I came across the follow excerpt while teaching a few weeks ago and it was striking that the self-made man and pursuer of virtue, Ben Franklin, was no fan of doctrinal preaching. I suspect that his objections to the preaching of Jedediah Andrews, the pastor at First Presbyterian in Philadelphia, would have also applied to redemptive historical sermons. Here is what Franklin observed:
Tho’ I seldom attended any public worship, I had still an opinion of its propriety, and of its utility when rightly conducted, and I regularly paid my annual subscription for the support of the only Presbyterian minister or meeting we had in Philadelphia. He us’d to visit me sometimes as a friend, and admonish me to attend his administrations, and I was now and then prevail’d on to do so, once for five Sundays successively. Had he been in my opinion a good preacher, perhaps I might have continued, notwithstanding the occasion I had for the Sunday’s leisure in my course of study; but his discourses were chiefly either polemic arguments, or explications of the peculiar doctrines of our sect, and were all to me very dry, uninteresting, and unedifying, since not a single moral principle was inculcated or enforc’d, their aim seeming to be rather to make us Presbyterians than good citizens.
At length he took for his text that verse of the fourth chapter of Philippians, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, or of good report, if there be any virtue, or any praise, think on these things.” And I imagin’d, in a sermon on such a text, we could not miss of having some morality. But he confin’d himself to five points only, as meant by the apostle, viz.: 1. Keeping holy the Sabbath day. 2. Being diligent in reading the holy Scriptures. 3. Attending duly the publick worship. 4. Partaking of the Sacrament. 5. Paying a due respect to God’s ministers. These might be all good things; but, as they were not the kind of good things that I expected from that text, I despaired of ever meeting with them from any other, was disgusted, and attended his preaching no more. I had some years before compos’d a little Liturgy, or form of prayer, for my own private use (viz., in 1728), entitled, Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion. I return’d to the use of this, and went no more to the public assemblies. My conduct might be blameable, but I leave it, without attempting further to excuse it; my present purpose being to relate facts, and not to make apologies for them.
This is not meant to be an expression of guilt by association, as if those who want application in preaching share Franklin’s views about religion more generally. I personally continue to be impressed by Franklin in a host of ways — his industry, his humor and style, his remarkable literary interests, and his statesmanship. But he wasn’t right about everything. People are complicated. That likely includes preaching and revivals (he was a fan, after all, of Whitefield).
Old Life 
On the other hand, Franklin praised Samuel Hemphill’s sermons because they were “little of the dogmatical kind, but inculcated strongly the practice of virtue, or what in the religious style are called good works.” (from his autobiography, quoted in Le Beau’s biography of Jonathan Dickinson.)
LikeLike
Can we get this Presbyterian minister to come fill the pulpit at our church when the need arises? He sounds like a godly man.. Any historians our there know who this pastor was?
LikeLike
I haven’t read many Whitefield sermons. Did he do a lot of application?
LikeLike
Wow! What an amazing quote of first hand experience by such a distinguished citizen as Franklin. Fascinating how much more concerned he is to make good citizens than to see disciples made. Thanks for sharing this.
LikeLike
Our government schools were misleading our young people for a long time! As a HS boy in NJ (1942-1946) I was taught that Ben Franklin was an atheist, or possibly a deist. My later studies and looking through an iron cemetary fence in Philadelphia, cried “NOOOO!” There I saw his grave. I believe that Ben wrote the epitaph, still very clear. Not an exact quote, but close: “Here lies the body of Old Ben, like an old book, eaten by worms, but he hopes to come back some day as a bigger and better edition!” Not necessarily words of one whose name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, but certainly not the words of a deist!
LikeLike
Ben, in his critical history “The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism,” Harry Stout writes:
Before Whitefield, everybody knew the difference between preaching and acting. With Whitefield’s preaching it was no longer clear what was church and what was theater. More than any of his peers or predecessors, he turned his back on the academy and traditional homiletical manuals and adopted the assumptions of the actor. Passion would be key to his preaching, and his body would be enlisted in raising passions in his audience to embrace traditional Protestant truths.
