 233, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones). That is:
There are four planes—broadly speaking—in the spiritual life of the believer, and of the Christian worker: The first plane we may call the “evangelistic” plane; that is, the plane where the soul knows the new birth; knows that he has eternal life in Christ; where he becomes a soul winner, preaches salvation from the penalty of sin, and is used to lead others to Christ; where the entire objective is winning souls for Christ; where he is faithful in proclaiming the gospel of salvation in Christ.
Then there is the second plane, which may be called the “revival” plane; or the stage in personal experience where the believer receives the fulness of the Holy Spirit, learns to know Him and to obey Him; to rely upon Him and to look to Him to work as he co-operates with Him, and is used to lead others into the experience of the fulness of the Spirit.
Then there is the third plane, which we may call the plane of the “path of the cross,” where the believer experimentally apprehends his position in Romans 6 in fellowship with Christ’s death; is brought into “conformity” to His death (Philippians 3:10); he learns the fellowship of His sufferings, and is led to walk in the path of the Cross in every detail of practical life. Here the believer is able to interpret to others the way of the Cross, and to lead others to know Romans 6 and 2 Corinthians 4:10-12 in experience.
The fourth plane is the plane of spiritual warfare. It is really the “ascension” plane, where the believer knows his union with Christ, seated with Him “far above all principality and power”; and where, in service, he is in aggressive warfare against the powers of darkness; learns to have spiritual discernment to detect the working of the devil; and learns the authority of Christ over all the power of the enemy. (Luke 10:19)
Or to put it concisely—the first is the plane of salvation, or the new life; the second is the plane of the Spirit; the third is the plane of victory over sin; the fourth is the plane of victory over the powers of darkness. The individual believer, if he goes forward in the Christian life with God, is generally—not always—led just in this order also. First, he receives salvation; second, he receives the Holy Ghost; third he is led along the path of the Cross; fourth, he walks in the path of conflict and victory, resulting in “power” over all the power of the enemy. The individual worker, also, finds he is used in these four planes of service. First, he is used to lead others to Christ; second, he is used to lead them into the fulness of the Spirit; third, he is used to interpret to them the path of the Cross; and fourth, to discern the devices and workings of the devil, and to have power over “all the power of the enemy,” through union with Christ on the throne.
Madame Guyon truly says that in every plane of the spiritual life there is a beginning, working out, and a consummation of the life in that degree, followed by a passage into the next plane, where there is again a beginning, a working out, a consummation. . . . Further, it is true that, speaking generally, it often takes years to get through each plane! (“Four Planes of the Spiritual Life,” Watchman Nee, reprinting “an excerpt from Life Out of Death, a book by Jessie Penn-Lewis. It was originally published by The Overcomer Literature Trust, Parkston, Poole, Dorset, England.” Elec. acc. http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/article_pdf.php?aid=18101)
Penn-Lewis’s four-fold division of Christians into a lower class, higher class, even higher elite class, and highest and most elite class, will be convincing to those who accept the inspiration of her writings, and her reference to Madame Guyon will perhaps impress those who receive the Romanist mystic’s writings as a spiritual authority, but for those who accept the sola Scriptura, the total absence of Biblical evidence for Penn-Lewis’s four-fold partition of the people of God will lead them to reject her doctrine out of hand. However, while Mrs. Penn-Lewis had no support for her ideas in the Bible, she did find some in the stages in the Higher Life expounded at the Broadlands Conference (pgs. 191-193, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910).
Mrs. Penn-Lewis, while she had no support in Scripture for her four-fold division of Christians, did, however, find some support in the teaching of her Quaker predecessor, Hannah W. Smith, and the Broadlands Conference, where, e. g., Mrs. Smith did not speak of the Higher Life alone, but also of “the bird life . . . of sunshine and song” (pg. 196, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910). Perhaps one had the Lower Life lived by the body of non-Keswick Christians, the Higher Life lived by the elite few, and the Bird Life lived by those whose sense of Biblical teaching had completely gone to the birds.
 Pg. 10, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 13, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 41, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 E. g., Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard, pgs. 77-78, 88-96, 107-109, 130-131, 156-158, 185-187 (in Moody’s church and college, where her influence led to a “revival” where “[a]ll order was dispensed with . . . [s]ome would be praying for pardon, some were singing, and some asking for the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and others for Healing,” pg. 105, The Trials and Triumphs of Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones), 187-188 (A. B. Simpson’s church and the CMA Nyack Institute), 194-196 (1901 Scottish Keswick convention to both men and women, where, as at many Keswick-themed conferences in other parts of her homeland and in many foreign countries, her preaching to men was “blessedly sealed by the Spirit of God,” so that “in after years there was no suggestion of a limited ministry [to women only] whenever [Penn-Lewis] was able to come to Scottish Conventions”), 199, 203, 274, 277 (“the Voice of the Spirit of God” leading her to powerfully preach a misinterpretation of John 12:24at the Swanwick Conference she started), 286 (many “ministries revolutionized” by the doctrines she preached), 301, ibid. She also led meetings where men and women prayed in different languages at the same time in a confusion that clearly violates the pattern set in 1 Corinthians (cf. pg. 80, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard; pgs. 53, 57, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones, where a confused meeting was said to be “a forerunner of the Welsh revival.”). Compare also, for her preaching, pgs. 41 (at Keswick), 45 (leaving her husband behind while she went on preaching tours in various countries), 49-57, 71-74 (pg. 74 records an example, not only of a mixed preaching service, but a special “men-only” service), 86, 97 (“meetings and conventions in Canada and the great northern cities of the United States,”), 103-108, 113, 138-139, 146 (preaching at the Welsh Keswick at Llandrindod and influencing Welsh holiness revival men like Seth Joshua, while “open[ing] up new truths to such key people”), 149, 153, 161-162, 196-197, 232, 235 (where the men handled the simple matters, but she, as one above them, “would step in later to comment on the more complex questions”), 240-241, 259-265, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 73, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 431, “Friends, Society of,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Elwell.
 Pg. 50, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones; cf. pgs. 161-162.
 Compare “God Is Using Women: Opportunities for Women at Keswick,” chap. 8, pgs. 148-166 inTransforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present and Future, by Charles Wesley Price and Ian M. Randall. Carlisle: OM, 2000.
 Pgs. 138-139, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones. Mrs. Penn-Lewis followed her own advice of rejecting pastoral counsel. When, in 1897, even “several Keswick leaders, including her own Vicar [Evan Hopkins], distrusted her teachings as ‘too subjectivist,’” and Hopkins warned her about “a misinterpretation and a misapplication of texts of Scripture,” rather than submitting to their objections, she “felt the Lord was calling her to publish her messages as a top priority” because she was “[i]solated more and more from former colleagues” (pg. 60, 62, ibid.).
 Pg. 73, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Mrs. Penn-Lewis also employed other texts that do not, grammatically-historically interpreted, prove her point about women preachers, such as Joel 2 and Acts 21:9 (see pgs. 73-74, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard). In her argument for women preachers from the Spirit baptism text in Joel 2, Penn-Lewis follows the argumentation of Phoebe Palmer, the Methodist woman preacher with a Quaker background (“Keswick and the Higher Life,” http://www.seeking4truth.com/keswick.htm) who made that passage central to her case for women preachers, as well as popularizing the connection between the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification and Spirit baptism (in which she had the help of Asa Mahan; “Asa Mahan and the Development of American Holiness Theology,” Donald W. Dayton. Wesleyan Theological Journal 9:1 (Spring 1974): 60-69). Palmer’s “work quickly extended beyond Methodism into a large number of Protestant denominations, helping to fuel interest in Christian perfection, holiness and ‘the higher Christian life’ throughout much of English-speaking Protestantism” (pg. 502, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed. Larsen). Her views of Spirit baptism and entire sanctification “largely defined the ‘holiness revival’ or ‘holiness movement’ that grew from her work and that of other proponents of Christian perfection, Christian holiness and the higher Christian life. . . . In England, Palmer introduced her ideas during an extended preaching tour between 1859 and 1863. Later, other American revivalists, notably Robert Pearsall Smith and his wife Hannah Whitall Smith, and Asa Mahan, followed up her visit, preaching versions of her theology throughout the British Isles. Their work led directly to the organization of the Keswick Conventions and the ongoing Keswick ‘Higher Life’ Movement among British evangelicals . . . [and] also influenced modern Pentecostal and charismatic movements. . . . [I]t is clear that her emphasis on Pentecost and the baptism with the Holy Spirit and her interpretation of the early chapters of Acts . . . laid the groundwork for much modern Pentecostal and charismatic thinking” (pgs. 502-503, ibid). Naturally, Mrs. Palmer was a continuationist, as her preaching of post-conversion Spirit baptism and perfectionism led to “trances, visions, sleeps, dreams, and miracles” (pg. 66, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Synan). Interestingly, her husband was a homeopathic physician (pg. 501, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed. Larsen), supplying another strand in the web that connects the pagan ideas of the nineteenth century Mind and Faith Cure movement to the healing theology of the twentieth century Pentecostal and Word of Faith movements.
 Pg. 50, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pgs. 13-15, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 48, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard. Their continuing friendship is evident from, e. g., the fact that Andrew Murray wrote a preface to the Dutch edition of her book The Cross of Calvary and Its Message (see pgs. 220-221, Garrard; pg. 203, The Overcomer, December 1914) and that she led various groups of people in studies on spiritual life based on Murray’s writings (pg. 97, ibid.). Those who translated Murray’s writings often translated hers as well (e. g., pg. 204, ibid.).
 Pg. 16, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 17, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard. She records an instance where Murray’s doctrine allegedly worked to cure a cold on pgs. 101-102, ibid.
 Pg. 24, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 The Bible certainly does not teach the Finney/Mahan doctrine of Spirit baptism. See the appendix “Spirit Baptism: A Completed Historical Event. An Exposition and Defense of the Historic Baptist View of Spirit Baptism.”
 Pgs. 18-29, Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 183, “An Autobiographical Sketch,” The Overcomer magazine, ed. Jessie Penn-Lewis, December 1914.
 “Experimental Difficulties,” pgs. 186-187, Overcomer, 1911. Capitalization and italics retained from the original. It is not clear who Mrs. Penn-Lewis received her unusual “Hebrew rendering” from, for the Hebrew :…wn`Dl_aDÚp√rˆn wäøt∂rUbSjAb…w is properly rendered “with his stripes we are healed,” as in the Authorized Version, while the rendering that gave Mrs. Penn-Lewis the “inside clue” is a corruption of the passage. Note her very clear identification of the Higher Life for the spirit and the Higher Life for the body, the Keswick theology and the Faith Cure.
 Pg. 264, Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard. However, she also affirmed that a certain kind of bodily weakness can assist one in prayer and thus may be spiritually beneficial. Perhaps she made this affirmation because she was herself in a very weak bodily state at the time of her writing.
 Pgs. 278-279, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 134, Overcomer, 1914. Pg. 278, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard, records an instance of a girl healed from some unspecified affliction by adopting Penn-Lewis’ view of Romans 6.
 Pgs. 149-150, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard. See also pgs. 284-285.
 Pg. 271, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pgs. 273, 276, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pgs. 248-249, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones. Thus, for the next number of months, he was so sick that he was “in no state to do anything,” even answer letters.
 Pg. 271, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 149, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.
