Source: http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/01/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:20:04+00:00

Document:
Mrs. Mount-Temple was not only Mrs. Smith’s patron in her Higher Life preaching, but the two became very close friends—so much so that Mrs. Mount-Temple mentions Mrs. Smith first in a list of “[f]riends whom we [the Mount-Temples] loved.” During their time as Higher Life evangelists in Britain, the Smiths would often leave their children “at Broadlands in Hampshire, the home of [Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s] friends, the Cowper Temples . . . Broadlands became . . . almost [the family] home in England,” where “innumerable guests . . . were gathered . . . to listen to the glad tidings” of the Higher Life. Hannah called her rich patron “our sweet Lady Mount Temple,” since their “friendship lasted till [Mrs. Mount Temple’s] death in extreme old age,” when Mrs. Smith was one of a few very close friends granted entrance to Mrs. Mount Temple on her deathbed. They spoke together at various functions to large crowds.
Lord Mount-Temple was not merely the owner of the Broadlands property but the active leader and director of the Higher Life Conferences on his estate; they were the highlight of their year. He “was eminently fitted to preside over such an assembly . . . [and] occup[ied] the position of President at these Conferences,” while “Lady Mount-Temple . . . was the sun and soul of all that . . . company.” Mr. Mount-Temple’s spiritual guidance and leadership were crucial, unforgettable, and a model for Broadlands spirituality. He opened and closed the meetings, presided over them, introduced and specified the topics Conference participants were to address, set and maintained the tone and direction of the speeches, and regularly spoke himself. Broadlands spirituality and Higher Life theology are inextricably united to the spiritual system of the Mount-Temples—indeed, the spirituality of the Conferences and that of their hosts were indubitably one and the same.
Mr. and Mrs. Mount-Temple were unregenerate people who were drawn into spiritualism, the Higher Life theology, and many other grievous false teachings, and their devilish errors were blatent and obvious to any who had a modicum of Biblical discernment. In Mr. Mount-Temple’s “childhood[,] religion was at a very low ebb . . . religious instruction did not come within the scope of recognized maternal duties,” and he received “no religious training,” so his ideas were very “vague.” He never came to a point of conscious conviction of sin and of his lost estate, followed by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, and to the new birth. Instead, as he thought, he felt “the first strivings within him of an unexpressed God-consciousness . . . in his cradle,” and from that time he was a “spotless youth” who was, apart from Biblical conversion, “growing spiritually” (contrast Luke 5:31-32). Similarly, Lady Mount-Temple “as a child . . . had learned to pray but had never undergone a ‘conversion’” to Christ; instead, “search[ing] for . . . a higher life,” she turned to spiritualism in 1861. She testified: “[C]onversion never came to me. Instead of it I was early beset by doubts of all kinds.” However, at least each of the Mount-Temples could testify: “I am enrolled in [the] holy army [of] . . . the Lord Jesus. . . . I have been signed with the sign of the cross in Baptism.” After all, the sacrament of “Christening . . . was the ingathering of [infant] lambs into [their] Master’s Fold.” Surely a baptismal regeneration could substitute for a Biblical conversion.
I . . . always felt an interest in the opinions of different denominations . . . and have attended the worship of all which have been within my reach . . . I have been able to enjoy the privilege of prayer with them all.
I have prayed fervently in the . . . Romish churches, and have lifted up my heart in their solemn litanies and pealing music[.] . . . I have learnt much in the Unitarian services in Liverpool; I have profited by the sermons and prayers of the Independents, Wesleyans, and Baptists; I have joined with Quakers and Plymouth Brethren . . . worshipping the same God . . . [by] Unitarian [writings] . . . I am drawn nearer to my heavenly Father[.] . . . I found myself edified by . . . Papists and Greeks [Eastern Orthodox], as well as with Calvinists and Lutherans[.] . . . In [a] . . . Unitarian Chapel . . . [i]t is delightful to . . . join in prayer and praise, and to carry away some good thoughts. . . . I have never become acquainted with any religious body in which there were not to be found persons full of love to our Lord.
Preachers of the Trinity and preachers of a non-Trinitarian deity, advocates of justification by faith alone and of justification by works, worshippers of Jehovah and worshippers of Mary, and all religious bodies whatever, contained people who were full of love to the Lord, Mr. Mount-Temple knew. “From the first he combined the opinions of the Broad Church with . . . fervour and warmth.” Similarly, Mrs. Mount-Temple did not view Roman Catholics or other advocates of false gospels as people to “proselytize, believing they had all they needed to make them good Christians.” Naturally, medieval Romanist mystics such as “Fénelon . . . were . . . men of exalted and angelic nature.” “Catholic[s] of the mystic school” were present and preaching at the Broadlands Conferences from the first. The place of worship at the Mount-Temples’s Broadlands residence contained a special crucifix, kept low to the ground so that not adults only, but children also could reach its feet to kiss the graven image of the Catholic “Christ,” and poems about the crucifix and prayers to be like it were celebrated parts of Broadlands spirituality. Radically different and contradictory beliefs were to be united around Higher Life mysticism: “High Church, Broad Church, Low Church were . . . submerged in the Deep Church.” Hannah W. Smith likewise rejoiced in the ecumenical unity and the “absolute oneness” she felt with those who believed and preached false gospels at the Broadlands Conferences, a oneness she recognized as greatly facilitated by and manifested in Mr. Mount-Temple. “All shades of religious opinion” were represented at Broadlands, and Mr. Mount-Temple’s command was embraced: “[D]on’t be too critical.” “None of those who took part . . . at Broadlands . . . could be spared”—every single one of the false views and heresies represented there were necessary, and every single speaker and visitor was a positive influence and helped raise others to the Higher Life, no matter how abominable his false doctrines and practices were when compared to Scripture.