Contained in this theater-driven preaching was an implicit model of human psychology and homiletics that saw humankind less as rational and intellectual than as emotive and impassioned. In eighteenth century actors’ manuals, the individual psyche was divided into a triad of feelings, intellect, and will in which feelings reigned supreme. An unfeeling person is a nonperson, a mere machine with highly sophisticated mental functions. It is the passions that harmonize and coordinate intellect and will. In fact, they control and direct all the faculties.
So brilliant was Whitefield at acting instead of preaching, later Stout writes about the close relationship between Whitefield and Franklin. He describes Whitefield as so absolutely masterful at his itinerant tasks and theatrics that Franklin paid good money in order, as Tina Fey might say, to meet the felt need “to want to go to there.” What is remarkable is that Franklin did not believe one word of what the otherwise Calvinist Whitefield preached.
LikeLike
Well that explains it then, application or no. Thanks.
LikeLike
But, Ben, dramatists seem to do a lot more applying than preachers, don’t they?
LikeLike
Zrim: Ben, in his critical history “The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism,” Harry Stout writes:
RS: Critical history. Hmmm
Zrim: Before Whitefield, everybody knew the difference between preaching and acting. With Whitefield’s preaching it was no longer clear what was church and what was theater. More than any of his peers or predecessors, he turned his back on the academy and traditional homiletical manuals and adopted the assumptions of the actor. Passion would be key to his preaching, and his body would be enlisted in raising passions in his audience to embrace traditional Protestant truths.
RS: In other words, Whitefield meant what he preached and so his “passion” was surely nothing more than acting.
Zrim: Contained in this theater-driven preaching was an implicit model of human psychology and homiletics that saw humankind less as rational and intellectual than as emotive and impassioned. In eighteenth century actors’ manuals, the individual psyche was divided into a triad of feelings, intellect, and will in which feelings reigned supreme. An unfeeling person is a nonperson, a mere machine with highly sophisticated mental functions. It is the passions that harmonize and coordinate intellect and will. In fact, they control and direct all the faculties.
RS: Perhaps this is how the theatre saw individuals, but Whitefield was a preacher. It might also be noted that men were people of deep feelings in the Bible.
Zrim: So brilliant was Whitefield at acting instead of preaching, later Stout writes about the close relationship between Whitefield and Franklin. He describes Whitefield as so absolutely masterful at his itinerant tasks and theatrics that Franklin paid good money in order, as Tina Fey might say, to meet the felt need “to want to go to there.” What is remarkable is that Franklin did not believe one word of what the otherwise Calvinist Whitefield preached.
RS: Why should one believe Stout when there is a chorus of Church history that Whitefield was a godly man and a great preacher? The natural man does not and cannot understand the things of God. It is no wonder that the natural man will interpret spiritual things as natural.
LikeLike
Can I just ask an innocent question? What is wrong with applicatory sermons?
LikeLike
Probably so, but regardless, it’s unsurprising that an unregenerate man would be attracted to both moralism and drama, whether or not both are present.
LikeLike
Jon,
You asked: “What is wrong with applicatory sermons?”
Applicatory sermons are all about you. Your works and your sanctification. It often has the desultory effect of cherry-picking scripture. Worst of all is the way it often mutes or omits the gospel because even though they may mention Jesus name, he is not the actor of the verbs, you are.
LikeLike
Lily,
But isn’t ALL preaching applicatory in some manner? Jesus did die for US, right? (Of course, the ultimate reason was for the glory of God as well as obedience to the Father, but you can’t divorce it from the sheep for whom he died).
I don’t see how you can preach the good news that Christ is Lord and came to die for sinners without applying it to us in some way.
LikeLike
Richard, maybe Stout got right what the praise choruses missed? But maybe that’s impossible since the regenerate can’t possibly get things wrong? But I’m not convinced that redemption swallows up sin quite so entirely.
Ben, if sin abides as closely as HC 114 suggests, then aren’t regenerates pretty prone to dramatic moralism, even if just a tad less than unregenerates?
LikeLike
We have many Franklin’s on steroids up here in Montana, which makes it hard on the Jedediah’s. However, with loose gun laws its easy to be a J. Frank Norris and we have many of them too.