 Pg. 65, Garrard; cf. pg. 93, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones; pg. 183, “An Autobiographical Sketch,” The Overcomer, December 1914.
 Pg. 17, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.
 Pg. xi, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Brynmor Pierce Jones.
 Pg. 190, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.
 Pgs. 14-15, 19, 67, 79-85, 91, 93, 113, 163-164, 204-207, 213, 231, 249-250, 277, 292, 298-299, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 298, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 15, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pgs. 301-302, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones, for instance, records her plans for “a new syllabus” for various writings, articles for the next edition of The Overcomer, and “advance plans the Eccleston Hall Conference” where she had chosen the “Keynote speech.”
 Pgs. 263-264, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.
 Pg. 25, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
 Pgs. 297-298, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard. While Mrs. Penn-Lewis employs words that are similar to those in Colossians 1:24, her meaning is certainly very different from that of the Apostle Paul. Compare pg. 186, “Experimental Difficulties,” The Overcomer, 1911, for Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s doctrine of Christians “sharing His [Christ’s] suffering for souls, and for the world.”
 Pg. 22, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.
 It is noteworthy that even John Wesley, while preaching Methodist perfectionism, “never claimed the experience for himself. He was a very honest man. He taught this perfectionism but he would never say that it was true of himself.” Indeed, for “many years he had great difficulty of producing any examples of it,” although at one point “he felt he could produce 30 such people; but only one of the 30 seemed to persist—the others fell away” (pg. 311, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors, D. M. Lloyd-Jones). Mrs. Penn-Lewis, however, once having received her second blessing, was one of the very, very few who—in their own opinion, at least—seems to have kept it.
 E. g., pgs. 82-90, 114, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones, describe an assortment of her “ecstatic and mystical states,” visions, voices, and other phenomena from the spirit world.
 Pg. 16, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones. Books such as Guyon’s Autobiography,Spiritual Torrents, and Short Catechism are specifically mentioned as influential (cf. pgs. 16, 22, ibid.).
 Pg. 34, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.
 Pg. 34, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard; pg. 16, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Chapter 4, The Centrality of the Cross, Jessie Penn-Lewis; cf. pgs. 34-35, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary Garrard.
 Pg. 16, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones. Compare the discussion in the excerpt above from “A Warning Exhortation Against Pietists, Quietists, and all Who in a Similar Manner have Deviated to a Natural and Spiritless Religion under the Guise of Spirituality,” by Wilhelmus à Brakel.
 Pg. 61, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 63, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones. It is noteworthy that “Christ-life” phraseology was in use among the metaphysical and New Thought cults of the late nineteenth century. For example, at Emerson College, where “New Thought metaphysics” were taught rather than “historical Christian orthodoxy,” in “praise of the faculty at his graduation in 1896, one student remarked, [‘]You have taught us not only how to think but what to think. You have taught us not only how to live but what to live. You have broadened our horizons, and made of us larger and better men and women, so that we shall go out from here better equipped to live the Christ life.’” (pg. 37, A Different Gospel, citing John M. Coffee, Jr. and Richard L. Wentworth, A Century of Eloquence: The History of Emerson College, 1880-1890, quoting Albert Armstrong, Emerson College Magazine (May, 1896), pg. 108). The terminology of the Christ-life was also employed by Mary Baker Eddy and her Christian Science cult, in testimonies that could be phrased in an identical way by advocates of the Keswick theology through the substitution of “Higher Life” or “Keswick” for “Christian Science.” For example:
Through the practice of Christian Science Jesus demonstrated the Christ-life, and every application of Christian Science has for its fruits Christ-like living, and tends to lift man above sin, sickness, and death. Is there anything the Christ-life does not satisfy, any heights or depths it cannot touch, any misery it fails to alleviate, any sin it will not destroy, any aspirations it does not fulfil? That Christian Science does supply these human needs today is the testimony of thousands of men and women. (pg. 218, “What is Truth?” by Charles D. Reyholds, in theChristian Science Journal, XXII:4 (July 1904). 193-256)
After all, “Christian Science so includes and enforces th[e] vital trut[h] of . . . a living of the Christ-life . . . that every Christian Scientist finds [himself] renewedly and increasingly emphasizing [it] in his thought and life.” After all, the Christ-life is key, for “it is the normal work of the Christ-life to heal us of sickness as well as sin” (pg. 474,Christian Science Journal XXII:8 (November 1904) 457-536)
 Pg. 323, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 335, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Chapter 3, Soul and Spirit, Jessie Penn-Lewis.
 Pg. 35, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 35, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones;cf. pg. 274, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals. Since Hannah W. Smith was a universalist, it should not be surprising that other heretics who rejected the doctrine of hell were embraced and promoted at Keswick.
 See pg. 230, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Brynmor Pierce Jones. Brunswick, N.J.: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 1997.
 Pg. 177, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 177, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pgs. 53-55, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 The book was very influential; for example, “a professor in the Moody Bible Institute . . . said that . . .The Message of the Cross had helped him greatly,” and he “took steps to have [Penn-Lewis’s] books distributed in Chicago” (pgs. 97-98, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones).
 Pg. 66, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 89, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pgs. 87-88, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones. Evan Roberts also experienced similar ecstatic “ordeal[s]” through which, he claimed, “he had, in a most realistic sense, been partaker of Christ’s sufferings” (pg. 174, The Great Revival in Wales: Also an Account of the Great Revival in Ireland in 1859, S. B. Shaw. Chicago, IL: S. B. Shaw, 1905). Nothing in the Bible states or implies that believers endure the kind of penal agony that Christ endured on the cross. Philippians 3:10, which contains the words to which Mrs. Penn-Lewis alludes in her vision from the spirit world that led her to her discovery of her peculiar version of Higher Life theology, refers to the Apostle Paul suffering persecution at the hands of men for Christ’s sake, and has absolutely nothing to do with Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s doctrine. The Lord Jesus took the wrath of God against sinful mankind “by Himself” and completely satisfied God’s wrath by His one offering on the cross (Hebrews 1:3;9:27-28; John 19:30). When Jessie Penn-Lewis and Evan Roberts claim to share in Christ’s penal sufferings they are guilty of terrible spiritual confusion and blasphemy.
 Pg. 201, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 231, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 304, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 One of her later books, Studies in the Song of Solomon, was her “first book written with delight” (pg. 67,The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones). It seems that writing inspired works was not especially enjoyable for Mrs. Penn-Lewis, at least much of the time, although her Studies volume was inspired as well (pg. 220, ibid.), so at least once in a while writing under inspiration was enjoyable. Unfortunately, the first book she delighted in writing was one “in which the Song of Solomon is not interpreted in the traditional manner” (pg. 220,ibid.), but was rather radically and grossly misinterpreted—under inspiration, of course.
 Pgs. 66-67, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 220, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pgs. 151-153, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 172, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 174, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 173, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard. Kenneth Hagin likewise received his books by inspiration (cf. pgs. 61ff., A Different Gospel, McConnell).
 Pg. 140, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 191, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones; Penn-Lewis here speaks of her book “Face to Face.” Other books took a variety of periods to be received by inspiration, although they generally were produced far more quickly than volumes are that employ careful, Spirit-dependent study, painstaking exegesis, and sound hermeneutics, since Mrs. Penn-Lewis could dispense with such work, and was hardly capable of it in any case.
 Pgs. 220-221, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 153, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 128, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 201, “The Spirit of Translation,” The Overcomer December 1914.
 Penn-Lewis justifies her heresy on inspiration by twisting statements in 1 Corinthians 7 about what Christ said in His earthly ministry and what Paul received by inspiration but was not taught by the Lord during His earthly ministry, but was nonetheless equally the Word of God with the rest of the canon (“not I, but the Lord” vs. “I say,” cf. 1 Corinthians 7:40; 14:36-37; 2 Peter 3:16), with alleged levels of inspiration, so that Paul’s epistle is wrested into an affirmation that some of his writings came from the Lord and some were simply what he thought was nice.
 Chapter 5, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis. Italics retained from original. Some capitalization has been changed. The fact that Penn-Lewis warns that “many” claims to “supernatural revelations” and inspiration are in error does not change the fact, but only makes it all the clearer, that she thinks some such claims are not error—only “many,” but not “all” modern claims to write under inspiration, as the Apostle Paul did, are false.
 Pg. 192, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Emphasis in the original.
 Pgs. 261, 264-265, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones. Concerning the general abandonment of Biblical gender roles in the Welsh holiness revival, an abandonment that was certainly not limited to Jessie Penn-Lewis alone, note also pg. 36, The Great Revival in Wales: Also an Account of the Great Revival in Ireland in 1859, S. B. Shaw. Chicago, IL: S. B. Shaw, 1905. It is interesting that in “the story of all holiness movements . . . [t]he place of women is an important part,” from Phoebe Palmer, to Catherine Booth, to Hannah W. Smith, onward (pgs. 165, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall; the woman preachers at Keswick are described on pgs. 148ff.). The neglect of sola Scriptura for testimonials by women to their experience of sanctification contributed to the rise of women preachers as testimonial morphed into authoritative proclamation (cf. pgs. 148ff., ibid).
 Pg. 197, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s appeal to Acts 2:17-21 to support her continuationism and doctrine of women preachers was standard Quaker practice:
As it is the prerogative of the Great Head of the church alone to select and call the ministers of His Gospel, so we believe that both the gift and the qualification to exercise it must be derived immediately from Him; and that, as in the primitive church, so now also, He confers spiritual gifts upon women as well as upon men, agreeably to the prophecy recited by the apostle Peter, ‘It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,’ (Acts 2:17) respecting which the apostle declares, ‘the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.’ (Acts 2:39) As the gift is freely received so it is to be freely exercised” (“Public Worship,” Declaration of Faith Issued by the Richmond Conference in 1887. Elec. acc. http://www.quakerinfo.com/rdf.shtml).
Compare the similar attempt to use Acts 2 by Phoebe Palmer (pg. 88, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, Dayton).
 Pg. 265, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 E. g., see the argument for women preachers from Acts 2:17-18; 21:9 on pg. 2, The Apostolic Faith I:12 (Los Angeles, January 1908), reprinted on pg. 50, 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.
 Pg. 265, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones, cf. pgs. 259-265.
 Pg. 66, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pgs. 99, 109, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 100, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones. Penn-Lewis’s arguments for women preachers were largely dependent upon the work of Katharine Bushnell, whose invalid arguments were reproduced—under inspiration, of course—by Mrs. Penn-Lewis (cf. pgs. 161-163, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall).
 Pg. 25, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pgs. 38-39, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pgs. 268-269, Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary Garrard.
 Pgs. 19, 28-29, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 61, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 56, Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary Garrard.
 Pg. 226, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones. Jones notes that she, at times, “answered [doctrinal questions] in a very dogmatic fashion” (pg. 227, ibid.).
 Pgs. 67-68, Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary Garrard.
 Pg. 170, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Chapter 5, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis.
 Chapter 5, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis. It is not affirmed that Mrs. Penn-Lewis was indeed a modalist, rather than a Trinitarian; she could speak of the “three Persons of the Trinity” within almost the same breath as referring to God as a single “Person.” Rather, the affirmation is that she did not know what she was talking about in her Trinitarian affirmations, as evidenced in her failure to recognize or employ the Biblical (cf.Hebrews 1:3) and classical Trinitarian distinction between God as one in essence or nature and three in Person. Nor is it affirmed that Mrs. Penn-Lewis, if pressed, would necessarily boldly, fixedly, and stubbornly deny the omnipresence of the Father, Son, and Spirit; rather, her blasphemy on this subject is likely simply a product of her great, willful, and culpable ignorance of theology.
