W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
THE INITIAL SIX
Here envisaging needless diversities to the point of diversions, which need care and concern, we look at the initial six, seen as islands separate from the mainland. Sometimes there is minor change in the basic references.
The areas for better harmony are set in green for convenience.
I The Initial Six
From Tender Times for Timely Truth
ISLANDS AND THE MAINLAND
Not to be confused with independent churches and the mainline ones
See also What is the Chaff to the Wheat Ch. 1 for some detailed work in this area
I - 2
Tradition and Truth
Predestination and Freewill
Let us make some extension of our Easter message, and apply it specifically to the areas of professing Christians. This is a detailed look at unity and assiduity, care and fidelity.
In the area of missing the Messiah, we evoked the image of Alexander the Great, in effect, and his causeway which went from the mainland to the island of retreat, to which the citizens of Tyre departed in order to preserve their lives from mainland power. The ingenious Alexander, one of whose specialties was overcoming challenges, aroused, brought the timber and stones of the city to make a causeway which would allow the entry to the island of retreat and its capture. He desired to cover the coast and to allow no nautical opposition; Tyre was on the way and had to be subdued.
Though he did not know it, Alexander also was on the way; and in his early thirties, following some wastage from wounds, met his own death, and was subdued by this, after NOT stopping when Darius of Persia sued for peace, with great offers of lands and marriage to his daughter, or at any other time, not even at the breach into India. He did not stop until his 'mission' of world power seemed sated, only to be lost when won, by death.
Our Lord - covering those of us who are His - did the opposite. In His own destruction (of the body), He presented the way home from the islands of philosophy and religiously tinged politics, from psychological retreat marches and emotional oblivions, to the truth. He did not destroy the city of life, but offered it pardon and presence on the mainland of His peace. The stones of the causeway are His life, for there is no other foundation and no other Rock as the Bible repeatedly insists (Psalm 62, Deuteronomy 32:4, 18,30-31, II Samuel 22:2,32,47, Isaiah 44:8, Psalm 91:2, 18:31, 44:8, 26:1ff.). Those who come are His; those who are His, they come. ALL are as sincerely invited to life, as were those on the island faced with the danger of death.
Let us change the image. In Exodus 33:20-23, we see the Lord asked by Moses, to show him His glory. None shall see it, was the reply, and live; but stand on this rock, and "I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by." This approach to the Lord was made by STANDING ON (having one's foundation in - I Cor. 3:10-11) the Rock (symbol of the Lord Himself), and having a place within the rock where one could be LODGED individually. That cleft is Christ. As I Cor. 10 tells us, in speaking of the Exodus era: "that rock was Christ". Hidden in Him (Psalm 91), one is safe. "He who abides in the secret place of the most High, shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty".
The covering is His pardon from sin by the rupture of the rock, in Calvary. There the body given to Him, was ruined. There a place was found by ruin transfer; for the obvious physical ruin (but the spirit was unmarred, merely tortured) was the expression, along with the agony of soul ("My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me!" as predicted from Psalm 22:1, the crucifixion psalm), of payment. Justice was met heartily. Its demands were covered graciously. This paid, the love of God, clad with mercy, rushed out, as it were, to meet the returning aliens. Resurrected, He has purchased the place of safety, in Himself, with all justice for all who come in faith, to receive Him as He is.
Now we may return to the Rock as applied in our causeway imagery..
With this topic we have dealt in our Easter Message. This is its extension to the area of the professing Christians, those who believe they have already come to Him.
Now that the mainline denominations have so grossly moved from the word of God, in very many cases, and to the extent that the weight is no longer on the main bodies of testimony on the one hand, and the heresies on the other: but on the main bodies (now often themselves, of heresies) and those who have had to withdraw, it is necessary to look at our other islands, those in the lakes on the mainland, as it might seem.
The time has come for those positioned, relative to the Bible, in extremes to consider their position, and for Biblical truth to overcome the whole thrust of fighting cock corners (deliberately to mix cock fighting and boxing, to express the mêlée). It is time for the many who seek unity in Christ, according to His word, the Bible, to consider the words of God in Zephaniah, which were touched in Acme, Alpha and Omega - Jesus Christ Ch.6, where some of the minor prophets were studied. What there do we read from Ch.3:11-12:
"For then I will take away from your midst
Those who rejoice in your pride,
And you shall no longer be haughty
In My holy mountain.
I will leave in your midst
A meek and humble people
And they shall trust in the name of the LORD."