Having come to doubt the doctrine of the Fall, the Mount-Temples came to adopt a “broader view of Christian truth and of the universal hope,” that is, the universalism that made Hannah Smith so appealing to them. Many universalists in addition to Mrs. Smith were among their religious teachers, facilitating both the ecumenicalism of both the Pearsall Smith and Cowper Temple families. “Dr. Baylee” was a dear “religious . . . . friend . . . for many years” who “helped indeed,” and he “was rejoicing in the universal hope” when he “visited [the Mount Temples] in later years at Broadlands.” They testified: “[H]elp and enlargement through the great Christian prophet of our day, Frederick Maurice. We used to wander on Sunday afternoons to [his] . . . Chapel[,] [where we] heard the broader view of Christian truth and of the universal hope[.]” They testified that their “best friends” included Maurice’s “disciple[s],” and proclaimed that “the blessed George MacDonald,” that famous universalist, “has been one of our dearest friends and teachers,” indeed, a “special teacher or prophet” at Broadlands. Despite the plain words of Jesus Christ (John 8:44), Broadlands affirmed that “all [are] children of God,” with the “actual, living, inspiring presence of the Holy Spirit in each heart.” The rejection of Christ’s teaching about hell in favor of the universalist heresy was important to the great Higher Life lived by the Cowper-Temples and proclaimed at Broadlands, and the promotion of universalists such as Hannah W. Smith was consequently near to their heart.
 Pg. 95, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 42-43, 50, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pg. 50, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pg. 119, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her friends, November 22, 1891.
 Pg. 47, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith. For Logan’s connection with them also, see, e. g., pg. 166, ibid.
 Pg. 147, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, October 26, 1901. See pgs. 27, 74, 111, 126-7, ibid, for other interactions of theirs.
 E. g., to over 3000 at a “Women’s Jubilee Meeting at a large hall in Lambeth” (pg. 90, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her friends, May 10, 1887).
 Pg. 28, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 38-39, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 44, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Cf. pgs. 156, 164, 168, 171, 184, 186, 195, 198, 208, 215, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Lord Mount-Temple would preach elsewhere also—his public proclamations were not limited to the Broadlands Conferences (e. g., pg. 41, ibid.).
 Pgs. 4-5, 101, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple, a biography by his wife, Georgina Cowper-Temple, Baroness Mount-Temple, followed by biographical notes by other authors], G. Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 182, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 8, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982; cf. pg. 11.
 Pg. 101, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 24-25, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 94, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 67-68, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 17, 27-28, 34, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. Compare also pgs. 53, 84-85, 102, for their delight in Catholic priests and Cardinals, building of a Roman Catholic church edifice, and further endorsements of Mystery Babylon, as well as ecumenicalism and acceptance of many other false religions. Mr. Mount-Temple stated: “I have to record my thanks for the omission in my childhood of all narrow doctrines,” for that opened him up to the “teaching of Henry Drummond in intensely spiritual High Churchism . . . for [the universalist] Maurice’s broad instruction in unconventional real Christian facts . . . for the knowledge that we are all two in one—two natures in one person . . . the Divine and the human” (pg. 183, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890).
 For example, it was acceptable to preach modalism at Broadlands: “Jesus Christ is. . . the Holy Spirit, Who will dwell in us” (pg. 170, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910). Other false teachings concerning the Triune God could be found at Broadlands (e. g., pg. 195, ibid), although at times because of the woeful ignorance of theology by its participants rather than because of a conscious and active hostility to Christian Trinitarianism.
 Pg. 102, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 79, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 30, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 79, 34-35, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 157-160, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 174, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 139, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. Cf. pg. 174.
 Pg. 133, Pgs. 108-109, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 83, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 103, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 106, 130, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 131-132, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
To start, I want to apologize to everyone for whom I have not been clear enough in the past about what I will write here today. For many reasons, some legitimate and some not, I have not expressed how much I hate and how dangerous and defiled I think it is. Some of you are going to read the title and get it immediately, some will sort of get it, and others will be clueless. I want to help.
It is difficult to know where to start, mainly because it is difficult to know the primary source of the problem I'm addressing. The worst of it is a false gospel, but I don't know if it starts with that. That's the most foundational, unless I included a fundamental distortion of the identity of Jesus Christ as a part of the false gospel. However, a false gospel is in part what comes out of it and then one notices is a necessity for the distorted sanctification and methods. The gospel, sanctification, and then methods always interrelate.
Everyone needs to change, including me, and to do that, people need patience. Sometimes patience becomes an excuse. We just don't want to take the hard step of confrontation, exposure, and separation. I still don't want to do that. I want to be liked too. We don't want to be alone. It seems horrible and stupid that we enable bad stuff by accommodating. I have done that though. Stick with me here. I'm not going to give my history, but I did put up with some associations that were wrong, because I thought it was appropriate. I don't think so any more.
I want to give as succinct a summary of what I'm talking about first. As I summarize, I am not fully certain on the order of how the elements of this appear, but I'm going to give my opinion in as positive manner as possible. That is the only aspect that is opinion, the order. The elements are actual -- they are occurring. Here goes.
Churches use gimmicks to lure lost attenders in order to have more people. The attenders come for the attraction and when they get there, a message is preached, called a gospel. This is not a crowd coming mainly because it wants the gospel, but because of a gimmick. A service and a message is geared to that kind of person. Over time, people make professions and don't stay, what is sometimes called a turn-over. A low percentage stay.