 Chapter 5, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis.
 Chapter 5, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis.
 Pg. 61, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 E. g., Hannah Whitall Smith (pg. 169, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones).
 Pg. 197, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones; the statement is by “Dr. Pierson, who had worked well with her during the conventions in Wales.”
 Pg. 336, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pgs. 190-191, Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary Garrard.
 Pg. 149, Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary Garrard.
 Rejecting the Biblical fact that in genuine spirituality, worship, and Christian service the mind is always active (2 Timothy 1:7), not empty, is also a feature of Pentecostalism: “When singing or speaking in tongues, your mind does not take any part of it” (pg. 2, The Apostolic Faith II:12 (Los Angeles, May 1908), reprinted on pg. 54,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. pg. 12, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert M. Anderson), even as in demon possession in pagan religions the “pneuma banishes the human . . . mind . . . and acts or speaks” (pgs. 20-21, ibid). Pentecostalism receives no support for its dangerous error that the mind is inactive from 1 Corinthians 14:14, which, when it specifies that the understanding is “unfruitful” or a‡karpoß, “does not mean that the mind did not function, but rather that the product of the mind did not bear fruit and did not edify” (The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the New Testament, Rodgers & Rodgers, on 1 Corinthians 14:14).
 Emphasis in the original.
 Pgs. 252-253, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary Garrard; pg. 174, The Overcomer, December, 1914.
 cf. pgs. 131, 144-145, 156, 245, etc., Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary Garrard.
 Pg. 184, “An Autobiographical Sketch,” The Overcomer magazine, ed. Jessie Penn-Lewis, December 1914; pg. 199, The Keswick Convention: Its Message, its Method, and its Men, ed. Harford.
 Pg. 178, Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 185, “An Autobiographical Sketch,” The Overcomer magazine, ed. Jessie Penn-Lewis, December 1914.
 Pg. 244, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 525, “Demythologizing the Evan Roberts Revival,” Pope.
 Pg. 155, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
 Pg. 157, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
 Pg. 238, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 299, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 147, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pgs. 121-122, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
 Pg. 152, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 168, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
 Pg. 163, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 When, in 1911, she received an inspired “telegram . . . from Evan Roberts saying, ‘Withdraw at once,’” she gave up responsibilities at the Welsh Keswick as well (pg. 147, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones).
 Pg. 210, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 217, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 213, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 109, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 140, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 180, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pgs. 308-313, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones; cf. pg. 178, An Instrument of Revival, Jones.
 Pg. 104, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 197, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 199, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 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).
 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.
 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.
 Her reporting sought to be “factual, but . . . also selective” (pg. 128, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones).
 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.)
 Pgs. 119-120, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 155, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
 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.
 Pg. 169, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
 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.
 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.
 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 Azuza Street meetings did. The problem was by no means the tongues themselves or the continuationism.
 Pg. 179, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 “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).
 Pg. 170, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 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.
 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.
 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).
 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).
 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.
 Pg. 147, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan; pgs. 28-29, 47, The Pentecostal Movement, Donald Gee.
 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).
 Pg. 183, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pgs. 193-194, “The Gift of Tongues and Related Phenomena at the Present Day,” Frederick G. Henke.The American Journal of Theology. 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. (pgs. 35-36, Azusa Street: The Roots of Modern-day Pentecost, by Frank Bartleman. Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1980)
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” (pg. 19, ibid).
 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 Azuza Street leader Frank Bartleman on pg. 148, Azuza Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost, Frank Bartleman, ed. Synan.
 Pgs. 192-193, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 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.
 Pg. 142, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 169, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 227, Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 67, The Everlasting Gospel, Charles F. Parham.
 Pg. xv, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 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.).
 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 whenHe 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).
 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.
 Pg. 228, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones, citing the preface to reprinted editions of War on the Saints.
 Pg. 228, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 229, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones; cf. pgs. 180-183.
 Pg. 102, An Instrument of Revival, Jones.
 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).
 Chapter 4, War on the Saints.
 Chapter 5, War on the Saints.
 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.
 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.
 Pg. 205, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones, citing The Overcomer. Capitalization in original.
 “The needed degree of ground given to an evil spirit in order to possess, cannot be clearly defined” (Chapter 5, War on the Saints).
 “Believe Not Every Spirit,” pg. 71, Overcomer 1912. Capitalization in original. Compare Robert P. Smith’s warning that those who enter the Higher Life should “expect revelations of the world of darkness” (pg. 43,Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874).
 Mrs. Penn-Lewis, answering the question, “How are we to know when the Lord speaks to us in a word of Scripture,” does not speak about interpreting the Bible literally, grammatically, and historically, but states instead: “It depends where the text comes from. Can you detect what comes from the Holy Spirit in your spirit, and what from your own mind? You may walk after the ‘soul’—that is after your mind—and not ‘after the spirit.’ Satan has access to your mind, and he knows texts . . . [say,] [‘]what is of God [in the text] I take, and what is of the devil I refuse, now may God prove which is which!’ Constantly do that, and you will . . . live after the Spirit . . . learn[ing] in experience . . . without even knowing whether it is God or Satan in specific matters” (pg. 186, “Experimental Difficulties,” The Overcomer, 1911). One is to reject the use of one’s mind in interpreting the Bible in favor of mysticism, teaches Mrs. Penn-Lewis. Naturally, careful exegesis and the literal interpretation of Scripture will pass away with such a methodology.
 Chapter 5, War on the Saints. Naturally, no Scripture is given to support Penn-Lewis’s assertions.
 BDAG, s.v. “hapto,” p. 130.
 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), p. 538.
 Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “Demon,” by A. Scott Moreau, p. 165.
 So F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 110–11.
 Systematic Theology, pp. 457–58.
 Pgs. 395-398, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Volume 1: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Scripture, God, and Angels, Rolland McCune.
 Thus, to prove that Christians can be demon possessed, and that demons can be cast out by the techniques of War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis cites the following:
The Case of a Christian Lady . . . In the Spring of this year (1912) [this servant of God] who was possessed, came here, and the spirits possessing her spoke through her in voices utterly unlike her own. They would utter through her the most awful blasphemies against God, and against our Lord Jesus Christ, and would prophecy [sic] concerning the Church[.] . . . When the frenzy comes upon her, she is fearfully shaken, dashes about the room, made to howl like a dog, and her hands clenched, her face drawn with horrible contortions, etc., etc. . . . in the interval [between fits she] is the MOST LOVELY SPIRITED CHRISTIAN WOMAN. . . . This sister is not one who has not got faith. She is well grounded in the same faith, and has the same light as we have; but we have here to do with a demon[.] . . . It would also be an error if one were to think that PRAYER AND COMMANDING had not been of any use, for in these last three weeks God has done great and glorious things . . . [although] [t]he demon is still there, it is true[.] . . . [making] a desperate and plaintive howling . . . that lasts all the time we pray. . . . Later. . . For about a fortnight now the demon has been silent. For eight days he did not speak a single word, only he cried out twice: “THE AUTHORITY CASTS ME OUT!” The only thing he does is howling and gnashing of teeth. Some days ago we prayed for about one-and-a-half hours. In this way it goes on now for ten or fourteen days—there is only this terrible crying . . . There is not any blasphemy, nor cursing God, no more asserting threatenings, and all the sayings that he would not depart, that it would not suit him—all this has ceased. Instead of the dreadful ravings and outbursts of rage, there is now the desperate howling, often a dreadful screaming . . . the sister is almost free from his tormenting her . . . . The demon must have received a terrible blow from God . . . [i]t was so last evening; when we prayed, the desperate cry began at once, and I felt once more the impulse to command the demon in the Name of the Lord Jesus to depart. He then gave a great start, he trembled, howled, stretched out both hands as if imploring mercy, and begging us not to do that, but he was not allowed to utter a single word. But there followed strong reaction and vomiting, and this was repeated as often as I spoke the command in the Name of the Lord Jesus to depart. Of course we have to go on praying just as earnestly, but as God has done such great things, and if we go on praying, also the last blow will be given. The demon will have to depart. . . . [T]he demon’s acknowledgment of the power and authority granted to those who commanded him, and the other spirits to depart, is striking. The spirit in possession said: “Oh, this authority, this authority which they have now recognized, is an awful thing for hell!” Pleading for mercy at another time the evil spirit said, “Do leave off your commanding. For three weeks I have suffered unbearable torments because of it. Do not tell anybody that we had to yield to the authority . . . . Oh, these prayers of believers . . . they always pray, they are no longer afraid” (“Demon Possession Among Christians,” in War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis. Capitalization and italics in original).
While Mrs. Penn-Lewis believes that such a story is evidence that her doctrine is true, it is obvious to those who are regenerate and apply the sola Scriptura that the whole story stinks of the pit and that the devils were in charge of the whole situation. When Christ and the Apostles used the genuine gift of exorcism, devils did not take weeks or months to be expelled—they were cast out immediately. What kind of evidence for Christianity would it be if Christ or an Apostle told a devil to leave somebody, and the devil said no, refused to leave for weeks and months, led the alleged Christian who was possessed to howl and cry, scream, be tormented, and vomit, for hours and hours, for days and weeks, while “authoritative” commands to leave were offered over and over and over again? The devils want people to think that they are able to resist the Almighty power of God so that they can say no to Him, just as they want people to think that they can possess Christians. The astonishing spiritual blindness involved in believing a demon is telling the truth when it validates a doctrine of warfare prayer is itself an evidence of Satanic delusion.
 See the convincing argument on pgs. 398-400, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Volume 1: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Scripture, God, and Angels, Rolland McCune.
 Chapter 5, War on the Saints.
 Chapter 12, War on the Saints.
 Chapter 12, War on the Saints. Capitalization in original.
 Pgs. 44-45, 55, War On The Saints.
 Pg. 233, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
 Pg. 184,“An Autobiographical Sketch,” The Overcomer magazine, ed. Jessie Penn-Lewis, December 1914.
 Chapter 5, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis.
 Hannah Whitall Smith affirmed something similar: “[T]he nearer we seek to approach our God, and the more we try to please Him, the greater our [spiritual] dangers! . . . [I]t is . . . very perplexing” (pg. 36, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to Mrs. Anna Shipley, August 8, 1876). Hannah Smith’s perplexity is solved if the Higher Life theology she shared with Mrs. Penn-Lewis is actually a pagan mysticism, not Christian spirituality. An increase of demon possession and other profound spiritual dangers is then easily understood.
 Chapter 12, War on the Saints.
 Pg. 43, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis. 9th ed.; New York, NY: Thomas Lowe, 1912, 1963.
 Thus, Evan Roberts recorded—in all capitals, to boot—that he was confronted with the following question:
I AM ASKED WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS IT IMPLIED THAT WE CAN PRAY AGAINST (a) ENVIRONMENT, (b) EVIL SPIRITS, (c) SATAN, (d) THE FOE, (e) SPIRITUAL WICKEDNESS, (f) FORCES OF DARKNESS? IS THE POSITION A SCRIPTURAL ONE, AND SPIRITUALLY CORRECT TO TRUTH AND FACT?