LikeLike
Jon,
It’s not a divorce, it rightly dividing the word into law/gospel sermons. The application of scripture (law) should be always be understood and practiced in light of Christ and His redemptive work (gospel). We need to hear the gospel and receive forgiveness and strength for the daily battle with sin. There is a difference between Christ being the actor of the verbs and our being the actor of the verbs. Most applicatory sermons mention Jesus and all the action in the verbs comes from us.
Those who adhere to applicatory sermons normally reduce faith to a system of do’s and don’t’s. It’s often called “rules for living,” and “how-to” sermons. They are trying to make the law user-friendly and remove the accusatory factor of the law that demands perfect obedience. The Pharisees did the same thing with the law and put it into over 600 “doable” laws. A steady diet of watered-down law often leads the hearer to begin to think salvation is the result of God’s mercy plus man’s obedience – thus semi-pelagian. Compromised law means a compromised gospel. It’s all about you and not about Christ. In fact, it dulls the truth that daily we sin (need to repent) and turn to our Savior with confession of our sin and faith in his sacrifice for us.
Under a steady diet of applicatory sermons, there seems to be a fork in the road at some point with one set of hearers thinking they are pretty good at keeping the law (self-righteous) and the other set of hearers become more and more discouraged because they see they don’t and can’t keep the law (despair). One set walks into self-righteousness (focusing on their moral progress) and the other walks into despair (burn-out). The burned out Christian often ends up dropping out of church. A lot of the un-churched are part of the burned out district who were given revivalism and applicatory sermons (the marriage series, the parenting series, and now the gawd-awful sex series). The cure is law/gospel sermons and sound doctrine.
LikeLike
Andrews “application” seems tangential to the point at hand in Philippians 4. Certainly the list Andrews provides are the means to “think on such things” but they are not the thing in themselves. I would rather agree with Franklin. Thinking about attending attending public worship is one thing, what you are told in public worship is another. No one goes to church simply to be told to go to church.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, maybe Stout got right what the praise choruses missed? But maybe that’s impossible since the regenerate can’t possibly get things wrong? But I’m not convinced that redemption swallows up sin quite so entirely.
RS: Nevertheless, maybe Stout was simply trying to interpret spiritual things by natural means. Some people cannot understand how people can have fire in their souls for spiritual things, so they can only turn to natural things like mental illness or passions. Let me see, now what do unbelievers say about jesus? Are we to believe what unbelievers say about Jesus? Then why are we to believe what they say about Edwards and Whitefield?
LikeLike
Richard, Mornons could say the same thing about your negative assessment of their burning bosoms. How do you not see the problem here of saying your subjective experience is orthodox but the other guy’s is heterodox? But your reasoning here seems to end up simply saying that those who claim Christ are the best ones to evaluate others who preach Christ. Well, some who claim and preach Christ, like Billy Graham, think Finney was great. You don’t, so I’m guessing you’d take an unbeliever’s critical assesment of Finney if it aligns with yours. So why can you enlist someone to criticize Finney but when old lifer’s enlist one to poke holes in Whitefield you blow impious whistles?
LikeLike
Richard, but if you interpreted Old Life by spiritual lens, then you’d be critical of Edwards. Everyone can play the spiritual card.
LikeLike
Richard, I think Harry Stout would object to the label of natural man. He’s an evangelical Christian.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, Mornons could say the same thing about your negative assessment of their burning bosoms.
RS: Maybe not exactly the same thing.
Zrim: How do you not see the problem here of saying your subjective experience is orthodox but the other guy’s is heterodox?
RS: But remember I don’t argue subjective experience in the same way you do.
Zrim: But your reasoning here seems to end up simply saying that those who claim Christ are the best ones to evaluate others who preach Christ.
RS: But that is (with some major caveats) what the Bible teaches.
I Cor 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
Zrim: Well, some who claim and preach Christ, like Billy Graham, think Finney was great. You don’t, so I’m guessing you’d take an unbeliever’s critical assesment of Finney if it aligns with yours. So why can you enlist someone to criticize Finney but when old lifer’s enlist one to poke holes in Whitefield you blow impious whistles?