Again from vv. 17-19: "The LORD your God in your midst,
The Mighty One, will save:
He will rejoice over you with gladness,
He will quiet you with His love,
He will rejoice over you with singing...
I will save the lame,
And gather those who were driven out..."
These delicious words as shown in context in our reference, relate primarily to the Jewish people; but they are not some OTHER church, and when these come, in spirit and in gospel and in the intimacy of the Lord's dealings, they do not differ from any others (see Barbs, Arrows and Balms13, 17, 20 and The Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 2). Now it is true there appears a millenial thrust in this Zephaniah passage, but not necessarily. In essence, it refers to the beautiful love and peace before the Lord of a humbled people, who love Him and earnestly seek to follow Him; and are not in the position of pugilists of passion to fashion their fame.
1) This spirit of humility, consideration without any loss of purity, this willingness to review traditions which in various places and at various times have set like concrete, until in some cases (as in the misuse of the Westminster Confession as a shibboleth instead of as a help, as its words indicate is fitting - Ch. XXX, 4), the very intention is lost in the glorying in secondary things.
Now to take the Confession, it is an outstanding confession and its system of doctrine is sound, and indeed its expression is piquant without bluster. However, before long, what is CALLED subordinate can become inordinate, a source of division on small things, such as the Australian Presbyterian Church in its Basis of Union of 1901 expressly sought to avoid. We shall not specialise in this however, lest we should lose our conspectus of many things, but make the references for detail available here. (See The Biblical Workman Ch.8, Questions and Answers Ch. 7, End-note 1.)
This is a matter of tradition versus truth, even EXCELLENT tradition, allowed in PRACTICE to compete rather than complete the understanding of the word of God; and if it applies to one, it applies to many. If it applies to one confession which is exalted contrary to constitutional reality, though it should gain no such practical place, how much more does it apply where according to constitution, other bodies erect their traditional, confessional fortresses, often good, always wrong when made primary in PRACTICE.
It is of course vastly worse when the traditions are either a complex of incompatible annunciations from someone or some period or other, or heresy in the first place. Man often loves to foster his lack of vision by adherence to past things, so long as they are not the word of God (cf. Mark 7:7ff.). Sometimes these arise as camps and become intolerant of what they did not build overnight.
2) Similarly, the Wesleyan (just) emphasis on the love of God as so often shown in this site, ought not to be forgotten in the interests of the (just) emphasis on the sovereignty of God, in the 5 points of Calvin; or vice versa. Moderation is needed in this sense, that philosophic extrusions and expansions, based on presuppositions of frail kind, should be snouted; and the word of God should not be flouted, but both matters should be emphasised as is done in the word of God. It is true that in my Predestination and Freewill, pains were taken to SHOW that the things in the Bible on these two issues, and relating (justly) to human responsibility are not only reconcilable, but provide the ONLY reconciliation in principle, which is available in this realm altogether, and thus the matter provides an intense contribution to Christian Apologetics! However this is incidental in our present point.
There must be that combination of extreme purity and fidelity to the Bible which allows no attenuation of ANYTHING which it says for ANY purpose, zeal and zest, on the one hand, and that (just) and gracious care and moderation in all other matters touching these points, lest the extraneous, hardening through pride or tradition, forms or even forces a schism in the body. (For detail: see Repent or Perish Ch. 1, End-Note 1, Questions and Answers 7, End-notes 1 and 2, Acme, Alpha and Omega: Jesus Christ, Ch.10. pp. 143ff., SMR Appendix B, The Kingdom of Heaven, Ch.4, esp. pp. 49ff. and Predestination and Freewill Preface and throughout.)
Nor is this just a matter of Calvin's system and Wesley's perception, these two being famed for their respective emphases, though of course neither invented the good thrust that each has, in its place. It is the same in many matters in number of churches which, apparently afraid of this or that philosophical pressure, or troubled by it, yield to something extreme and immoderate. Where fuss and schism is driven, the body is riven by what is extraneous.
3 Baptism ? Neither blanket nor junket...
3) In the matter of the ritual or rite of baptism, similarly, there is room for thought. Some teach believer's baptism as if this were a sacred salvation-conferring rite, and others infant baptism in very much the same manner. These extremes owe nothing to the Bible (cf. Questions and Answers Chs 9 and esp. 11, The Kingdom of Heaven Appendix). The FECA in Australia is to be congratulated on its excellent perception regarding these extremes in its doctrinal statement.