To this question Roberts replied:
Praying “against” the powers of darkness is Scriptural, and in accord with truth, and attested facts of Christian experience. It can be clearly seen in Scripture and in the history of the Christian church, that . . . God needs the co-operation of His church to carry out the destruction of sin and Satan. . . . A questioner . . . [who] is not “spiritual” . . . cannot understand, or interpret in a spiritual sense, the language used by the Apostle in connection with the warfare with the forces of darkness. Let any questioner take to God the whole matter, and ask for a leading into all truth concerning it; then he will be shown the true meaning of the words, not from intellectual reasoning, but from Divine enlightenment, and the experiences of life” (“The Scriptural Basis For ‘Warfare’ Against The Powers Of Darkness,” by Evan Roberts, in War on the Saints).
Roberts never provides a single example, out of hundreds of prayers that are recorded in the Bible, of even one example of his warfare prayer concept, nor of people binding Satan by prayer, much less does he prove his idolatrous concept that God allegedly is powerless to destroy Satan without people binding the devil first. Only if the literal interpretation of the Bible is rejected, the sufficiency of Scripture concerning prayer is set aside, and God’s Word is twisted and interpreted in light of “the experiences of life,” while “intellectual reasoning” is rejected for a “spiritual sense” that is derived from “attested facts of Christian experience” instead of the grammar and context of passages does Roberts get any evidence for his warfare prayer doctrine from the infallible revelation of God.
 “[T]he concept [of binding Satan] was taught, not only in early Alliance circles through Simpson and MacMillan, but also . . . [by] teachers such as Andrew Murray, Jessie Penn-Lewis and Watchman Nee. . . . Chinese spiritual leader Watchman Nee, whose father-in-law was an Alliance pastor and who was influenced by Penn-Lewis, Murray and Simpson, also taught authoritative prayer and the power of binding and loosing in 1934” (“A. B. Simpson and the Modern Faith Movement,” Paul King, Alliance Academic Review, ed. Elio Cuccaro. Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1996). Thus, MacMillan wrote: “[In] [p]rayer . . . God’s believing people . . . bind the . . . principalities and powers, the world-rulers of this darkness, the hosts of wicked spirits in the heavenlies . . . [and] hold back . . . the working of the power of the air,” and thus “procure . . . peace on earth” and an end to many wars, among other things (Alliance Review, October 7, 1939, 626-627). MacMillan allegorized Psalm 149:8 to prove his affirmations. Similarly, Watchman Nee taught: “Matthew 18:18, 19 deals with prayer. . . . It is a binding, not an asking God to bind. [In] commanding prayer . . . [we] bind all the evil spirits and demons; and bind Satan and all his activities. We may rule as kings over all things” (pgs. 72-77, God’s Plan and the Overcomers, Watchman Nee).
 “God needs the co-operation of His church to carry out the destruction of sin and Satan. . . . God needs the co-operation of His church to carry out the overthrow of sin and Satan, just as God needed the co-operation of Israel in His dealing with the Canaanites. Christ said, ‘First bind the strong man.’ This implies and involves praying against the strong man. How does the binding take place, and what is it that binds but PRAYER?” (“The Scriptural Basis For ‘Warfare’ Against The Powers Of Darkness,” by Evan Roberts, in War on the Saints.)
 “[A]dvance in conquest brings the believer nearer and nearer until he breaks through the plane of war into the place ‘FAR ABOVE PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS.’ It is there that you will not be ‘troubled.’ For there is an experimental advance in spirit to the plane ‘far above,’ and THIS IS THE PREPARATION OF THE CHURCH FOR THE MASTER’S COMING . . . [these] souls . . . ‘far above all principality and power’ . . . [are] prepared for translation at the time of the end. . . . [T]he spirit must first learn to ascend. We must first get what may be called the ‘translation’ spirit. . . . God must get the consent of our wills for everything that He does. . . . Just as you give your consent to your spirit being ‘far above,’ so you must say, ‘Lord I consent to translation” (pgs. 179-181, The Overcomer, December 1913, reprinting a sermon preached by Mrs. Penn-Lewis at the “Leicester Conference for Workers, Nov. 13, 1913.” Capitalization and italics retained from the original.).
 Evan Roberts, talking to a reporter about how he and other Christians had bound Satan and all the evil spirits by 1913, using the techniques in War on the Saints, Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s Warfare with Satan, etc., so that the Rapture could now take place, as prophesied in the Translation Message, stated:
Had not this warfare [with Satan] been carried out, then when our Lord came these hosts of evil angels would make war. The translated [would] rise into the air, and the dead [would] arise, and all would be involved in warfare. But God means that the warfare with the evil hosts shall finish before Christ comes[.] . . . [When the] translation takes place, the spirit hosts of evil shall be bound up . . . if they were not bound before the translation they would also interfere with that. (pgs. 187-188, The Overcomer, December 1913).
 Pgs. 179-181, The Overcomer, December 1913. Italics in original. The helplessness of her god before the human will was very important, and required italicization, for Mrs. Penn-Lewis.
 “It dawned on me that if the hosts of evil are to be put into the abyss there will come a moment when the warfare will cease[.] . . . I prayed that the whole warfare . . . [with] the hosts of evil . . . should stop. . . . I can see now that there has been sufficient prayer to bring about that incarceration . . . the actual incarceration of the foe, [the end of] this warfare [which] would fulfill the DISPENSATIONAL PURPOSES of God . . . the translation is at hand” (pg. 186, “Be Ye Ready,” Evan Roberts. The Overcomer, December 1913).
 “October 19th  . . . was the wonderful night when years of dispensational warfare-burden on this man of God . . . Mr. Roberts . . . rolled away, as a piece of work accomplished in the unseen realm. . . . The Lord is coming to TRANSLATE His saints. . . . [First] the ‘War’ book was published . . . [t]hen on Oct. 19th came a great burst of prayer against death . . . [b]efore long what relief came to my mind! . . . Not death, but TRANSLATION; not dissolution, but a change! . . . The light had come . . . for the saints at the close of this dispensation . . . TRANSLATION” (pg. 183, “The Translation Message of Evan Roberts,” The Overcomer, December 1913. Capitalization retained from the original.).
 Pg. 374, “How to Pray for Missionaries,” Jessie Penn-Lewis, The Alliance Weekly, 72:24, June 12, 1937, 373-375, & 72:26, June 26, 1937, 406-407. Italics in original. While Scripture does not bear out Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s contentions, she affirms that a meeting of atheists was broken up by binding Satan in this fashion, one of “many . . . proofs” from experience for her Satanic binding and loosing doctrine. By binding Satan, Mrs. Penn-Lewis affirms, the many “thousands of God’s people” who are possessed by demons like those of Mark 9:17-18 can be delivered (pg. 374, ibid). In her article, she ties her doctrine of binding Satan into the throne-power teaching developed at more length by John MacMillan.
 Taking out of context another verse, Evan Roberts wrote: “The power of Revelation 12:10 should be received by faith” (pg. 213, An Instrument of Revival, Jones), but it is very difficult to see how a verse about Satan having great power on earth during the Tribulation period when he is cast permanently out of heaven has the slightest relevance to Keswick advocates or Pentecostals attempting to bind Satan in the church age.
 Mrs. Penn-Lewis allegorizes Revelation 20 as follows: “There is a systematic warfare of prayer possible against the kingdom of darkness, which would mean co-operation with the Spirit of God in the liberation of the Church, and hasten the ultimate binding of the great serpent, and casting him down to the pit. (Rev. 20:1). A material ‘chain’ could not bind a supernatural being, and it may be that ‘the great strong angel’ typifies the mystical ‘Christ’; consisting of the Head and members—the ‘Man-Child’ caught up to the Throne—when the members will have been liberated from the power of the enemy, and then commissioned to lay hold of the Deceiver to cast him into the abyss, and shut him up for the thousand years” (Chapter 11, War on the Saints). Anyone who finds such an allegory convincing in the least is not likely to be concerned about literal interpretation or the actual meaning of Revelation 20, nor will he be especially worried that no passage in Revelation actually mentions “the great strong angel,” or that the only passage in the book that mentions a “strong angel” specifically contrasts this angel with the Lord Jesus (Revelation 5:1-6).
 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 inMatthew 21:2 proves that the latter two texts refer somehow to demons being cast out and to the binding of Satan.
 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.
 It is noteworthy that in Isaiah 22:22, while the connection is not necessarily the most clear and direct, the verbs “open” and “shut,” jAtÚDp and rÅgDs, can be used for “loosing” and “binding.” Thus, jAtÚDp 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 jAtÚDp is translated with lu/w in the LXX inGenesis 42:27; Job 39:5; Psalm 101:21 (102:21); Isaiah 5:27; 14:17; 57:6; Jeremiah 47:4 (50:4). For rÅgDs, compareJudges 3:23; 9:51; Isaiah 24:22; 45:1; 60:11, and the use of dja for this verb in the Targum and Peshitta ofIsaiah 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::NyîrVswøa iImDkSjÅw ryI;tAm r‰zRoyIlTa ir . . . NyîrVswøa iImDkSjÅw dAlwø…nA;b NyIjVtwøÚp r‰zRoyIlTa ir iAmDa dwøo◊w).
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.)
 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).
 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).
 That is, in Matthew 16:19, o§ e˙a»n dh/shØß . . . o§ e˙a»n lu/shØß employs the neuter pronoun o§, 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 World13; 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.
 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.
“I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, but whatever you bind (dh/shØß, an aor. subj.) on earthshall 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, andMt 18:18, Journal of Biblical Literature 58:3 (September 1939) 243-249; cf. contra Mantey, ‘The Meaning ofJohn 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 and18:18, 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 onMatthew 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; alsoGenesis 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 inJohn 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.
 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).
 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.
 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.
 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.
 Pg. 238, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Compare the preaching at the Broadlands Conference: “What is needed in a witness [is] . . . personal knowledge. . . . Can you say . . . [‘]I know He casts out devils, for He has cast out devils from me.[’?]” (pg. 215, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Italics in original.).
 Pg. 278, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 181, An Instrument of Revival, Jones. Interestingly, while Penn-Lewis never, at least in public, wavered on the book’s contents, “[o]nly a year after the manual appeared, Evan Roberts told some friends that it had been a failed weapon which had confused . . . the Lord’s people” (pg. 182, ibid), so it appears that only Jessie Penn-Lewis herself, but not her co-author, continued to be free from deception by evil spirits.
 Pg. 180, “An Accomplished Ministration,” The Overcomer, December 1914.
 Pg. 191, “War on the Saints: A Brief Review of its Dispensational Significance,” The Overcomer, December 1914.
 Pg. 191, “War on the Saints: A Brief Review of its Dispensational Significance,” The Overcomer, December 1914. Italics in original. Mrs. Penn-Lewis capitalizes the “B” of “Book” in the quotation, not for the Bible, but forWar on the Saints—this latter is “the Book” in the quotation, a practice Penn-Lewis continues in the article cited above.