The professions are still explained as salvations. The message may have been believe, pray this prayer, or even repent, with repent being solely a "change of mind" or a "mere willingness to change." When the attendees stop coming to church, they are still considered to be saved people, but they're "backslidden," because they never were "dedicated." The people who come back are those who were "saved," but now are dedicated. Some (very few) do, if they "get right." This dedication is the view of sanctification. The idea is people who are saved need some experience after salvation that will cause the salvation to flourish and be fruitful. Some have it and others don't, but even those who don't have it -- they're still saved.
The last two paragraphs are the essence of what I'm talking about -- a lot more could be said. The false gospel is the corrupt response to the message they proclaim. The message must be wrong too, because you can't have an actual saving Jesus in the heart of the one with something less than a right response to Him. So, yes, Jesus is distorted too. Was this caused by the method? Maybe. I think the method was led by the desire for success, which is church growth and it will authenticate the church as being powerful or having revival. It's a man-centered method. The later dedication that brings someone back to church is the second blessing. That experience is the keswick one. I also believe many have convinced themselves that this is a true version of Christianity, like other false views have.
I don't want to have anything to do with what I'm describing above. I want to stay as far away from it as I can. I don't even see it, as a whole, as Christianity. I think you have some Christians in these churches and organizations, but overall it isn't Christian. I don't want anyone to think I support the above with my association and my proximity to it. Some might think I believe it is permissible, with some justification. I don't at all.
What I have described above also comes with a lot of other distortions. It isn't unusual that these churches have revivalistic music that is part of their church growth philosophy, that isn't worship. The music is merely a method. These associate a certain type of music with the Holy Spirit because of the feeling it produces. They think the feeling is the Holy Spirit working or moving. This fits with its false view of spirituality that is the distortion in its sanctification.
Often these churches also have to have a certain style of "preaching." They think of it as "alive." The preaching isn't dead, but "alive." What they consider "living" is actually just emotional. They often can't handle biblical teaching or at least much of it, because they don't think that it is endued with the Holy Spirit. The preaching and the music go hand in hand. The feeling all tends toward emotional decisions that might also produce "dedication." All of it amounts to manipulation and it fools people, and yet the advocates say "God is blessing" or "God worked." It mostly isn't God. I say mostly only because there is some Bible there, and if and when there is, God does bless that, but only when it occurs.
I want to park a moment on the false gospel. The worst reduce the "gospel" to repeating words or "praying a prayer." Others, not the ones doing it, have called this "1-2-3 pray-with-me." Some say that repentance is not a prerequisite to justification and salvation, but a post-justification work. Some say that repentance is repenting of unbelief. Some say that repentance is a mere change of mind that accompanies faith. Some say that repentance is a willingness to change, but will not necessarily result in changing. They say you've got to want to change, but you may not for awhile. None of what I've described is a biblical response to gospel truth, but these are the versions of the gospel that fall short, that accompany the wrong methodology and the distorted sanctification.
Also what I am explaining fits with a certain view of church government. The church needs an operator, who can keep it all going, to keep it all in alignment. I've often called him the circus-meister. He must hold tight reigns on everything, since the grace of God will not. There must be a means to produce the look of true sanctification. Some of the behavior is right, but it is caused by a system that isn't.
The evil junction of all these things has turned into a kind of religion and it is how false religion starts and builds. The people involved now think it is the truth. If they see something different, they think they are seeing an impostor, which they reject. In so doing, they think they've shown good judgment. They've actually walked away from the light. It creates a people who lack in discernment. And the lack of discernment is sometimes what is necessary to keep the show going.
When these churches perform these acts, they call it love. They see themselves as being loving, since they also see their goals as good. This "love" isn't love, but sentimentalism. Love is according to the truth, and this is not the truth. So love is twisted as well.
What is very sad is that a lot of what I have described is called Baptist and independent. It is not Bible, however. It is not obedient to the Lord. It is its own way.
If you represent what I'm writing about, do not go into a defense mode. Be willing to change. Consider what I am writing and whether it is you. Examine yourself. Evaluate what you are doing. Believe the Bible. Do just what it says. Trust in God. Wait on Him. Find your satisfaction in Who He is and what He said. Rely on God's Word to convince others of the same.
Learn a true gospel. Preach only a true gospel. Expect those who make professions to live for Christ. When they don't, don't consider them to be saved. Stop relying on extrascriptural and unscriptural means. Stop manipulating people. Plant and water. Let God give the increase. Worship God. Enjoy the results God gives. Live by faith.
If you are supporting what I've warned about. Stop doing that. Help those people to change. Don't accommodate them any longer.
The story I'm going to tell is quite ordinary. Many in the world think they are experts now at textual criticism, because the word is out -- the Bible has errors in it. Not everything in it can be counted upon. Maybe you're thinking, "It does not have errors in it." But that is what evangelicals and many fundamentalists say.
I was out evangelizing last Wednesday before our Bible study and prayer. I talked to a youngish single mother at her door. Of course, I was preaching the gospel. I asked her if she knew she was saved, sure she had eternal life. She said, "Yes." I asked how she knew, and she paraded her accomplishments. In the midst of the give and take, I communicated to her that as I listened, I based my judgment of what she said on the Bible. Scripture taught something different about salvation than what she said. At that juncture, she said that she didn't trust everything the Bible said because parts of it had been changed. So I then asked her how she knew that, that the Bible had errors in it. She just did.