RS: But Graham was not exactly an orthodox preacher and he also used the methods of Finney to some degree. Whitefield was orthodox and he did not use the same methods that Finney did. I have that book (Divine Dramatist) on my shelf and have tried to read it a few different times. A man can stand in front of people with tears and with flowing feelings and one will say that the man is acting, but what real evidence will that man be able to produce? One will say that no man can have such feelings for spiritual things and the souls of others, so surely the man is acting. It is that deduction that is made with no real evidence that I take issue with. On the other hand, Finney wrote a fair amount of material and he is clearly a Pelagian. The difference is huge.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, but if you interpreted Old Life by spiritual lens, then you’d be critical of Edwards. Everyone can play the spiritual card.
RS: Yes, but I am not playing with a card. If I interpreted Old Life by spiritual lens, I might be critical of Old LIfe.
I Cor 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
LikeLike
Jon,
If you are still following the comments, I found two articles that may be helpful. I will place them in two different comments because if I insert more than one link, it seems to throw my comment into moderation.
The first article is by Michael Horton on the White Horse Inn blog: The Law of Modern Man http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/02/29/the-law-of-the-modern-man One of the commenters explains it well:
The “elementary principles of the world” kind of legalism of which Mike speaks is why I left church after many years. Interestingly, the first church I attended used the term “grace” constantly. However, the “grace” I was taught was something that had to be earned by me by doing such things as, “accepting Jesus into my heart,” “being on fire for the Lord,” et al. After experiencing “the elementary principles of the world” legalism outside church as well (in a different form) I decided to attend church again, after many years, since my guilt was still too much to bear. This time, however, I attended a church that taught the good news of the gospel based on a covenant of grace merited by Christ which God makes with sinners. For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery (Gal. 5:1)
P.S. A steady diet listening to the White Horse Inn’s weekly radio program (available online) has been invaluable to many to begin to understand the differences in sermons.
LikeLike
The second article by Tullian Tchividjian: Reading the Stories and Missing the Story: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian There is a difference in focus. One is upon Christ and one is upon ourselves.
Snippet:
As I’ve said before, the overwhelming focus of the Bible is not the work of the redeemed but the work of the Redeemer. The Bible is not first a recipe book for Christian living, but a revelation book of Christ who is the answer to our unchristian living. Scripture, in other words, is the portrait of Jesus. It’s a picture of who he is and what he’s done. The Bible tells one story and points to one figure: it tells the story of how God rescues a broken world and points to Christ who accomplishes this. The OT predicts God’s rescuer; the NT presents God’s rescuer. In all of its pages and throughout all of its stories, the Word of the Lord reveals the Lord of the Word. The plot line of the Bible, in other words, is Jesus-centered. He is the Hero of the Story.
LikeLike
danborvan: Richard, I think Harry Stout would object to the label of natural man. He’s an evangelical Christian.
RS: Well, I think I could join ranks with OldLifers and argue that “evangelical” in the modern sense is perhaps antithetical to historical Christianity. In reading his book (The Divine Dramatist) I did not get the sense that he was sympathetic to spiritual things. However, he even quoted Sarah Edwards in the book as saying this about Whitefield: “It is wonderful to see what a spell he casts over and audience by proclaiming the simplest truths of the Bible…A prejudiced person, I know, would say that this is all theatrical artifice and display; but not so will anyone think who has seen and known him.”
1 Thessalonians 1:5 “for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.”
LikeLike
Richard, so I don’t have the mind of Christ and you do? Or is the mind of Edwards different from the mind of Christ?
LikeLike
Richard, you seem to be making a point about orthodoxy, as in Whitefield-the-Calvinist was but Finney-the-Pelagian wasn’t. But the point here is about faith and practice, which is to say that there is a necessary correlation between orthodoxy and orthopraxis. An old life assessment is critical that tears and flowing feelings correlate to Augustinian-Calvinist doctrine. And anyone who agrees, whether believer or not, is happily enlisted in that critique, including Mrs. Edwards had she taken a more skeptical and conservative interpretation of Whitefield’s antics.