 Pgs. 244-245, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Pg. 265, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones. Thus, War on the Saints has repeated affirmations such as:
The believer should . . . declare his attitude . . . [t]he last word spoken, alters, ratifies, or nullifies previous ones . . . it is helpful for the believer to assert his decision . . . the declaration is having effect in the unseen world[.] . . . It is essential that believers should understand the value of the act of refusal [of evil spirits], and the expression of it. . . . The believer in conflict may say with effect: “I refuse all the authority of evil spirits over me: their right to me: their claims upon me: their power in me: their influence in or upon me[”] . . . a strong, primary weapon of victory i[s] declaring deliberately . . . . The believer must now insist on EXPRESSING HIMSELF IN VOICE” (Chapters 9, 10, War on the Saints, capitalization in original).
What Word of Faith idolater could want more? Penn-Lewis was not the only Higher Life antecedent to the Word-Faith doctrine of positive confession. “[H]oliness leaders such as Simpson, Andrew Murray . . . and Hannah Whitall Smith all . . . advocate[d] positive confession” (“A. B. Simpson and the Modern Faith Movement,” Paul King, Alliance Academic Review, ed. Elio Cuccaro. (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1996). Murray wrote: “It is needful also to testify to the faith one has. . . . You must, before you are conscious of any change, be able to say with faith, ‘On the authority of God’s Word I have the assurance that He hears me and that I shall be healed.’” (pgs. 46, 48, Divine Healing: A Series of Addresses. Nyack, NY: Christian Alliance Publishing, 1900). The believer is to “speak out [his] desires in the name of Christ” (pg. 54, The Prayer-Life: The Inner Chamber and the Deepest Secret of Pentecost. London: Morgan & Scott, 1914). Indeed, even an unconverted person comes to faith from unbelief by means of positive confession; Murray wrote: by “speak[ing] out . . . you will insensibly come to . . . confidence that He is also yours” (pg. 36, Why Do You Not Believe? Words of Instruction and Encouragement for All Who Are Seeking the Lord. Chicago, IL: Fleming H. Revell, 1894). Hannah Whitall Smith wrote: “Put your will, then, over on the believing side. Say, ‘Lord, I will believe, I do believe,’ and continue to say it” (Chapter 6, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life). Again she wrote: “Those three little words, repeated over and over, — ‘Jesus saves me, Jesus saves me,’ — will put to flight the greatest army of doubts that ever assaulted any soul. I have tried it times without number, and have never known it to fail. . . . I beg[in] to say, over and over, ‘The Lord does love me. He is my present and my perfect Saviour; Jesus saves me, Jesus saves me now!’ The victory [is] complete. . . . Confess it to yourself. Confess it to your God. Confess it to your friends” (Chapter 14, 5, ibid). A. B. Simpson wrote: “Faith will die without confession” (pg. 35, Seeing the Invisible: The Art of Spiritual Perception.Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1994).
Paul King (“A. B. Simpson and the Modern Faith Movement,” Alliance Academic Review) also affirmed that William Boardman was also an antecedent to positive confession, referring to two texts on pgs. 261, 263 of The Higher Christian Life (New York, NY: Garland Publishing, 1984) in which one “spoke out the faith,” but an examination of these references fails to prove Boardman was truly an advocate of something like positive confession.
 Pg. 206, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Chapter 11, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis.
 Chapter 5, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis. Immediately after stating that the practice of first century exorcism was taking place, Penn-Lewis mentions that sometimes people would be possessed for “weeks, months, years” without the allegedly miraculous gifts actually working.
 Chapter 5 & “The True Workings Of God, And Counterfeits Of Satan,” War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis.
 Chapter 11, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis.
 Pg. 113, An Instrument of Revival, Jones.
 Pg. 180, The Overcomer, December 1914. This status of being “precisely true according to experience” was more exact, admittedly, than the conformity of their teachings to Scripture. They claimed that their demonology was “correct” only “in principle according to the Scriptures”—which it was not—but it was “precisely true,” not just true “in principle,” according to experience.
 Chapter 1, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis. Italics in original; Penn-Lewis wished to emphasize the importance of gaining knowledge of the ways of the devil “by experience,” not by Scripture alone, grammatically-historically interpreted.
 Chapter 12, War on the Saints.
 The incredible lack of careful Bible study is painfully manifest throughout the book, not only from its extreme sloppiness in handling God’s holy Word with the text and its exegetical fallacies in general, but from what appears to be a lack of even a careful examination of the Biblical passages that speak of angels and demons. Such simple facts as that the Bible never speaks of a plurality, but only of one archangel, Michael, who is “the archangel” (1 Thessalonians 4:16; Jude 9), have been overlooked by Mrs. Penn-Lewis, who repeatedly speaks of a plurality of archangels (cf. Chapter 12, War on the Saints). Perhaps she simply received information that contradicted the Bible from the spirit world as she wrote by inspiration.
 Chapter 11, War on the Saints.
 Pgs. 162-163, War On The Saints, & “How Demons Attack Advanced Believers.” Italics in original.
 Chapter 5, War on the Saints.
 While Matthew 12:43 certainly does speak of spirits that are not currently possessing any individual, the fact that devils that are not possessing sinners have no rest does not mean that those who are possessing the lost do find rest, any more than the fact that there is no true spiritual rest to wicked men who are on the earth proves that wicked men in hell do find spiritual rest. As devils are perpetually underneath the righteous judgments of God, they never have rest in any situation.
 Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s pervasive terminology of “ground” given to demons is also absent from the Bible, although perhaps some of what she means by this concept may actually be expressed using other terms in the Bible. However, by rejecting Biblical terminology and demonology for her own terminology, the spirits that inspired Mrs. Penn-Lewis to write War on the Saints can influence the saints away from Biblical truth about resisting the devil to unscriptural concepts by using Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s nonbiblical terms to transition from Biblically present to Biblically absent ideas through her imprecise language.
 What do the evil spirits do when they locate themselves in the various portions of the body and possess them? Perhaps their work when living in the ear canal may be illustrative: “[E]vil spirits may take hold of the nerves of the ear, so that the person cannot hear what he should, yet is permitted to be alert enough in bearing[,] all [in order] that he should not hear” (Chapter 5, War on the Saints). Let all hear the great truths supplementing the Bible in War on the Saints—at least if demons are not possessing one’s ears and making one hard of hearing—in which case one had better read the book instead of listening to it read or expounded—although the “eyes” are also “liable to possession” (Chapter 5, ibid), so it may not be possible to see the book and read it, either—in which case one had better just cry out for help—unless one’s “tongue” has become subject “to possession,” along with the eyes and ears, in which case learning braille to read the book may be the only option—although since all “other parts of the body” of the Christian may be possessed, even the hands may be unable read the book in braille, if they also have been possessed. In that case it may be best to simply think about what to do—unless the Christian’s brain has been possessed.
 Chapter 7, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis.
 Chapter 8, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis. Italics in original.
 Note the daimoni÷zomai texts (Matthew 4:24; 8:16, 28, 33; 9:32; 12:22; 15:22; Mark 1:32; 5:15–16, 18;Luke 8:36; John 10:21; cf. the texts with aÓka¿qartoß and pneuvma) and the texts with the verb “cast out” (e˙kba¿llw) relevant for demon possession (Matthew 7:22; 8:16, 31; 9:32–34; 10:8; 12:22, 24, 26–28; 17:18–19;Mark 1:32, 34, 39; 3:15, 22–23; 6:13; 7:26; 9:38; 16:9, 17; Luke 9:49; 11:14–15, 18–20; 13:32). In every case, neither the possession nor the deliverance from possession was a matter of degree. While an unconverted person could have a greater or lesser number of demons within him, in no case was there a statement or even an implication that only certain portions of a person were possessed, or that when demons were cast out they were not actually cast out from all of the person, but only from certain parts of him. Indeed, in not a single one of the seventy-six instances where the verb cast out appears in the New Testament can demons or anything else be cast out and yet still be present within whatever they were cast out of in some lesser degree (Matthew 7:4–5,22; 8:12, 16, 31; 9:25, 33–34, 38–10:1; 10:8; 12:20, 24, 26–28, 35; 13:52; 15:17; 17:19; 21:12, 39; 22:13; 25:30;Mark 1:12, 34, 39, 43; 3:15, 22–23; 5:40; 6:13; 7:26; 9:18, 28, 38, 47; 11:15; 12:8; 16:9, 17; Luke 4:29; 6:22, 42; 8:54;9:40, 49; 10:2, 35; 11:14–15, 18–20; 13:28, 32; 19:45; 20:12, 15; John 2:15; 6:37; 9:34–35; 10:4; 12:31; Acts 7:58;9:40; 13:50; 16:37; 27:38; Gal 4:30; James 2:25; 3 John 1:10; Revelation 11:2). If sola Scriptura is true, and Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s writings are not inspired and an authority to set alongside of or above the Bible, then her doctrine of degrees of demon possession is another one of the Satanic lies, errors, and heresies that saturate her writings.
 “How Demons Attack Advanced Believers,” in War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis. Compare the Pentecostal idea of disease-causing demons: “A demon might be in the flesh as in the case of a cancer” (pg. 2, The Apostolic Faith I:11 (Los Angeles, October-January 1908), reprinted on pg. 46, 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).
 “Evil spirits can also counterfeit sin, by causing some apparent manifestation of the evil nature in the life, and matured believers should know whether such a manifestation really is sin from the old nature, or a manifestation from evil spirits. The purpose in the latter case is to get the believer to take what comes from them, as from himself, for whatever is accepted from evil spirits gives them entry and power. When a believer knows the Cross and his position of death to sin, and in will and practice rejects unflinchingly all known sin, and a ‘manifestation’ of ‘sin’ takes place, he should at once take a position of neutrality to it, until he knows the source, for if he calls it sin from himself when it is not, he believes a lie as much as in any other way; and if he ‘confesses’ as a sin what did not come from himself, he brings the power of the enemy upon him, to drive him into the sin which he has ‘confessed’ as his own. Many believers are thus held down . . . but . . . would find liberty if they attributed [their sins] to their right cause[,] [namely, the devil]. There is no danger of ‘minimizing sin’ in the recognition of these facts” (Chapter 6, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis).
 Compare the inability and weakness of Finney’s deity, passed down through the Oberlin theology into the Higher Life movement: “But if God can not prevent sin, will He not be unhappy? No; He is entirely satisfied to do the best He can, and accept the results” (pg. 222, Sermons on Gospel Themes, Charles Grandison Finney. New York, NY: Fleming H. Revell, 1876).
 “Prayer fulfills some law which enables God to work, and makes it possible for Him to accomplish His purposes. If such a law does not exist, and God has no need of the prayers of His children, then asking is a waste of time” (Chapter 11, War on the Saints). “God needs the co-operation of His church to carry out the destruction of sin and Satan. . . . God needs the co-operation of His church to carry out the overthrow of sin and Satan, just as God needed the co-operation of Israel in His dealing with the Canaanites. Christ said, ‘First bind the strong man.’ This implies and involves praying against the strong man. How does the binding take place, and what is it that binds but PRAYER?” (“The Scriptural Basis for ‘Warfare’ Against the Powers of Darkness,” by Evan Roberts, in War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis). Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s and Evan Roberts’s affirmations here are among the more loathsome of the regular Pelagianizing affirmations that fill their book.