"She just did" isn't a good answer for me, but it was where she was. She didn't have total confidence in the Word of God. She believed parts of it were true, but that she couldn't rely on all of it.
As I listened to her, I recognized this as a new norm in the psyche of those who might care enough even to listen and then answer a question about the Bible. She had a very subjective type of faith that's fine with a feeling she trusts more than the Bible. I explained to her that the Bible doesn't have errors, because God inspired it. You see, a lot of people don't have trouble with the idea that God gave His Word, but they're not convinced He's kept it intact. I told that God also promised to preserve it and that we can count on God for its preservation.
Anyway, I spent some time pumping up the Bible with all sorts of scriptural arguments in addition to giving her a brief gospel presentation. But most professing Christians have relinquished the idea that we have a perfectly preserved edition of the Word of God. She's got plenty on which to lean on that front.
It was easy for me to think about evangelical arguments for trusting the Bible, despite its errors. It's a supernatural book, the Bible, and part of that is that God expects us to believe the doctrine of it despite no hope that we are reading exactly what He inspired. And we can overcome our doubt by thinking about textual evidence. Sure, corruption has occurred, but not enough to destroy doctrines. No doctrine has been changed, and then if we compare all the copies, there is a lot, a lot of agreement. We basically know what it is, good enough that we can trust all of its teachings. No teachings have been lost. We can't count on the Words, but that's the beauty of it. God has chosen to use a slightly broken thing to do something wonderful.
I didn't give her the contents of that last paragraph, because I don't believe it. I told her what God's people believed before the 19th century, that is, God promises perfect preservation, and we can count on that promise. But evangelicals and fundamentalists have provided reasons to doubt.
I also imagine evangelicals reading this post. God has worked in amazing ways to give us what we have. We should be thankful for the overwhelming wealth of manuscripts. All the Words are most surely in there -- not actually surely (wink, wink) -- in the preponderance of the hand written copies (do you have a manuscript with the original of 1 Samuel 13:1? No, but we're still not lying.).
What I'm writing about here is directly related to reassessing and redefining inerrancy. Evangelicals adapt to save the faith of some, to protect from creating more Bart Ehrmans after they've dug a little deeper. And if you're going to fudge there, then it's also permissible to accept some latitude on the meaning of faith and more. So it's no wonder, if someone is looking for faith, he can skip the scriptural type and embrace something more subjective, based upon a personal experience with the Holy Spirit.
A prominent preacher asked me the following questions concerning the Biblical doctrine of repentance some time ago in connection with my study on the subject here. I thought that his questions and the response he received might be of benefit to the readers of What is Truth, so I have posted them.
Is the salvation decision two steps or one? Are repentance and faith two distinct acts of the will or are they two sides of one coin?
Must the word "Repent" be part of every valid Gospel appeal?
Is repentance a decision confined to the matter of salvation, or is it a concept applicable to many issues?
Fundamentally, is repentance of sin a promise to do better, verified by doing better? Will repentance alone change a life, and how much? Is the sinner sick and in need of a doctor, or can he get rid of his sin by simply repenting of it?
Doesn't the Greek word for repentance really mean a change of mind, based on its etymology?
Does true repentance include deep sorrow for sin, or does godly sorrow lead to repentance?
The salvation decision is certainly one step, one of turning from sin to Christ as Lord and Savior.
The word “repent” is not necessary in every Gospel appeal (Acts 16:31) in the same way that the word “believe” is not necessary in every Gospel appeal (Acts 3:19). My own practice is that I will essentially always use “believe” or a synonym in giving the gospel, and I will essentially always use “repent” or a synonym also.
Certainly repentance is applicable to many issues, just as faith has to do with many things in addition to justification.
Neither repentance or faith will change a life, but coming into union with Jesus Christ will always change a life, and one comes into union with Christ by repentant faith, and one who does not want to be changed will not be brought into union with Christ because he does not really want the Savior.
True repentance includes sorrow for sin if we are speaking about the Hebrew nacham and the Greek metamelomai, and godly sorrow leads to repentance if we are speaking about the Hebrew shub and the Greek metanoia; all four words are translated as “repent” at various points in the KJV.
Readers who want to see an example of how to explain repentance in an evangelistic encounter are encouraged to examine the study here or the video here, as well as the evangelistic Bible study here. The theology of repentance is explained here as well as in many articles at What is Truth, and is stated well in many standard Baptist confessions of faith.
In less than five minutes, I can finish looking at the websites I view almost daily. From there, I might read what I find therein. In today's case, I went to SharperIron, to its blogroll, and saw the headline for Andy Naselli, so I clicked on it. A colleague where he teaches, Joe Rigney, wrote a book, The Things of Earth: Treasuring God by Enjoying His Gifts. The theme sounded interesting, because I too wonder often about the purpose of various of these good things on earth besides the potential of idolatry. At what point have we moved from enjoyment to idolatry? When do we know? The book is available to the point of exploration according to the supposition of Joe Rigney.
Rigney points to his greatest influences: Jonathan Edwards, C. S. Lewis, John Piper, and Douglas Wilson. It's too bad that Edwards is lumped with the other three, but I get it. Piper has hijacked Edwards some to mean what he says and Wilson takes that thought even further. And we get to booze. Alcohol consumption takes the stage of the discussion like the clown at a rodeo. At the bottom of Naselli's post, he links to a two part presentation by Rigney on "Should Christians Drink Alcohol?" I do hesitate in linking to his talk, because there are vulnerable people out there begging to justify their imbibing. I go ahead and link for the sake of fairness. I decided to start listening as I supped and swallowed some soup for lunch.