It is offensive to many to see these sacramentalist excursions, since the baptism that counts is the one which involves the witness of a clear conscience to God by the resurrection of Christ (I Peter 3:21) and not the washing of dirt from the body, according to Peter, who also wrote scripture!
When this offence is removed, then the hope of understanding vastly improves. As shown in Questions and Answers 11, infant baptism is based on scriptural credentials, and is not a source of assurance of salvation. Some want baptism to be a hold-all for all baptised infants early dying, but as pointed out in the reference given, this may indeed be available to faith, but it is not a generic to cover all; the Westminster Confession in this justly observing that the Lord takes those who are His. It is NOT that one may not believe in the goodness of the Lord, according to faith, that HE will do this or that. It IS that one is not warranted by the Bible in ASSUMING any baptismal certificate holds up in heaven, as an entry form. IF the parents took the child as His in faith, then the faith is given. There are deep issues here, and the point is NOT that all see all at once; but that the ORGANISATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND STIPULATIONS DO NOT PASS BEYOND THE BIBLICAL TEACHING.
Thus when David says that the (deceased) child would not come to him, but he would go to it, does this mean that for all cases of baptism the same would apply, even for all Christian parents ? It does NOT mean that it COULD not apply. It does NOT warrant that it must. Did David MEAN that the child was certainly the Lord's and that he would go to enjoy fellowship with it at his death ? Very possibly, and indeed probably. One would however not dare to teach that it was unquestionably the case. It conceivably could have meant that he would go from this land of life to the place where the Lord directs spirits as is His due. Personally, this seems less likely; but when it comes to teach, likelihood is no basis for faith.
The point here, then, is not that we all see this or that when the evidence is slim; but that we do NOT require of one another what is so based. There should be liberty where the word of God has not UNQUESTIONABLY spoken, and no sententiousness, one way or the other, in the form of AUTHORITATIVE TEACHING, in order to avoid NEEDLESS SCHISM! - as also presumptuous.
In this connection, it seems at least unfortunate that the Free Presbyterian body in Australia has, or at least had, a doctrinal statement to the effect that the contests on the infant or non-infant aspects of baptism were divisive and unnecessary, or some such formulation, so that one could do it either way. There is some merit in this, if it means liberty for parents to have or leave the baptism of the child, according to their faith; and that is standard in much Presbyterian practice.
If however it means that the matter is void of truth in the question of infant baptism or not, only believer's baptism or not, then the compromise is gained at peremptory sacrifice; for it presumes to allocate doctrinal uncertainty in this matter, without proof!
It excludes, for example, those who believe that infant baptism, without the sacramentalist additive, is indeed and beyond any dubiety of debate, Biblically sound and warranted; that its formulation into sacramentalilsm is indeed offensive, and that a corrective (such as believers’ baptism only) was sure to come. In one church where the author was pastor, there was LIBERTY concerning the rite for members, but NO requirement that the pastor teach this or that. Nor was there any formulation, as if to make specific and diverse approaches, as such, all to be wrong, because not given! mere matters of error on either or both parts. Trading in truth for an administrative option is always unwise; for truth stands by itself, and may be shown where given.
As presented in the reference given, there IS (sacramentalist) error FREQUENTLY found on both sides, which is enough to make understandable a rush to remove oneself from such extremes (or enormities as some might say of this or that, and not always without Biblical ground or reason). This in itself, however, does not mean that ALL positions in the field are unbiblical, or unwarranted by the Bible, just so long as they ARE positions. It is NEVER proper to abandon in the interests of peace, any particle of the Bible.
4 Psalms only ? or Sanctity Always : a Due Choice
4) In the matter of psalm singing ONLY, and NO instruments and the like, again it is understandable, but not acceptable as REQUIREMENT. If someone wants to sing only psalms, there is liberty. If someone wants to ensure that NO ONE else shall sing ANYTHING else, there is no liberty. It is excluded. See Questions and Answers 13 on this point.
That much modern hymn construction (and not modern only) is awash with unbiblical sentiment is obvious; but not all. That false doctrines are often taught (and not always strenuously, so that they may seep in insidiously) in hymns, is true. That there is room for exceeding care in preventing such songs being part of the formal repertoire of the church is sound. Moderation, gentleness in this as in all the aspects where there is sensitive concern over areas of liberty, is in view. It is only when clear rebellion against the teaching of the Bible is in view, that the case requires what Paul's letter to Titus enjoins! both in Ch.1 and in 3. However in following the liberties of the temple and of the psalms as in 147ff., we are not encouraged to limit the Lord in this or in any other matter. Only what is impenetrably demonstrable is warranted as a DOCTRINAL restriction. The church is for truth, not sententiousness.