 “It dawned on me that if the hosts of evil are to be put into the abyss there will come a moment when the warfare will cease[.] . . . I prayed that the whole warfare . . . [with] the hosts of evil . . . should stop. . . . I can see now that there has been sufficient prayer to bring about that incarceration . . . the actual incarceration of the foe, [the end of] this warfare [which] would fulfill the DISPENSATIONAL PURPOSES of God . . . the translation is at hand. . . . Had not this warfare [with Satan] been carried out, then when our Lord came these hosts of evil angels would make war. The translated rise into the air, and the dead arise, and all would be involved in warfare. But God means that the warfare with the evil hosts shall finish before Christ comes . . . [when the] translation takes place, the spirit hosts of evil shall be bound up . . . if they were not bound before the translation they would also interfere with that.” (pgs. 186-188, “Be Ye Ready,” Evan Roberts. The Overcomer, December 1913).
 “How Demons Attack Advanced Believers,” in War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis.
 E. g., The Red Letters, Miles J. Stanford.
 E. g., Mrs. Smith evidenced her appreciation of the Throne Life in her description of her friend Frances Willard, who, after influence from the Higher Life movement, gained a tremendous sympathy with Hannah’s universalism, as well as ecumenicalism, spiritualism, feminism, and socialism (see, e. g., pgs. 155ff., Frances Willard: A Biography, by Ruth Bordin. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1986): “It is lovely having Frances Willard in one’s house. . . . She realizes more than anyone I ever knew one’s idea of being ‘seated in Heavenly places,’ without, however, the slightest trait . . . of dogmatic assertion. . . . She believes that God . . . is working out for the whole human race a glorious destiny when all sin shall be done away, and every sinner shall be . . . made one with Him” (pg. 122, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her friends, October 17, 1893).
 E. g., A. T. Pierson preached at Keswick in 1905, “when all hearts were warmed and subdued by the mighty happenings of Wales,” the throne-power doctrine: “[W]e are . . . taught . . . [in] the Epistle to the Ephesians . . . the grandest revelation of the power of a child of God. . . . Why, you sway the scepter that God sways” (pg. 457, Keswick’s Authentic Voice, ed. Stevenson, reproducing “The Inbreathed Spirit,” A. T. Pierson, pgs. 453-460). In the spirit of the work of Evan Roberts, a rector present at Pierson’s sermon noted: “the Holy Spirit fell. The speaker was kept from completing his address by the sobs and cries[.]” (pg. 528, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed. T. Larsen).
 Thus, for example, A. B. Simpson also taught on this theme of throne life; cf. Christ in the Bible Commentary (1992), 5:413-414. Mrs. Penn-Lewis, after her American preaching tour which had included the CMA “Nyack Institute in Nyack, New York,” subsequently “for many years . . . kept in close touch with . . . Nyack” (pg. 105, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.).
 Pgs. 90-93, The Warfare with Satan, Jessie Penn-Lewis; the book “is based on a series of addresses given by Mrs. Penn-Lewis in 1897, at a day of waiting on God at the C. I. M. Hall, London” (preface, ibid). Compare Penn-Lewis’s 1906 work Throne Life of Victory. Evan Roberts also preached about Throne Life under Jessie Penn-Lewis’s influence (cf. pgs. 160-161, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones).
 Pg. 74, The Warfare With Satan, Jessie Penn-Lewis.
 Pgs. 147-148, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Mary N. Garrard.
 Pgs. 282-283, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones. B. P. Jones, however, in his very positive biography of Mrs. Penn-Lewis, affirms that it is simply “curious” that Mary Baker Eddy’s teaching was “very like” that of Mrs. Penn-Lewis while affirming that the two really were different.
 For example, Simpson, in his Christ in the Bible Commentary, 4:163, argues that Luke 10:19 is a promise valid for all Christians throughout the age of grace, although the verse is, when interpreted in context, only given to the “seventy”; furthermore, Simpson affirms that since that Christ has all authority over the creation, He gives that authority to every believer, so that animals, Satan, men, and so on, are subject to the believer.
Foster and King (pgs. 139-140, Binding and Loosing) argue that Andrew Murray also employed the sorts of binding and loosing powers taught in Pentecostalism because, as recorded on pgs. 41-42 of Andrew Murray, William Linder, Jr. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1996), Murray had certain dogs snap at him but not bite him. The conclusion that a person has exercised Pentecostal powers to bind and loose Satan because dogs snapped at him but did not bite him is not a little weak, but the argument is representative of Foster and King’s overexuberance, at times, to find support for Pentecostal and Word of Faith ideas in earlier writers.
 Pg. 77, The Warfare With Satan, Jessie Penn-Lewis. Compare Chapters 2, 11, War On The Saints, Penn-Lewis.
 “There is no gradual deliverance from sin, no gradual process of death to sin or deliverance from the world, or the flesh.” Chapter 4, Jessie Penn-Lewis, The Centrality of the Cross. Elec. acc. http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/jessiepenn-lewis/8791/8791tc.htm; also pub. Fort Washington, Pa.: Christian Literature Crusade, 1996.
 Chapter 5, The Centrality of the Cross, Penn-Lewis.
 Pg. 225, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Brynmor Pierce Jones.
 Pg. 224, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
 Penn-Lewis was likely also influenced in her soul-force ideas by gap theorist G. A. Pember, who believed that one “can act by his soul-force on external spirits. He can accelerate the growth of plants and quench fire; and, like Daniel, subdue ferocious wild beasts. He can send his soul to a distance, and there not only read the thoughts of others, but speak to and touch these distant objects, and not only so, but he can exhibit to his distant friends his spiritual body in the exact likeness of that of the flesh” (pg. 252, Earth’s Earliest Ages, Pember). Pember joined Evan Roberts and Mrs. Penn-Lewis in advocating a partial Rapture, teaching that “those who are believers in Christ and, therefore, a part of His redeemed . . . but have not yet been sufficiently cleansed and sanctified . . . and are thus not ready to pass into the heavenly Tabernacle . . . may be as Elisha witnessing the departure of Elijah: or as the disciples on the mount of Olives when they beheld the cloud receiving their Master out of their sight, but were not yet prepared to follow Him” (pg. 195, ibid), Elijah and the Lord Jesus, in their resurrection and ascension, allegedly acting as types of a partial Rapture.
 E. g., those who congregate at Broadlands testify that they “know the fact” that “spirit acts on spirit,” one human spirit directly on another person’s spirit (pgs. 258-259, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910), a concept obviously related to the soul-force idea that souls can act upon each other, although the spirit-force idea of Broadlands is viewed positively, while the soul-force concept is considered, at least by Mrs. Penn-Lewis and those influenced by her, as negative.
 “[E]very man is endowed with a certain amount of telepathic power . . . and . . . a few have weird powers of clairvoyance[.] . . . [There are] occult powers of the soul of man . . .the occult powers are quite separate and distinct from those manifestations of demoniacal power” (pg. 719, “The Soul Powers,” John A. MacMillan, Alliance Weekly, 70:45, November 9, 1935).
 Penn-Lewis here contradicts 1 Kings 8:39.
 Soul & Spirit, Penn-Lewis, Chapters 6, 8-9.
 Chapter 8, Soul & Spirit, Penn-Lewis.
 “Light on ‘Abnormal’ Experiences,” in War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis. Penn-Lewis also affirmed, contrary to modern science, that these nerves in the stomach pit “set in action . . . the organs of speech,” for somnambulists, such as those exalted by Mr. and Mrs. Mount-Temple (pgs. 39-40,Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890), affirmed that such was so, even if scientists did not.
 Similarly, both E. W. Kenyon and Phineas Quimby taught that “the human spirit was ‘the real man’ and that knowledge that comes through the spiritual senses ‘independently of the brain’ is greater than that which comes through the physical senses” (pgs. 103-104, A Different Gospel, McConnell), setting the stage for the Word of Faith concept of “revelation knowledge,” which is very similar to the doctrine of Penn-Lewis and Watchman Nee.
 Soul and Spirit, Jessie Penn-Lewis, Chapters 2-3, elec. acc.
 Soul & Spirit, Penn-Lewis, Chapter 3, elec. acc.
 Compare the affirmation of Hannah W. Smith: “I have found by experience, and I am convinced from philosophy, that . . . subtle unseen spiritual forces . . . emanate from our spirits,” and that these forces “are far more important than the outward tangible influence that we exert consciously” (Letter to Daughter, November 3, 1884, reproduced in the entry for December 21 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 Discussing Pentecostal founder Charles Parham, Robert Anderson notes:
Healing was widely taught and practiced among Holiness people as well as among the Quimby-Christian Science-New Thought constellation of sects and the Spiritualists. Parham was most strongly influenced on this subject by John Alexander Dowie and A. B. Simpson. . . . Notions similar to those of speaking in tongues and ‘Redemption of the Body’ were common among the Spiritualists. Parham indirectly acknowledged his debt to these contemporaneous religious movements, and even recognized the affinity between his own doctrines and theirs, especially those of Christian Science and Spiritualism.” (pg. 87, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism; cf. pgs. 217-218 on the similarities of spiritualism and Pentecostalism)
Thus, Parham stated: “[W]e heard and studied the . . . claims of Medical, Mental, and Christian Sciences, hypnotism . . . the power of spiritualism . . . the possession of mediums, [and] speaking under the control of evil spirits.” Having studied these Satanic works, Parham claimed that the powers that he exercised were comparable to those of these demonic manifestations, only that “God has the real of which these sorceries are the counterfeit” (pg. 26, A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, Charles Parham; cf. pg. 79). That is, the marvels Parham, and his associates, claimed to perform were not of a fundamentally different character than those in the spiritualism he studied and those performed by evil spirits. His supernatural tongues, for example, were like those of demon-possessed people, only, he claimed, from a better source. Unlike the miracles in the Bible, which were in a different and vastly superior category to the modern marvels of spiritualists, Christian Science cultists, and Mind Cure devotees, Parham’s marvels were comparable.
 Pgs. 594-597, “Hypnosis,” Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology & Counseling (2nd ed.), D. G. Benner & P. C. Hill.
 Pg. 90, Counterfeit Revival [Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival (Dallas: Word, 1997)]: A Review Article, David J. MacLeod. Emmaus Journal 7:1 (Sum 98) 71-100.
 E. g., pg. 12, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 “Hypnosis and Health Care,” David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, October 1, 2008, an excerpt from The New Age Tower of Babel, by David Cloud. Elec. acc. Fundamental Baptist CD-ROM Library.
 Cf. Soul & Spirit, Chapter 8.
 Chapter 9, Soul & Spirit, Jessie Penn-Lewis. Watchman Nee follows Penn-Lewis’ argument thatEzekiel 36:26 is proof that only the human spirit is regenerated (pgs. 42-43, The Latent Power of the Soul, Nee), and E. W. Kenyon and the Word of Faith movement after him does likewise (e. g., pg. 74, The Hidden Man, E. W. Kenyon), with both Nee, Kenyon, the Church of the Recovery, and the Word of Faith movement deriving the doctrine of deification from the alleged regeneration of the human spirit alone—another doctrine of Jessie Penn-Lewis, who herself also affirmed that believers become “one nature, and one life and position with the Son of God” (Chapter 12, War on the Saints, Penn-Lewis).
 E. g., pgs. 332-338, The Spirit of Christ, Murray.
 E. g., her doctrine that believers can be demon-possessed, as expounded in War on the Saints, relies heavily upon her false view of regeneration only affecting the spirit.
 Chapter 8, Soul & Spirit, Jessie Penn-Lewis.