Joe Rigney offered four possible positions on alcohol from right to left: prohibition, abstention, moderation, and abuse. He explained each of those, parking for awhile to offer the reasons why Christians abstain (the second position). From defining the four, he lopped off the two outside positions as unchristian, saying that prohibition is demonic, taking 1 Timothy 4:1-5 as proof, and that abuse is damning, referring to a few texts that anathematize drunkards.
For sake of consistency and symmetry, I didn't like "abuse" as a position. I'm going to help Rigney out here with dissipation for a fourth category. Plus, abuse doesn't sound like a position. You may as well leave it off completely, because no one takes it as a "position." And then he lumps prohibition and abuse together like strange bedfellows.
When you hear Rigney talk, he speaks with severe articulation at prohibition and with sympathy toward abuse. He gets very stern in his denunciation of prohibition, leaving behind measured tones. I think these types of evangelicals are more angry at prohibition than they are drunkenness. What does that say for them? He excoriates prohibition as demonic with a feathery brush stroke of 1 Timothy 4:1-5. He doesn't establish by any means that what Paul is writing there should apply to alcohol. This is what might be termed, "preaching to the choir."
I'm thinking, "Woe, woe, woe, woe, woe. Wait uh minute. That doesn't prove anything." And Rigney is done with 1 Timothy 4:1-5 and moving on. Prohibition is demonic, point said, point proved. You've got to ask, "Did God create alcohol?" Like one might ask, "Did God create the ebola virus?" I know God has allowed these things, which is different than creating them. Even further, did God create distilled beverages? That makes me start to laugh over Rigney's stunning ease at flicking away prohibition as unchristian.
When you call a position on alcohol, "prohibition," you need to know that you are associating it with the constitutional ban on the sale, production, importation, and transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States from 1920 to 1933. It isn't easy to amend the Constitution. We've done it only seventeen times since 1791. There was widespread support for prohibition in 1920 in the American population, what Rigney would call "demonic." More laughter ensues.
I wasn't motivated to write this post until I heard Rigney call prohibition "demonic." Until then, I could have remained somewhat ambivalent to what he was saying, even curious. I think believers do need to learn the right approach to God's good creation in relation to Christian service.
This post answers a very specific question prompted by Joe Rigney, "Is prohibition of alcohol demonic?" He uses 1 Timothy 4:1-5 as a proof text.
The demons are in v. 1, "doctrines of devils." Apostates are seduced by doctrines of devils, prohibition being that doctrine (so says Rigney), so prohibition lies on the road to apostasy. Apparently, Satan wants to use prohibition of alcohol to damn men's souls. In contrast, promotion of alcohol ostensibly leads toward eternal life.
The error Paul addresses in the proposed text rejects good things God Himself created for beneficial reasons. God created marriage and created meat for men to enjoy. How controversial are marriage and meat in evangelicalism? Those are at the root of the argument against the false doctrine Paul exposes. Paul is rejecting the asceticism that was part of the philosophical dualism in Ephesus and other Greek cities. They thought they could achieve some elevated kind of spiritual existence by denying themselves material things. You still see this in modern religions, and this can seep into and influence Christians, as in the examples of celibacy and monasticism. The apostasy comes with the denial of true spirituality found through the work of Jesus Christ and in favor of our own work of self-denial.
Is denying alcohol a form of asceticism? Is this an example Paul would have in mind? To help yourself understand better, replace prohibition of alcohol with prohibition of crack or crack pipes or heroin or crystal meth. Is denying crystal meth a form of asceticism that could drag someone into a denial of Christ's finished work? Is meth just another element God created for all men to enjoy? From what I've read, meth is a stress reliever, helps someone get through boring jobs more easily, and boosts creativity, so perhaps Rigney could have kept rolling right into other "created" substances.
Are there physical things on earth that should be denied, based upon bad inherent qualities? God created everything, but does that mean that sin has had no impact on creation since then? Is everything innocent since the fall? I believe that what Naselli calls a 'skillful answer' to the question, "Should Christians drink alcohol?" is actually a horrible answer. The biblical position is "prohibition," and yet Rigney labels that demonic. When you call the right answer demonic, you haven't done a very skillful job of answering. Rigney said he was very serious about "demonic," something that men often say when they're afraid of not being taken seriously -- this time for good reason.
Ephesians 5:18 starts, "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess." The phrase "wherein is excess" translates four Greek words (en ho estin asotia) that could be translated literally, "in which is dissipation." Ho ("which," "where") is a relative pronoun that requires an antecedent. "Wine" (oinos) is masculine and singular and ho, the relative pronoun, is masculine and singular. The antecedent agrees in gender and number. "In" the wine itself is the dissipation, the profligacy, the debauchery, the meaning of "excess" (asotia). How could that be? Didn't God create everything for man to enjoy?
There are no other possible referents for ho than "wine." If in contradiction to Greek grammar, ho referred to "drunk," inferred in the infinitive "to be drunk" (not a noun), Paul (and God) would be saying be not drunk with wine, wherein is drunkenness, making Paul (and God) redundant. In drunkenness is drunkenness. Yes, I see. Good point, Paul. Incisive. In drunkenness is drunkenness. That's not what Paul was writing.
Yes, God created everything for man to enjoy. But not everything exists for man to enjoy. Everything has been spoiled or corrupted by sin to some degree. Rigney's view is a simplistic and superficial view of prohibition that deserved more than his condescending brush-off -- actually worse, because he calls it demonic during his brief dismissal. The Corinthians argument for fornication was meats for the belly and belly for meats (1 Cor 6:13). This seems to be closer to the Rigney argument against prohibition.