That having been said, we should acknowledge that if a congregation wants to make sure of certain things by certain limitations, that is one thing; but if it TEACHES that they SHOULD not be allowed to others, and makes a doctrine of it in manifest departure from what may be proved from the Bible, this is another. There are islands of separation which should really be left behind.
QAA 13, pp. 183-184 (and
singing, music: parallels elsewhere - theological harmonics through
scriptural precision, and the avoidance of philosophical extremes,
5 Bishops, Autonomy or Balance ?
5) In the matter of bishops and presbyteries, and independence, we have another illustration of what is needed in gentleness and moderation, in unity and careful inter-church relationships, which should grow and prosper in this mainline default situation of today.
The word for bishop in Timothy is merely supervisor, and the elders in Acts 20:28 are only supervisors. That is the term. True, they have authority in order to superintend, but there is no singling out. The apostolic delegate Titus as sent from Paul, is no norm for the formulation of doctrine, without Paul. Nothing can be proved from that. On the other hand, it is incontestable that the CHURCH AT JERUSALEM is the ecclesiastical resource used in a vast dogmatic dispute as shown in Acts 15. It is true that it was a case where the "apostles and elders" were present (Acts 15:2), but it is notable that it is not only to the apostles, but also to the elders. Indeed "the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter" . Thus it is not a mere matter of authority (as it could have been), but of consultation among elders and apostles without any expressed differentiation. Generically it is true that the wisdom of Proverbs tells us likewise, that in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.
Hence we can see that the proclivity for consultation is there; and that binding a thing is possible. Yet see how carefully they did it (Acts 15:22ff.)!
The Presbyterian concept of an aggregation of representatives from regional churches is thus not unbased by any means. Where there is example, a measure of liberty is present; where there is rule, there is not. Here it is the former. Without entering into further detail in such a setting as this, we can at once begin to formulate the concept that churches (as in Titus 1, where there are at least two elders) have indeed a measure of independence; but that when issues of weight and division especially arise, opportunity for consultation should exist, and if necessary a binding.
Here is again the situation of extremes. If you put the authority into extremes, and use, for example I Tim. 5:17 where the elders especially gifted in teaching the word are given 'double honour', to mean authority for some Ministers of the word over others; and not for special respect to be given to all pastors, since they are (by Pauline definition) ALL expert in the word (relatively speaking): and so invent bishops, then one thing is sure. The inference is inexact. There is no unambiguous suggestion of any such kind.
Of elders and their authority, there IS unambiguous attestation. (See A Question of Gifts, Appendix II, as also in the area of Pentecostalism, No. 6 below.)
Again, if the association of representatives, where the safety
is found, becomes top-heavy and starts acting as if it were some arch-bishop,
and NOT a useful consultative body, equipped with humility, grace and moderation,
but it becomes one of aweful majesty and so on, then you have again the movement
to the idolatrous. If Presbyterian courts act in this way, the offence it
may cause is most understandable, the manner being wrong. If they then start
going liberal and radical as has been common in this century, and start stripping
churches from local congregations which will not leave the Bible (as happens
sometimes also), then the offence of the Presbytery or Assembly is immense.
It shows the way the authority which is of a gracious and humble kind, may
become grotesque and self-willed, so that what was intended for amendment
becomes a contempt of the Lordship of Christ, an arrogation of it.
Thus there is a thorough comprehensibility about the desire of many for independence at the local level; but it is too extreme. There is similar reason in the desire for some body of review of certain sensitive matters; but it too readily becomes too extreme. There is understanding in the seeking for someone with authority, but he is to be a teaching elder in the midst of other elders, and not some super-elder, which office is not demonstrated. What is needed is a realisation of all these things, and a readiness for moderation in the islands of division, and indeed learning from various elements of some, when they cease to be demanding, and become rather interesting illustrations of Biblical principles.
One thing most excellent in this regard, was found in the now swallowed up Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, a body which had great promise before it yielded to being eaten up into a denomination which increasing appears to be lax on separation, and with this, on increasing other matters, such as creation.
In this once pleasant little body, of just some ten thousands of people, there was the provision that the BOND to higher courts of the church, on the part of any local congregation was one of charity, of love, and that the local congregation of course had the power to separate with its property if it so desired. THAT was getting into the field of moderation.