Old life Calvinism thinks that passion is way over-rated and has down sides the new schoolers seldom consider and that simply pointing to Calvinist doctrine is no free ticket to behaving like a revivalist.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, so I don’t have the mind of Christ and you do? Or is the mind of Edwards different from the mind of Christ?
RS: Didn’t make the argument that you don’t in some cases. You are so sensitive. Maybe you operate on feelings more than you think.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, you seem to be making a point about orthodoxy, as in Whitefield-the-Calvinist was but Finney-the-Pelagian wasn’t.
RS: Whitefield was a Calvinist and Finney was Pelagian. Whitefield preached that a person must be born again by the act of God, Finney did not.
Zrim: But the point here is about faith and practice, which is to say that there is a necessary correlation between orthodoxy and orthopraxis. An old life assessment is critical that tears and flowing feelings correlate to Augustinian-Calvinist doctrine.
RS: John 11:35 “Jesus wept”. Hebrews 12:2 “fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” The least that we can say is that feelings are not opposite to Jesus Himself.
Zrim: And anyone who agrees, whether believer or not, is happily enlisted in that critique, including Mrs. Edwards had she taken a more skeptical and conservative interpretation of Whitefield’s antics.
RS: So Mrs. Edwards who was a strong Calvinist listened to Whitefield preach and conversed with him for a good amount of time needs to be more skeptical and conservative. In other words, she needs to be more like you so she can have your same beliefs.
Zrim: Old life Calvinism thinks that passion is way over-rated and has down sides the new schoolers seldom consider and that simply pointing to Calvinist doctrine is no free ticket to behaving like a revivalist.
RS: I say (along with Scripture) that passion is sinful. But how people to obey the command to rejoice with having joy? How are people to obey the command to love God with all of their heart without having some degree of joy or pleasure in Him? How are people to obey the command to delight themselves in the Lord without some delight? Again, there is a huge difference between revivalism and a true revival.
LikeLike
No, Richard, Mrs. E needs to share my views in order for me to enlist her to promote them. Speaking of huge differences, there’s one between saying someone has to be like me and saying someone has to agree with me before I say she’s right. As far as revival and revivalism, I think that is what’s known as a disticntion without much difference. And as far as affect goes, there is a huge difference between having emotions and managing them; those who manage them well are not devoid of them, despite what some of those who mismanage them choose to believe.
LikeLike
Richard, you didn’t make an argument at all, in fact. You quoted the Bible. So how I am I to take your quotes when it comes to spiritual discernment, the mind of Christ, and Old Life?
LikeLike
Sounds like old Ben Frankin got an applicatory sermon after all. He just didn’t like it. I mean, how do you get
“1. Keeping holy the Sabbath day. 2. Being diligent in reading the holy Scriptures. 3. Attending duly the publick worship. 4. Partaking of the Sacrament. 5. Paying a due respect to God’s ministers”
from Phil. 4:8 anyway,
unless you be reformed?
LikeLike
Zrim: No, Richard, Mrs. E needs to share my views in order for me to enlist her to promote them. Speaking of huge differences, there’s one between saying someone has to be like me and saying someone has to agree with me before I say she’s right. As far as revival and revivalism, I think that is what’s known as a disticntion without much difference.
RS: I can only say that there is a huge distinction between the two (revival and revivalism). I doubt I can convince you, so perhaps Augustine’s advice would be best. “Take up and read.”
Zrim: And as far as affect goes, there is a huge difference between having emotions and managing them; those who manage them well are not devoid of them, despite what some of those who mismanage them choose to believe.
RS: 1) “Emotions” is not the best choice of a word to use when speaking of Edwards’ Religious Affections and of those who believe that his writing on the subject is essentially biblical. 2) Managing “affections” is not the point of Edwards nor mine at all. 3) God does not mismanage true affections. In other words, true affections are spiritual and are given by the sovereign hand of God. Once the affections stop and humans are driven by passions, they are then sinful.
LikeLike
Please keep it up Richard Smith. I appreciate your quoting a contested view just ahead of your response. Have you read Frame’s The Escondido Theology? Dr. Hart, would you consider posting your photo on your Wikipedia entry? (Before someone else does).