In the wine itself is excess, not just in the abuse of it. "Abuse" doesn't work as a category if the excess is in the substance itself. Anyone knows that there are things we shouldn't eat or drink. They are dangerous or deadly. If you know what oinos is, you know that Jesus could turn water into an acceptable form of it. The kind that causes drunkenness is prohibited by scripture. When wine is alcoholic, it is prohibited (Prov 23:31). It no longer exists to be enjoyed.
By calling prohibition demonic, Joe Rigney will encourage alcohol and reap drunkenness. It isn't a skillful argument from scripture, but a perversion. May everyone see it for what it is.
Whoever first said "be careful what you wish for," it applies to conservatives and the embrace of so-called "freedom of speech" in relationship to Charlie Hebdo and the terrorist murders in France. Conservatives don't get equal time for their views on campus. They can't get jobs in Hollywood. Their books don't make the Pulitzer list. And calling terrorism Islamic has been hate speech. Creation can't be taught anywhere. If you deny global warming, you won't be allowed to take that position in any official capacity. I was at a jam packed town hall meeting here about social security years ago and someone from our church, who linked a shortage of social security tax to abortion, was booed and hissed and mocked into silence.
Is it worth it for conservatives to use Charlie Hebdo for hypocrisy as a tool to shame liberals into allowing them to speak? Liberals haven't been shouted down at a state university until they opposed Islam, mainly out of their atheism. They can't be credible in opposition to hate speech against Islam and support for Charlie Hebdo. I know this is why conservatives link to liberals making anti Islam diatribe.
I heard Salman Rushdie say that he knows you don't believe in free speech if you say, "I believe in free speech, but." He says there are no "buts" in free speech. There have been "buts" in free speech, but they've all been conservative.
Free speech has become a political apparatus, like the term "racist." Liberals say almost any objectionable or outlandish epithet under their notion of free speech, and it continues. They have opposed speech against Islam, that is, Charlie Hebdo speech.
When I say, be careful what you wish for, I mean, be careful wishing for more Islam bashing, because for every profanity of Mohammed, you'll start hearing ten for Jesus -- no more tamping down blasphemy against God. Since you can insult the Koran, you can say whatever you want against Christianity and pull the Charlie Hebdo card.
Certain speech can be denied in the United States. The Federal Communications Commission does not allow certain language over the airwaves. It is illegal based upon obscenity laws. Some books are prohibited even by the public school. No one is allowed to say just whatever he wants. That has always been a conservative position on speech.
With the loss of an absolute standard for right and wrong, the total takeover of moral relativism, you can't judge offensive speech. In the absence of a final, controlling authority, you allow whatever people want to say. Everything must be legal, every form of God bashing included. It reflects a lawless society. Be careful what you wish for.
Robert [Smith] . . . seems to expect nothing else but that I will plunge into the work [of Higher Life agitation] with equal zeal, but I have not felt any guidance as yet in reference to it, except in the direction of the Friends [Quakers]. . . . I really could not consent to do it unless the Friends had first heard me, and were fully alive to the purport of my message. [A Quaker leader] therefore proposed, and we agreed, to invite a number of Friends to come to our house . . . to hear one of my lessons[.] . . . I burn to see this glorious life of faith becoming once more the realized experience of my dearly loved [Quaker] Society.
[T]he critical . . . incident at this meeting [took place while] Hannah was sitting in a little circle of excellent orthodox friends [Quakers], who had assembled to hear some of the good things that she had to impart, and she was there on examination.
She happened to have seen a funeral in the street, and as she spoke of it, we all put on the conventional look of sadness. “Oh,” she said, “when I meet a funeral I always give thanks for the brother or sister delivered from the trials and pains of this mortal state.” “How wonderful,” I thought, and I could not help exclaiming, “Is that possible? Do you feel this about everybody?” . . . She stopped and looked around. . . . [It was] a time when the universal hope was deemed a heresy, and she was on her trial. She owns that she went through a few moments of conflict. But truth prevailed, and looking up, with her bright glance, she said, “Yes, about everybody, for I trust in the love of God.” I yielded my heart at once to this manifestation of trust and love and candour.
This dramatic moment was . . . a turning point . . . since, if it had not occurred, our family would no doubt have soon returned to America[.] . . . For this lady who thus intervened and took my mother under her protection was, as it were, the queen of evangelical Christians; and her acceptance . . . [and] corroborat[ion] of [Mrs. Smith’s] view of Hell . . . afterwards confirmed by that of her husband, William Cowper Temple, silenced all opposition and no further objections were suggested . . . [since the] Cowper Temples, owing to their great wealth and high position, were by far the most important people in the world in which [Mr. and Mrs. Smith] were, so to speak, on trial.
Mrs. Mount-Temple was delighted in Hannah W. Smith’s confession of universalism—she declared that it was “what strongly drew me to her that day”—as was Mr. Mount-Temple, who “partly believe[d] in Mahomed, Vishna, Buddha, the Pope, the Patriarch . . . [and] love[d] high, low and Broad Church.” The couple were of one mind in religious matters. Thus, because of Hannah W. Smith’s frank confession of universalism, the Mount-Temples threw their powerful influence behind her and her husband. With such patronage, and the help of the demons conjured in the Cowper-Temples’s séances, the Pearsall Smiths were exalted to their position as leading Higher Life preachers, and the founding of the Keswick theology became possible.
From very early times, and especially in the countries of the East, there have been men and women who have sought . . . [to] ponder the nature and duties of true life, to be alone with God, and learn to know and worship Him.