Now in all these things, the 5 readily perceptible cases for illustration - and it is no more - selected above, there are two things to differentiate.
First, there is the desirability of forsaking needlessly harsh positions which go so far beyond the Bible, a little, a lot; and without abandoning the sensitivity to excess which may have led to the position, of ensuring there is no element of reaction. On the other side, those who may have contributed to the reaction, need to moderate their own positions till they incorporate nothing that cannot be proved beyond question, from the Bible. This is a rapprochement.
The second thing is this. ALL churches do not HAVE to be in the same setting. Thus when such spiritual steps as the above are taken, then organisational ones do not need necessarily to follow. The bonds of spiritual respect and fellowship are good; organisational union may be good. The former is vastly more important than the latter. The acting together on matters of joint concern ought then not to be inhibited by needless schism, and variation would not then need to be equated with division.
This is the BIBLICAL UNITY which is needed, and should be sought, and is often found among many.
6 Tongues Wagging with Godliness Sagging, or Moderation ?
6) Finally, there is a 6th area: that of the charismatics. In A Question of Gifts, it is pointed out with Biblical reason, that the used of the term 'pentecostal' for certain emphases on the charismatic gifts, when these include the phenomenon of glossolalia, or tongues in the Corinthians sense, is a misnomer. This is simply a fact. At Pentecost, as there shown, it was a question of INCREASED understanding linguistically, in order to facilitate the preaching of the word by the apostles to a group of people whose native languages were very different. It was a miraculous intervention for the sake of better understanding. In the Corinthian case (chs.12-14), it is the precise opposite. Its reason is given by Paul, and he quotes from Isaiah, all this being given in A Question of Gifts, in some detail. The two reasons are WHOLLY different, just as the two phenomena are PRECISELY OPPOSITE.
This is one ground of trouble. We cannot be buying into an involvement, where the very terminology is misleading at worst, confusing at best*. When this becomes an emphasis on POWER available, of which Pentecost might be assumed an illustration, we come to a halt. This is far more than mere nomenclature, but is rather moving towards using a mistaken nomenclature for a further dogmatic error in doctrine! Here we see the limits to which rapprochement may go. It may not go where there is any compromise with the truth of the Bible, either to add or to subtract.
IF ONLY THIS WERE KEPT TO ON ALL SIDES, then the UNITY would be delightful. It is the squandering of the Biblical purity with philosophical or psychological or cultural addenda which creates all the divisions which impurity would imply. It is like manufacturing parts: put them together with ease when they follow specifications. But depart from these, and the joining together could become a virtual nightmare, made worse by the knowledge of the lack of due care, Biblically required care, in making or fashioning the components!
Again, there is a reaction to a reaction. It would seem that some of the force of Pentecostalism, statistically, came from people weary of dilettante mainline denominations, playing the fool on the Bible (see cases from the author's own experience in Biblical Blessings Ch. 11). They would NOT (rightly) abide where such things occurred. Some of us had to fight diligently for the faith, to prove all things and seek to awaken our denominations, as occurred repeatedly to the author in several nations. In the end, however, there can be no truck with unbiblical doctrine. Hence many wanted something more lively like the Bible, and to many, Pentecostalism has seemed an answer.
As so often, however, the reaction against the Bible became in many, a reaction that itself moved from it, moderation was lost, gentleness and care within the faith moved askew, and before long a whole new list of things arose from the ground. It was assuredly not from the Bible that multiple tongue speaking, simultaneously, arose, or irreverence in church meetings, not displaying the fear of the Lord, or uninterpreted utterances of some (physical) gabble, or statements that if you were not healed it was your own lack of faith, or people speaking in the name of the Lord, as if they were modern day prophets on the Old Testament model, adding to the doctrine, contradicting the doctrine, making experience king and in effect manufacturing a new covenant in their own experience, which was not limited to the same Gospel which Paul had already preached in Galatians 1.(Cf. Ch.9, Epilogue, pp. 133ff., below.)
Hence a new heresy arose. Not all charismatic expression of course is of this type. It is as impossible to exclude it by Biblical proof, as it is to extend it. It remains true that 5 words with the mind, in church, are worth 10,000 without it, and all should reflect this.
However such is the extreme of departure from the Bible in all this, that many even join with Romanism in practice, in meetings, because they also may use such extremes of mode and unbiblical provisions, the methods becoming the basis of unity instead of the teaching; while the methods are themselves in much contrary to the teaching. Thus the methods should at all times be subject to the teaching of the word as Paul shows in I Cor. 12-14; but here the reverse takes precedence. False procedures being exalted, allow for false unity.