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you didn’t make an argument at all, in fact. You quoted the Bible.
RS: The Bible, in context, is its own argument.
D.G. Hart: So how I am I to take your quotes when it comes to spiritual discernment, the mind of Christ, and Old Life?
RS: I suppose this could cover a lot of ground, depending on which comment you are responding to. The oldest life would mean that we would have to go back to Scripture which is what the WCF teaches. The next oldest ground would take us back to the Church Fathers. I just don’t think the life you claim is old enough. The Reformation, while old in a modern sense, is really quite young. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit still speaks in His Word (WCF). I suppose one question would be are we listening to God speak or just to the confessions which, while very valuable, are not living words and must be judged by the living words which Jesus said (John 6:63): “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”
LikeLike
2866oa: Please keep it up Richard Smith. I appreciate your quoting a contested view just ahead of your response. Have you read Frame’s The Escondido Theology?
RS: I have not read it, though I tried to purchase it once. I was told it was not available about a month ago. I should try again.
LikeLike
“And as far as affect goes, there is a huge difference between having emotions and managing them; those who manage them well are not devoid of them, despite what some of those who mismanage them choose to believe.”
Zrim, I find this well-pleasing in a well-managed sort of way.
On an unrelated matter, “2866oa” ?
LikeLike
2866oa
What is your solution for Richard Smith failing to meet the Religious Affections criteria from A to Z?
LikeLike
Richard, “managing affections” is another way of saying that all things should be done in a good and decent order. And while, as you say, that may not be the point of Edwards (or Whitefield, I presume), it is the point of ecclesiastical religion which takes its cue from 1 Cor. 14. So you help make the point that the two are at relative odds. And while perhaps good for manipulating people, tears and flowing feelings (your phrase…hey, why can you say “feelings” but I can’t say “emotions”?) are not good, decent and orderly ways of managing inward affections/emotions/feelings. I understand that frustrates most in the age of self-expression, but the point here is about self-control (as in a fruit of the Spirit).
LikeLike
MM, it is pleasing to please you. See, Richard, management.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, “managing affections” is another way of saying that all things should be done in a good and decent order. And while, as you say, that may not be the point of Edwards (or Whitefield, I presume), it is the point of ecclesiastical religion which takes its cue from 1 Cor. 14. So you help make the point that the two are at relative odds.
RS: Actually, that is not the case. Acts 2 and other conversion examples in Acts would not fall in line with ecclesiastical religion.
Zrim: And while perhaps good for manipulating people, tears and flowing feelings (your phrase…hey, why can you say “feelings” but I can’t say “emotions”?) are not good, decent and orderly ways of managing inward affections/emotions/feelings.
RS: My point is that true religious affections are the fruit of the Spirit and are not as such something so simple as human beings able to manage them. “Emotions” is a word that is so broad that it takes in both the affections and the passions. Thus, there is little communication that can take place when that word is used. You tend to think of religious affections as wild passions, while I think of them as under the control of the Spirit and follow the channel of understanding. This is also a very important distinction that gets at the difference between revival and revivalism. Those who hold to revivalism look to man’s methods to work on the “emotions” and so they get the passions flowing which do not follow the channel of right thinking. Those who seek revival (the life of God in power in the soul) seek God Himself to come and reign in the soul with power and joy.
Zrim: I understand that frustrates most in the age of self-expression, but the point here is about self-control (as in a fruit of the Spirit).
RS: To the degree that the self controls, the self has not been died to. The fruit and work of the Spirit is for self (as a center and focus of our pride and sin) to be died to and brought under the power of the Spirit. It is then self-control by the Spirit, or control of the self by the Spirit.
LikeLike
Zrim: MM, it is pleasing to please you. See, Richard, management.
RS: Ah, yes, you managed your words. Did you manage what pleased you or were you being polite? By the way, that is no attack, just trying to get at something. But I am glad to see you are pleased with things, which of course refers to the affections. The desire is that we would grow in our being pleased with God. Such is how the Spirit manages our affections.