Buddha and his followers in India, the Essenes among the Jews, and the early Christians of the third and fourth centuries, who from Rome and many other cities fled to the deserts of Egpyt . . . [medieval] anchorite[s] . . . [dwellers in] monastic settlements . . . [h]ermits . . . perfect m[e]n . . . [possessed] spiritual power . . . [that] gave them force and initiative[.] . . . Men and women who lived thus were revered, trusted, and consulted during their lifetime, and honoured, and sometimes worshipped, after their death. . . . The Roman Catholics have their “Retreats” under a spiritual director, the . . . Anglicans of the English Church have their “quiet days,” the Quakers their Conferences[.] . . . Surely these practices, during so many ages and amongst such diverse peoples . . . point to a true instinct rooted deeply in human nature, one which is referred to and sanctioned in the Holy Scriptures . . . the felt need . . . [to] reach after the highest possibilities of life. . . . The Conferences at Broadlands came about this way.
Indeed, for Mr. Mount Temple, a poem praising the Muslim Allah, including the confession “La Allah, illa Allah! . . . expressed better than anything he knew his own thoughts and feelings.” Universalism and religious syncretism were the foundation of the close friendship of Hannah Smith with Mrs. Mount-Temple and her husband.
William [Cowper-Temple] was deeply interested in the experiences of which [Hannah W. Smith] and her husband had to tell us. We had been brought up to try to hold the forensic view of justification by faith; but of sanctification by faith we had never heard, and it seemed to us that, though the meaning of the two terms [justification and sanctification] might be identical, it enabled us to look at the doctrine in a new light . . . for who could really care about being merely accounted righteous? [W]hile to be made righteous . . . seemed something worth hearing about.
[B]ut for this spectacular intervention, [the Smiths] might never have taken to preaching in England . . . [I]t was the worldly greatness of [Hannah’s] new friend which saved H. W. S. . . . Lady Mount Temple . . . [was] a hospitable leader of the evangelicals (Broadlands became almost a second home to the Pearsall Smiths)[.] . . . The religious conferences at Broadlands, where H. W. S. often preached, became famous. . . . [T]he house . . . was filled to the attics and many of the guests overflowed into the inns . . . [f]amous people attended, in the company of others less famous.
Along with the weighty patronage of Mrs. Cowper-Temple, “the Friends . . . were unanimous in wishing [her] . . . to give them a series” of Higher Life lessons, and Mrs. Smith’s fame as a Higher Life preacher had consequently begun, with the “Mount Temples [as] ardent supporters of the Smiths.” As a result, “the good Cowper Temples . . . inaugurate[d] a series of such [Higher Life] meetings,” the first and following, Broadlands Conferences, those key initial precursors and supports of the Keswick Conventions. “Lady Mount-Temple . . . initiated the Broadlands Conferences in 1874 where one might find, at the same gathering, a preaching Negress, a Quaker, a Shaker, an atheist, a spiritualist, an East End Socialist, and a prophet of any sort at all.” At these Broadlands meetings Mr. Smith “was an acceptable preacher . . . but [Mrs. Smith], beautiful in her Quaker dress, with her candid gaze and golden hair, was given the name of ‘the Angel of the Churches,’ and her expositions . . . attracted the largest audiences, and made these gatherings famous in the religious world.” Hannah W. Smith, who was present at the first, the last, and most of the Broadlands Conferences in-between, truly epitomized the Higher Life as presented at Broadlands and its successor Conventions at Oxford, Brighton, and Keswick. From the first Conference in 1874, the root of all the subsequent Higher Life and Keswick movement and a pinnacle of Higher Life teaching, participants generally recognized that they “received the clearest and most definite teaching” from Mrs. Smith’s preaching there, just as she set forth the Broadlands and Keswick doctrines in her “books, which are well known.” Many at Broadlands could testify: “She was to me the most inspiring . . . figure . . . amongst those who addressed us.” She led countless multitudes of unregenerate individuals at Broadlands to feel happy, “sunny, and joyful” as she pointed them to the ease and rest of the Higher Life. The Cowper-Temples kept up the Broadlands Higher Life Conferences annually, spreading the Higher Life with Hannah W. Smith, as well as supporting the Oxford Convention and other subsequent Higher Life gatherings, until “Lord Mount Temple’s death at Keswick.” Truly, through the work of the Pearsall Smiths and Mount Temples in the birthing of the Higher Life theology proclaimed at Keswick and in other ways, “[t]he results that followed on the Broadlands Conferences were widespread and various”—indeed, “it is difficult to measure them,” for they are truly incalculable.
 Pgs. 196-228, The Unselfishness of God. While much of this excerpt was reproduced earlier, the specific connection between Mrs. Smith’s universalism and her rise as a Higher Life preacher is here more clearly brought out and noted.
 Pgs. 21-22, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to Sarah Beck, January 22, 1874.
 The “Mount Temples” were the “Cowper Temples” for the reasons, likely related to adultery and immorality, described on pgs. 45-46, Unforgotten Years, Logan P. Smith. William Cowper Temple inherited Broadlands in 1865, at which time he became Lord Mount Temple; he possessed the estate until his death in 1888. See pgs. 22-23, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. The designations “Cowper Temple” and “Mount Temple” are generally employed in this composition as synonyms rather than with reference to specific periods in the life of the husband and wife.
 Pgs. 27-28, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith; see pgs. 116-117, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 That such an unconverted heretic and spiritualist as Mrs. Cowper-Temple could be viewed as “the queen of evangelical Christians” illustrates the utter absence of spiritual discernment in these “evangelical” circles where the Keswick theology was born.