 Pgs. 250-251, The Literary World: Choice Readings from the Best new Books, and Critical Reviews. #703, vol. 28, new series. London: April 20, 1883, reviewing The Midnight Cry: An Inquiry into the Evidence of the Near Approach of the Second Advent, by E. McHardie. (London: S. W. Partridge & Co, n. d). Then again, since Mrs. Penn-Lewis joined Mrs. McHardie in writing much that is “strained, fantastic, and absurd,” Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s high esteem of Mrs. McHardie’s works is not especially surprising.
 Chapter 8, Soul & Spirit.
 Commenting on the cessation of miraculous gifts, the fact that the Biblical sign gift of tongues was an ability to speak in real, known, earthly languages, and on the contrast between mindless and out-of-control pagan and demonic ecstasy and the use of the mind and in-control state involved in Biblical prophecy, the patristic writer Chrysostom noted:
This whole place [1 Corinthians 12-14 and its discussion of the sign gifts] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. . . . [F]or the present let us state what things were occurring then. . . . [People] spake with tongues and not with tongues only, but many also prophesied, and some also performed many other wonderful works. . . . And one straightway spake in the Persian, another in the Roman, another in the Indian, another in some other such tongue: and this made manifest to them that were without that it is the Spirit in the very person speaking. Wherefore also he so calls it, saying, “But to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given to profit withal;” (v. 7) calling the gifts “a manifestation of the Spirit.” For as the Apostles themselves had received this sign first, so also the faithful went on receiving it, I mean, the gift of tongues; yet not this only but also many others: inasmuch as many used even to raise the dead and to cast out devils and to perform many other such wonders: and they had gifts too, some less, and some more. But more abundant than all was the gift of tongues among them: and this became to them a cause of division; not from its own nature but from the perverseness of them that had received it: in that on the one hand the possessors of the greater gifts were lifted up against them that had the lesser: and these again were grieved, and envied the owners of the greater. . . . And this was not the only thing to disturb them, but there were also in the place many soothsayers, inasmuch as the city was more than usually addicted to Grecian customs, and this with the rest was tending to offence and disturbance among them. This is the reason why he begins by first stating the difference between soothsaying and prophecy. For this cause also they received discerning of spirits, so as to discern and know which is he that speaketh by a pure spirit, and which by an impure.
For because it was not possible to supply the evidence of the things uttered from within themselves at the moment; (for prophecy supplies the proof of its own truth not at the time when it is spoken, but at the time of the event;) and it was not easy to distinguish the true prophesier from the pretender; (for the devil himself, accursed as he is, had entered into them that prophesied, [See 1 Kings 22:23.] bringing in false prophets, as if forsooth they also could foretell things to come;) and further, men were easily deceived, because the things spoken could not for the present be brought to trial, ere yet the events had come to pass concerning which the prophecy was; (for it was the end that proved the false prophet and the true:)—in order that the hearers might not be deceived before the end, he gives them a sign which even before the event served to indicate the one and the other. And hence taking his order and beginning, he thus goes on also to the discourse concerning the gifts and corrects the contentiousness that arose from hence likewise. For the present however he begins the discourse concerning the soothsayers, thus saying,
[2.] “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant;” calling the signs “spiritual,” because they are the works of the Spirit alone, human effort contributing nothing to the working such wonders. And intending to discourse concerning them, first, as I said, he lays down the difference between soothsaying and prophecy, thus saying,
“Ye know that when ye were Gentiles, ye were led away [aÓpago/menoi, properly “dragged to prison or execution.”] unto those dumb idols, howsoever ye might be led.” Now what he means is this: “In the idol-temples,” saith he, “if any were at any time possessed by an unclean spirit and began to divine, even as one dragged away, so was he drawn by that spirit in chains: knowing nothing of the things which he utters. For this is peculiar to the soothsayer, to be beside himself, to be under compulsion, to be pushed, to be dragged, to be haled as a madman. But the prophet not so, but with sober mind and composed temper and knowing what he is saying, he uttereth all things. Therefore even before the event do thou from this distinguish the soothsayer and the prophet. And consider how he frees his discourse of all suspicion; calling themselves to witness who had made trial of the matter. As if he had said, “that I lie not nor rashly traduce the religion of the Gentiles, feigning like an enemy, do ye yourselves bear me witness: knowing as ye do, when ye were Gentiles, how ye were pulled and dragged away then.”
But if any should say that these too are suspected as believers, come, even from them that are without will I make this manifest to you. Hear, for example, Plato saying thus: (Apol. Soc. c. 7.) “Even as they who deliver oracles and the soothsayers say many and excellent things, but know nothing of what they utter.” Hear again another, a poet, giving the same intimation. For whereas by certain mystical rites and witchcrafts a certain person had imprisoned a demon in a man, and the man divined, and in his divination was thrown down and torn, and was unable to endure the violence of the demon, but was on the point of perishing in that convulsion; he saith to the persons who were practicing such mystical arts [These verses are taken from an old Oracle, quoted among others by Porphyry in a Treatise of the Philosophy of Oracles, and from him again by Theodoret, on the Remedies for Gentile Errors, Disp. x. t. iv. p. 957.],
Loose me, I pray you:
The mighty God no longer mortal flesh
Unbind my wreaths, and bathe my feet in drops
From the pure stream; erase these mystic lines,
And let me go. [Porphyry’s note on this verse, as quoted by Hales from Eusebius (Evang. Præp. v.) in Savile’s Chrysostom, viii. pt. ii. p. 278, is as follows: “You see, he bids them erase the lines that he may depart: as though these detained him, and not only these, but the other things too about their apparel: because they wore certain portraitures of the deities who were invoked.”]
For these and such like things, (for one might mention many more,) point out to us both of these facts which follow; the compulsion which holds down the demons and makes them slaves; and the violence to which they submit who have once given themselves up to them, so as to swerve even from their natural reason. And the Pythoness too [See Strabo, ix. 5.]: (for I am compelled now to bring forward and expose another disgraceful custom of theirs, which it were well to pass by, because it is unseemly for us to mention such things; but that you may more clearly know their shame it is necessary to mention it, that hence at least ye may come to know the madness and exceeding mockery of those that make use of the soothsayers:) this same Pythoness then is said, being a female, to sit at times upon the tripod of Apollo astride, and thus the evil spirit ascending from beneath and entering the lower part of her body, fills the woman with madness, and she with disheveled hair begins to play the bacchanal and to foam at the mouth, and thus being in a frenzy to utter the words of her madness. I know that you are ashamed and blush when you hear these things: but they glory both in the disgrace and in the madness which I have described. These then and all such things Paul was bringing forward when he said, “Ye know that when ye were Gentiles, ye were led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever ye might be led.”
And because he was discoursing with those who knew well, he states not all things with exact care, not wishing to be troublesome to them, but having reminded them only and brought all into their recollection, he soon quits the point, hastening to the subject before him.
But what is, “unto those dumb idols?” These soothsayers used to be led and dragged unto them.
But if they be themselves dumb, how did they give responses to others? And wherefore did the demon lead them to the images? As men taken in war, and in chains, and rendering at the same time his deceit plausible. Thus, to keep men from the notion that it was just a dumb stone, they were earnest to rivet the people to the idols that their own style and title might be inscribed upon them. But our rites are not such. He did not however state ours, I mean the prophesyings. For it was well known to them all, and prophecy was exercised among them, as was meet for their condition, with understanding and with entire freedom. Therefore, you see, they had power either to speak or to refrain from speaking. For they were not bound by necessity, but were honored with a privilege. For this cause Jonah fled; (Jonah. 1:3) for this cause Ezekiel delayed; (Ezek. 3:15) for this cause Jeremiah excused himself. (Jer. 1:6) And God thrusts them not on by compulsion, but advising, exhorting, threatening; not darkening their mind; for to cause distraction and madness and great darkness, is the proper work of a demon: but it is God’s work to illuminate and with consideration to teach things needful. . . . This then is the first difference between a soothsayer and a prophet[.] (John Chrysostom, Homily 29, on1 Corinthians 12:1-2, pgs. 168-170 in Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians John Chrysostom, trans. H. K. Cornish, J. Medley & T. B. Chambers, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume XII: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, ed. Philip Schaff. Reproducing this quotation is by no means an endorsement of Chrysostom’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration or his other errors.)
 This fact is recognized by the rock performers themselves; e. g.: “Rock ‘n’ Roll . . . is . . . demonic. . . . A lot of the beats in music today are taken from voodoo, from the voodoo drums. If you study music in rhythms, like I have, you’ll see that is true . . . I believe that kind of music is driving people from Christ. It is contagious” (Little Richard). “[T]he sudden mingling of so many different tribes produced new variations [of music] like candomble, santeria, and vodun [demonic religion] . . . and out of this severing came jazz, the blues, the backbeat, rhythm and blues, and rock and roll—some of the most powerful rhythms on the planet. . . . It is hard to pinpoint the exact moment when I awoke to the fact that my tradition—rock and roll—did have a spirit side, that there was a branch of the family that had maintained the ancient connection between the drum and the gods [demons]” (Mickey Hart, drummer for The Grateful Dead). See “The Character of Rock and Roll Music,” “Is There a Connection Between Rock Music and Voodoo or African Paganism?” and related articles on music in theFundamental Baptist CD-ROM Library, ed. David Cloud. London, Ontario: Bethel Baptist Church/Way of Life Literature, 2003.
 See the “Inspiration of the Hebrew Letters and Vowel Points,” pgs. 43-59 of The Doctrines of Grace and Kindred Themes, George Sayles Bishop (New York, NY: Gospel Publishing House, 1919; note as well his “Relative Value of the Old Testament” (pgs. 88-100) and “The Testimony of Scripture To Itself,” pgs. 19-42). The KJV-only, Landmark Baptist periodical The Plains Baptist Challenger, a ministry of Tabernacle Baptist Church of Lubbock, TX, on pgs. 3-8 of its July 1991 edition, reprinted George Sayles Bishop’s defense, based on Matthew 5:18, of the coevality of the vowel points and the consonants. Bishop was a contributor to the epoch-making volumes The Fundamentals (“The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves,” pgs. 80-97, vol. 2, The Fundamentals, eds. R. A. Torrey, A. C. Dixon, etc., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1970, reprint of the original 1917 ed. of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles), writing: “We take the ground that on the original parchment . . . every sentence, word, line, mark, point, pen-stroke, jot, tittle was put there by God” (pg. 92, The Fundamentals, vol. 2.).
 Pg. 492, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, “Orr, James,” ed. Timothy Larsen, referencing Orr’sRevelation and Inspiration , p. 198. See, e. g., “The Holy Scriptures and Modern Negations,” “The Early Narratives of Genesis” (Chapters 5 & 11 The Fundamentals, ed. Torrey, vol. 1; Orr wrote other articles also).
 Pgs. 183-199, Chapter 13, “Satan and his Kingdom,” The Fundamentals, ed. Torrey, vol. 4. Her chapter is condensed from The Warfare with Satan and the Way of Victory.