LikeLike
Richard, you dodged it. You quoted Paul on having the mind of Christ and discerning the Spirit. You certainly weren’t quoting that in approval of my questions about Phebe, Jonny, and revivals. So why not come clean with your application from Scripture. Surely you’re not bashful about application.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you dodged it. You quoted Paul on having the mind of Christ and discerning the Spirit. You certainly weren’t quoting that in approval of my questions about Phebe, Jonny, and revivals. So why not come clean with your application from Scripture. Surely you’re not bashful about application.
RS: No dodge, but I am not always clear what you are talking about. I know, I know, that is what you say about those who believe in Religious Affections. But short and to the point is not always the way of clarity.
Old RS comment: Yes, but I am not playing with a card. If I interpreted Old Life by spiritual lens, I might be critical of Old LIfe.
I Cor 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
RS: The comment, to my way of understanding and flow of thought, was in the context of Stout’s book on Whitefield. Indeed when you came in and interjected (not complaining, just noting) you might have had a different train of thought, but my train was still on that track. A natural man or, for the sake of argument, a believing man operating in something less than a spiritual way, will interpret spiritual things in a natural way. Stout was making judgments of Whitefield’s preaching and motives by what he was saying. While it has been a few years, I have read a fair amount of Whitefield (biog, letters, journal) and the man that Stout was talking about was not the man that I have read about and read of. So, to get to the point of my application, I don’t think that Stout’s book was based on a spiritual appraisal but rather a natural one.
LikeLike
Richard, you were the one who used the term “feelings” first. I was following your lead. Then you ding me for using its synonym and proceed to claim that “emotion” is the broader category for affections and passions. But so far as I have always understood it, the traditional triad of intellect, will, and affection doesn’t further break down affection into more tortured meanings. Is there a similar way to further complicate the term “intellect”? I hope not. But the tick that makes you parse affect must be the same one that tells you there’s a principled difference between revival and revivalism. Like Calvin said of discerning the secret will of God, this is all a labyrinth out of there is no hope of return.
Why is it that when you read Stout and you don’t recognize the Whitefield of his assessment it must be that Stout isn’t being as spiritual as you? Why can’t it be that you simply disagree with his assessment? When you speak the way you do about which assessment is more spiritual than another, I hear the Tenants saying the critics of revival were unconverted.
LikeLike
But Richard, as Dan pointed out, Stout claimed to be an evangelical when he wrote that biography. You seem to disallow that someone with spiritual insight could criticize Whitefield. The same goes in spades for Edwards and you. But Edwards, Whitefield, and co. were controversial and folks with spiritual insights opposed at least aspects of what they did. Simply saying or implying that critics of revival are looking at it from a natural man’s perspective may be reassuring. But it hardly does justice to theological and biblical objections. On the other hand, your unwillingness to grant distance between biblical standards and revival comes close to elevating revival to divine status. In which case, your position is infallible. And that’s not a good thing. No human of ordinary generation should have that kind of authority.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, you were the one who used the term “feelings” first. I was following your lead.
RS: Using feelings in a general way is not the same concept as “emotion” is today.
Zrim: Then you ding me for using its synonym and proceed to claim that “emotion” is the broader category for affections and passions.
RS: I would not say that I dinged you, but I do think there needs to be some clarity on the issue. If anyone argues against the revival because people have excessive emotions, they are not longer arguing against true revival in most instances. They are arguing against people being led by their passions.
Zrim: But so far as I have always understood it, the traditional triad of intellect, will, and affection doesn’t further break down affection into more tortured meanings. Is there a similar way to further complicate the term “intellect”? I hope not. But the tick that makes you parse affect must be the same one that tells you there’s a principled difference between revival and revivalism. Like Calvin said of discerning the secret will of God, this is all a labyrinth out of there is no hope of return.
RS: It is not a tick at all, but is rather a very important and even vital point. An affection follows the truth, while the passion is a powerful feeling in the soul that drives the person to obey the feeling. Those are two very different things. Biblical revival is when God moves in the souls of His people and they are given a greater sight of Him and greater affections for Him. Revivalism is when people are driven by their passions.
Zrim: Why is it that when you read Stout and you don’t recognize the Whitefield of his assessment it must be that Stout isn’t being as spiritual as you?