 Pgs. 44-46, Unforgotten Years, Logan P. Smith; cf. pgs. 27-28, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pg. 116, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 6, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pg. 27, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 While the first Keswick Convention followed the first Broadlands Conference as a continuation of Broadlands teaching, not the first Broadlands Conference only, but also the following yearly Broadlands Conferences profoundly impacted the Keswick Convention and its theology. The presence of many of the same Higher Life preachers at both events, and comparable themes and goals at the two meetings, contributed to a close symbiotic relationship.
The nation of all the Gauls is extremely devoted to superstitious rites; and on that account they who are troubled with unusually severe diseases, and they who are engaged in battles and dangers, either sacrifice men as victims, or vow that they will sacrifice them, and employ the Druids as the performers of those sacrifices; because they think that unless the life of a man be offered for the life of a man, the mind of the immortal gods can not be rendered propitious, and they have sacrifices of that kind ordained for national purposes. Others have figures of vast size, the limbs of which formed of osiers they fill with living men, which being set on fire, the men perish enveloped in the flames. They consider that the oblation of such as have been taken in theft, or in robbery, or any other offense, is more acceptable to the immortal gods; but when a supply of that class is wanting, they have recourse to the oblation of even the innocent. (Gallic War, Julius Caesar, 6:16).
 Pgs. 88-89, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. The particular profundity of the Druids discussed is both an affirmation of the Inner Light, that “God manifests Himself . . . [and] His word is uttered . . . [in the] human spirit,” and a rejection of the Biblical fact that the church, the congregation of saints, is the temple of God (Ephesians 2:20-22; 1 Timothy 3:15). For the Druids, only nature and the human spirit are allegedly such temples.
Perhaps since the word “Druid” appears to be derived from the Old English word for “tree,” and the Druidic philosophy had much alleged good in it at Broadlands that deserved to be accepted, apparently pantheistic affirmations (though not entirely clear because of their terseness) at Broadlands such as the following were less surprising: “Christ is everywhere. The blessing in everything reveals Him. Trees, one of the earliest symbols of God, worshipped” (pg. 213, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Italics in original. There certainly is no hint of condemnation of tree-worship in the context, and pgs. 211-212 suggest that it is considered acceptable in at least certain situations.).
 Mrs. Smith stated that her spiritual “secret” was inquired about by “Siddartha” (Letter to Anna, February 5, 1880, reproduced in the entry for October 2 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter), that is, “Siddartha Gautama” or Buddha, founder of Buddhism.
 E. g., concerning the Hindu mystic Chunder Sen, Mrs. Smith stated: “I have read Chunder Sen, and do feel just like sailing for India to see him. What a grand revelation that man has had! It stirred me to the very depths. . . . I know the ‘I am’ he knew [the pagan Hindu ‘I am.’]” (Letter to Anna, September 11, 1879, reproduced in the entries for September 22-24 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 Pgs. 5-16, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. While Jackson’s description of the parties above is overwhelmingly positive, unspecified “false ideals of life and religion” are mentioned (pg. 11).
 That is, the shahada, the most important article of faith for Muslims, the recitation of which is the means through which people convert to Islam. Modern transliteration of the shahada is usually slightly different than what was employed in Edwin Arnold’s poem and referenced by Mr. Mount-Temple. The second half of the shahadah was not specifically quoted.
 Pgs. 116-117, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. Italics in original.
 Pg. 57, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith; cf. pg. 120, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple, for Robert P. Smith’s impulse in the initiation of the Broadlands meetings. Note also that the 1874 Broadlands Conference, the one that initated the Oxford, Brighton, and Keswick Conventions, was, as Mrs. Mount-Temple testified, the pinnacle of the spirituality of Broadlands (pg. 118, ibid).
 Pg. 135, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Again, “evangelical” is very, very loosely defined, so that a heretic such as Mrs. Smith was considered one. Mrs. Smith was an “evangelical” in that she was not a High Church Anglo-Catholic.
 Pg. 28, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. At Broadlands Logan P. Smith notes that one of the speakers “taught that sin was a disease” (pg. 28, ibid), perhaps a reference to the Faith and Mind Cure.
 Pg. 22, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to Sarah Beck, February 7, 1874.
 The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, ed. Dieter, entry for December 30.
 Pg. 7, The Letters of John Ruskin to Lord and Lady Mount-Temple, ed. John L. Bradley.
 Pgs. 48ff., Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pgs. 48, 160, etc., The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 122ff., The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 “‘Each Conference,’ said Lady Mount-Temple, ‘had its distinctive character and charm, so that it was often said, ‘Surely this is the best we have had.’ I think, however, that none brought out such intimate revelations of spiritual experience as the first, or seemed more to make each one present to understand the meaning of the communion of saints,[’”] (pg. 134, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910) including, of course, in Lady Mount-Temple’s view, the dead saints that still communicated with the living through spiritualistic séances.
 E. g., pgs. 122-123, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Cf. pg. v.
 Pg. 123, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 48, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 2, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910; cf. pgs. 134-135.
 Thus, for example, Mr. Cowper-Temple’s endorsement and support of the Oxford Convention was gladly accepted and publicly printed and proclaimed; see, e. g., pg. 32, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
 Pg. 53, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck. The Broadlands Conferences ran yearly from 1874 to 1885 (cf. pg. 141, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890; pg. 1, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910). Lord Mount Temple died in the town of Keswick, not during a Keswick Convention meeting.
 Pg. 245, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v.

 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.