 Ephesians 5, and the rest of the book of Ephesians and the New Testament, refers to the church as a local, visible institution, not something universal and invisible. For example, consider Ephesians 5:23: “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” (o¢ti oJ aÓnh/r e˙sti kefalh\ thvß gunaiko/ß, wJß kai« oJ Cristo\ß kefalh\ thvß e˙kklhsi÷aß, kai« aujto/ß e˙sti swth\r touv sw¿matoß). In this verse, “the husband,” “the wife,” and “the church” are generic nouns. There is no universal husband or universal, invisible wife, and there is no universal, invisible church specified either. Each husband is the head of his own wife, and Christ is the head of each church (cf. pgs. 253-254, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace). Ephesians 5:23, and related texts such as Colossians 1:18, do not teach the doctrine of a universal, invisible church. They simply state that Christ is the head of the church generically, that is, of every particular local, visible church. Each particular church is identified as the body of Christ in Ephesians 5 (cf.1 Corinthians 12:27, where the particular church at Corinth is called the body of Christ). The body metaphor emphasizes that each member of the assembly, as a different and important body part, needs to minister to the other members of his particular congregation in accordance with his God-given gifting, while each church has Christ as her head. “The husband is the head of the wife” hardly means that all the husbands in the world are one universal, invisible husband who is the head of one universal, invisible wife. “Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world?” (1 Corinthians 1:20, pouv sofo/ß; pouv grammateu/ß; pouv suzhthth\ß touv ai˙w◊noß tou/tou;) hardly means that all the wise men in the world are one universal, invisible wise man, nor that there is one universal, invisible scribe or disputer. No more does “Christ is the head of the church” affirm that Christ is the head of a universal, invisible church; the text teaches that Christ is the head of each particular church, just as the particular husband is the head of his particular wife.
Ephesians 5:23: o¢ti oJ aÓnh/r e˙sti kefalh\ thvß gunaiko/ß, wJß kai« oJ Cristo\ß kefalh\ thvß e˙kklhsi÷aß, kai« aujto/ß e˙sti swth\r touv sw¿matoß. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body,
1Corinthians 11:3: qe÷lw de« uJma◊ß ei˙de÷nai, o¢ti panto\ß aÓndro\ß hJ kefalh\ oJ Cristo/ß e˙sti: kefalh\ de« gunaiko/ß, oJ aÓnh/r: kefalh\ de« Cristouv, oJ Qeo/ß. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
The singular nouns “the husband” “the wife” “the woman” “the man” imply nothing about a universal, invisible husband, wife, woman, or man. Absolutely nothing affirms the existence of a universal church in the phrase “Christ is the head of the church.” The Lord Jesus is the head of every particular local, visible congregation.
Compare also the evidence in the LXX:
kai« e¶grayen pro\ß aujtou\ß bibli÷on deu/teron le÷gwn ei˙ e˙moi« uJmei√ß kai« thvß fwnhvß mou uJmei√ß ei˙sakou/ete la¿bete th\n kefalh\n aÓndrw◊n tw◊n ui˚w◊n touv kuri÷ou uJmw◊n kai« e˙ne÷gkate pro/ß me wJß hJ w‚ra au¡rion ei˙ß Iezrael kai« oi˚ ui˚oi« touv basile÷wß h™san e˚bdomh/konta a‡ndreß ou∞toi aJdroi« thvß po/lewß e˙xe÷trefon aujtou/ß And Ju wrote them a second letter, saying, If ye are for me, and hearken to my voice, take the heads [Gk. singular, “head”] of the men your master’s sons, and bring them to me at this time to-morrow in Jezrael. Now the sons of the king were seventy men; these great men of the city brought them up. (2 Kings 10:6; Brenton’s LXX translation—also below).
Nothing at all is implied about anything universal or invisible with the singular. Each son had his own particular head (until he lost it!). “The head of the sons” is teaches nothing other than that each son had his own head. So “Christ is the head of the church” teaches that Christ is the head of each particular church. Compare 2 Kings 10: 8, where the plural is used:
kai« h™lqen oJ a‡ggeloß kai« aÓph/ggeilen le÷gwn h¡negkan ta»ß kefala»ß tw◊n ui˚w◊n touv basile÷wß kai« ei•pen qe÷te aujta»ß bounou\ß du/o para» th\n qu/ran thvß pu/lhß ei˙ß prwi÷. And a messenger came and toldhim, saying, They have brought the heads of the king’s sons. And he said, Lay them in two heaps by the door of the gate until the morning.
Note also Psalm 139:10, (Eng. 140:9):
hJ kefalh\ touv kuklw¿matoß aujtw◊n ko/poß tw◊n ceile÷wn aujtw◊n kalu/yei aujtou/ß. As for the head of them that compass me, the mischief of their lips shall cover them.
Both the Greek translated “them that compass” and “the head” contain singular nouns, just as in “Christ is the head of the church.” Each particular head of each particular enemy surrounding David would be judged.
e˙kro/thsan e˙pi« se« cei√raß pa¿nteß oi˚ paraporeuo/menoi oJdo/n e˙su/risan kai« e˙ki÷nhsan th\n kefalh\n aujtw◊n e˙pi« th\n qugate÷ra Ierousalhm h™ au¢th hJ po/liß h§n e˙rouvsin ste÷fanoß do/xhß eujfrosu/nh pa¿shß thvß ghvß. All that go by the way have clapped their hands at thee; they have hissed and shaken their head at the daughter of Jerusalem. Is this the city, they say, the crown of joy of all the earth?
Note that the plurality, the “all” shake the singular “head.” There was no universal, invisible head or universal, invisible person opposing Jerusalem. Each person shook his own particular head at Jerusalem.
kai« oJmoi÷wma uJpe«r kefalhvß aujtoi√ß tw◊n zw¿ˆwn wJsei« stere÷wma wJß o¢rasiß krusta¿llou e˙ktetame÷non e˙pi« tw◊n pteru/gwn aujtw◊n e˙pa¿nwqen. And the likeness over the heads [Gk. singular] of the living creatures was as a firmament, as the appearance of crystal, spread out over their wings above.
“The head of the living creatures” meant that each particular living creature had its own particular head.
kai« ei•don kai« i˙dou\ e˙pa¿nw touv sterew¿matoß touv uJpe«r kefalhvß tw◊n ceroubin wJß li÷qoß sapfei÷rou oJmoi÷wma qro/nou e˙p∆ aujtw◊n. And the likeness over the heads [Gk. singular] of the living creatures was as a firmament, as the appearance of crystal, spread out over their wings above.
“The head of the living creatures,” again, means each living creature had its own particular head.
This usage of the generic noun also finds clear support in extra-biblical literature. Consider the following examples:
Kai« oJ me«n tauvta touv qeouv keleu/santoß h¢kei pro\ß Ba¿lakon dexame÷nou de« aujto\n touv basile÷wß e˙kprepw◊ß hjxi÷ou proacqei«ß e˙pi÷ ti tw◊n ojrw◊n ske÷yasqai pw◊ß to\ tw◊n ÔEbrai÷wn e¶coi strato/pedon Ba¿lakoß d∆ aujto\ß aÓfiknei√tai to\n ma¿ntin su\n basilikhØv qerapei÷aˆ filoti÷mwß aÓgo/menoß ei˙ß o¡roß o¢per uJpe«r kefalhvß aujtw◊n e¶keito touv stratope÷dou stadi÷ouß aÓpe÷con e˚xh/konta. When God had given him this charge, he came to Balak; and when the king had entertained him in a magnificent manner, he desired him to go to one of the mountains to take a view of the state of the camp of the Hebrews. Balak himself also came to the mountain, and brought the prophet along with him, with a royal attendance. This mountain lay over their heads [Gk. singular], and was distant sixty furlongs from the camp (Josephus, Antiquities 4:112 (184.108.40.206)
The singular mountain was over each person, each of whom had his own particular head.
kai« tw◊n me«n du/o th\n kefalh\n cwrouvsan me÷cri touv oujranouv, touv de« ceiragwgoume÷nou uJp∆ aujtw◊n uJperbai÷nousan tou\ß oujranou/ß. [A]nd the heads [Gk. singular] of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was led by them by the hand overpassing the heavens. (Gospel of Peter 10:40)
Each particular individual here had his own particular head.
w‚sper ou™n kefalh\ me«n prw◊ton touv zwˆ¿oukai« aÓnwta¿tw me÷roß e˙sti÷, For as the head is the principle and uppermost part of the animal, (Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 1:71)
Each singular animal had its own singular head. There was no universal head of a universal, invisible animal.
qauma¿sia me«n ou™n tauvta: qaumasiw¿taton de« kai« to\ te÷loß tw◊n i˚erw◊n gramma¿twn, o§ kaqa¿per e˙n twˆ◊ zwˆ¿wˆ kefalh\ thvß o¢lhß nomoqesi÷aß e˙sti÷n. These things, therefore, are wonderful; and most wonderful of all is the end of his sacred writings, which is to the whole book of the law what the head is to an animal. (Philo, On The Life of Moses 2:290)
Likewise here, each animal had its own head.
tauvta d∆ aÓllhgorei√tai tropikw◊ß e˙xenecqe÷nta: kaqa¿per ga»r e˙n zwˆ¿wˆ kefalh\ me«n prw◊ton kai« a‡riston, oujra» d∆ u¢staton kai« faulo/taton, ouj me÷roß sunekplhrouvn to\n tw◊n melw◊n aÓriqmo/n, aÓlla» so/bhsiß tw◊n e˙pipotwme÷nwn, to\n aujto\n tro/pon kefalh\n me«n touv aÓnqrwpei÷ou ge÷nouß e¶sesqai÷ fhsi to\n spoudai√on ei¶te a‡ndra ei¶te lao/n, tou\ß de« a‡llouß a‚pantaß oi–on me÷rh sw¿matoß yucou/mena tai√ß e˙n kefalhØv kai« uJpera¿nw duna¿mesin. But all these statements are uttered in a metaphorical form, and contain an allegorical meaning. For as in an animal the head is the first and best part, and the tail the last and worst part, or rather no part at all, inasmuch as it does not complete the number of the limbs, being only a broom to sweep away what flies against it; so in the same manner what is said here is thatthe virtuous man shall be the head of the human race whether he be a single man or a whole people. And that all others, being as it were parts of the body, are only vivified by the powers existing in the head and superior portions of the body. (Philo, On Rewards and Punishments 125)
This very interesting reference by Philo shows that, as in a single animal there is a single head, so “the virtuous man,” a generic noun, not one particular man named X, is “the head of the human race,” and this is whether he “be a single man or the whole people.” The others are as “parts of the body,” are only “vivified” because of “the head” that is “the virtuous man.” The parallel to Christ as the head of the church is very clear. Nobody would think of saying that there is literally one universal, invisible virtuous man, nor that there is one universal, invisible body of people, since Philo’s point is that whether one speaks of a single man, or a group of any size, in both situations the [generic] virtuous man is the [generic] head.
Ephesians 5:23 is the capstone of the very small number of New Testament texts that advocates of a universal church believe provide support for their doctrine. However, the verse teaches nothing of the kind. It simply affirms that Christ is the head of every particular church, just as each particular husband is the head of his particular wife. There are no verses in the Bible where the noun ekklesia, church/assembly/congregation, refers to all believers as an already existing group.
Advocates of the universal, invisible church must find one or more indisputably clear references where ekklesiadoes not specify a particular congregation and is not employed as a generic noun, or they cannot affirm that their doctrine is Biblical. Since they are the ones who are affirming that ekklesia assumes a sense it does not have in any pre-Christian literature, they bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that their doctrine is clearly in the New Testament. The attempt fails in Ephesians 5:23, and in every other text in the Scripture—consequently the New Testament does not teach the existence of a universal, invisible church.