RS: Perhaps it is not that he isn’t being spiritual at all, but he was just did show spiritual discernment at all in his assessment of Whitefield.
Zrim: Why can’t it be that you simply disagree with his assessment? When you speak the way you do about which assessment is more spiritual than another, I hear the Tenants saying the critics of revival were unconverted.
RS: Fine, judge it as you will, but the Scriptures are quite clear. The natural man cannot understand spiritual things. When a person says that Whitefield can basically be understood as an actor and his results came because he was an actor, that is explaining spiritual things with natural explanations. It is not quite the same, but an analogous as to when the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons with demonic power. They could not admit that what He was doing was of God.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: But Richard, as Dan pointed out, Stout claimed to be an evangelical when he wrote that biography.
RS: There is a difference between a claim and the reality. As far as what it means in our day to be willing to claim to be an evangelical, that is another story. I thought that you were also not convinced that to be an evangelical was to be a Christian.
D.G. Hart: You seem to disallow that someone with spiritual insight could criticize Whitefield.
RS: Not at all. One with spiritual insight could criticize Whitefield and there are places he could be rightly criticized. As I wrote earlier, though perhaps in a different thread, Edwards criticized Whitefield. But Stout did more than criticize Whitefield. He thought that the results of Whitefield could be explained by his theory that Whitefield could act and was an actor. That is more than a mere criticism.
D.G. Hart: The same goes in spades for Edwards and you.
RS: I have never said that anyone could not or even should not criticize Edwards or myself. Feel free and have at it. But the things that people are criticizing Edwards for is the issue.
D.G. Hart: But Edwards, Whitefield, and co. were controversial and folks with spiritual insights opposed at least aspects of what they did. Simply saying or implying that critics of revival are looking at it from a natural man’s perspective may be reassuring. But it hardly does justice to theological and biblical objections.
RS: It is hardly responsible or spiritual to try to explain the results that God used Whitefield to produce as acting ability. So far I have not really seen anyone offer any real theological or biblical objections.
D.G. Hart: On the other hand, your unwillingness to grant distance between biblical standards and revival comes close to elevating revival to divine status. In which case, your position is infallible. And that’s not a good thing. No human of ordinary generation should have that kind of authority.
RS: Revival does have Divine status in the sense that God sent revival in the Bible and has at His own pleasure done so in human history. The fact that there were many false revivals does not deny the true. I am not arguing that I have any kind of authority, but I am arguing that it is a huge mistake to go after Edwards, Whitefield, and revival on the grounds that have been presented here so far. It appears to me that some people here have assumed almost a divine status and argued that revival is not good and has no place in Christianity. It does seem to me that you are arguing that God does not do what God does in fact do and that you are arguing that what the Spirit of God does in the souls of His people is nothing but sinful human passions.
LikeLike
Richard, whatever I am doing, what you are doing is refusing to look at the human and natural phenomena that accompany religious activities — hence your neat and arbitrary distinction between revival and revivalism, Edwards and Finney, as if Edwards or Whitefield did not use (whether self-consciously or not) their own creativity to figure out how to bring revival. The terrors of the law would be one example of a human effort (that’s not to say the law should not be preached, only to indicate that you may not want to scare the hell out of believers). It was manipulative to threaten saints that way. No one preaches that way in Reformed churches today, not even Edwardseans. Open air preaching without invitations from local clergy was another instance of human effort and failing to follow the ordained means of preaching and church life. I also contend that Edwards’ use of Phebe was also highly manipulative, and for that matter unwise because it showed how much enthusiasm was part of the revivals.
So the theme that unites Finney and Edwards is using human ingenuity to try to further God’s cause, rather than trusting the means (which involve natural and human matters like words, bread, water, wine, seats, walls) God has established to establish his kingdom. Edwards would have clearly disagreed with Finney’s crude definition of revival. But Edwards (and you?) could not see that he may have also been using human and natural means (not ordained) to gin up revival. And it is the naivete combined with Edwards’ brilliance that continues to confound me, as well as why those who revere and study Edwards don’t seem to notice the disparity between Edwards’ genius and his lack of discernment.
LikeLike