This is an interesting case, for it shows that one error (in mainline denominations, very often) can lead to a just departure and an unjust exaggeration, then to an unjust combination in an illusory and at times reactionary unity, which is merely an apostasy confirmed, one branch reinforcing another.
What moderation can there be in these things ? There can as in all the other cases, be a return to what can be proved by the Bible (as that Paul in I Cor. 1 was statedly speaking to all the churches - 1:2, and that he was a master builder - I Cor. 3). At once all the above extremes would vanish. Then some who were (justly) appalled by these extremes could consider more carefully what biblically is permissible, and while allowing their own emphasis and due care, allow for fellowship where all the biblical doctrine and criteria were kept. Once again, fellowship is not the same as organisational unity. Sometimes indeed, some variation is stimulating, so long as it does not TEACH what the Bible does not, or EXCLUDE by teaching, what the Bible does not.
There is room, then for a return from many islands in the Great Lakes on the mainland! Just as there needs to be a return TO the mainland of Biblical truth, in departing from radicalisms, so there needs to be a return from islands in the mainland, to the fellowship that is chaste. There must be no aqueous expeditions to pseudo-homelands, most praiseworthy in the eyes of traditionalists, old and new, sponsored by philosophy and loved by the world, often with Pharisaical splendour of self-congratulation on being so VERY religious.
We need nothing that is factional, fractionalising, flimsy, unsubstantial, unscriptural, gnostic at times, self-confident and unfaithful. We are forbidden the Calvinism of quasi-orthodoxy*1
(just as it also omits,
in its broadest and Biblical implications, the 'love of God' as expounded in
Predestination and Freewill pp.76ff. and
The Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 4,
SMR Appendix B,
Repent or Perish 1, pp. 17ff., End-note *1,
Spiritual Refreshings for the Digital Millenium 9,
Acme, Alpha and Omega - Jesus Christ Ch.10),
as well as the Barthianism of nebulous self-contradictory folly*2.
WHAT IS RIGHT may indeed be formulated in man's words as a test or help; but it is the BIBLE ALONE that rules, not the rules about the way it rules. Pharisaism can be every bit as divisive as Sadducaism, contradiction that is acknowledged as that which is not!
It is enough that those leaving leave, those insular away from the word, go to their islands. They should return, and be encouraged where opportunity exists, to do so, with exhortation, Biblical apologetics, prayer. (For a seventh such moderation within the majesty of the word of God: see News, Facts and Forecasts Ch. 16.)
When it IS however, the mainland, where there is no intention
to contradict the word of God, and indeed the devil loves to pretend even
he does not - then there is the grace of proper unity with due respect to
the source of it, and His desire for it, for THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED HIS
WORDS (John 17:8). This must be sought as love for the Lord whose word commands
it WITHIN HIS WORD, entreats us!
It is enough that those leaving leave, those who will to be
insular away from the word, go to their islands.
They should return, and be encouraged where opportunity exists, to do so, with exhortation, Biblical apologetics, prayer. For a seventh such moderation within the majesty of the word of God, for those who do not lack zeal:
see News 124, Part II. The title of that volume may suggest to the apt, what that is. A visit will confirm!
Another is to be found, the eighth, in Licence for Liberty, Ch. 7. This is revealed especially at the end of the chapter. For a ninth island, see Member Notes, 22-23, where linked, that is, Endnote 1, to 23) The Day of Rest. The tenth island is exhibited in Member Notes 27, as here linked, and its territory is that of the status of Corinthian-style 'prophesyings'. The word of God is far above these, but they are not excluded; what is excruciating is their charade.
*1 See Chapter 2, end-note 1 below. The 5 points of Calvin are excellent if seen in the biblical context, and not vice versa. The failure of his system in the domain of love, however, a pre-systematic fact, while in no way invalidating these points as such, makes them frequently abused. Hence the term quasi-orthodoxy, since it lacks one aspect of the love of God as shown in the references. See especially on this, in addition, Great Execrations, Greater Enervations, Greater Grace ... Chs. 7 and 9. While Wesley rightly emphasised the scope of the love of God, his failure just where Calvin was best, has often led to wars and parties instead of realisation and non-partisan comprehensiveness. See also 'Fellowship' and Anguish, Ecstasy and the Mastery of the Messiah Chs. 8, 9, 10.
*2 See The Biblical Workman, Appendix 3, Light of Dawn Ch. 2, and index SMR.