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 
D. G. Hart: Richard, whatever I am doing, what you are doing is refusing to look at the human and natural phenomena that accompany religious activities —
RS: No, I don’t think I am. It seems that your side wants to limit the Spirit of God (in conception) in His activity and deny that certain things are biblical. This is why you will not allow a distinction between revival and revivalism. A revival is when God brings spiritual life to His people in greater power and that spills out to an awakening in the surrounding community. But revivalism is when men try to usurp the work of the Spirit and do it themselves. When the Spirit of God is working and spiritual things occur, that is not human and natural phenomena.
D.G. Hart: hence your neat and arbitrary distinction between revival and revivalism,
RS: It may be rather neat, but it is not arbitrary. The word “revive” is a biblical word and is used in line with biblical practices in using the means of grace in seeking God. Revivalism refers to human activity that uses human means to seek results. Yes, I more or less repeated myself. But this is not arbitrary.
D.G. Hart: 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).
RS: Hell cannot be scared out of anyone, but instead should be used to show people what will happen if God does not change their hearts. After all, Jesus did teach that people should seek to enter at the narrow gate. Jesus also preached hell and surely that means there are good purposes to preaching hell.
D.G. Hart: It was manipulative to threaten saints that way.
RS: Edwards and Whitefield were not manipulating saints when they preached hell, but rather preaching the Word of God to awaken the damned to their lost condition.
D.G, Hart: No one preaches that way in Reformed churches today, not even Edwardseans.
RS: Well, maybe we need to repent. Since Edwards and Whitefield preached the Bible, maybe that means we are not preaching the Bible as if it really is true. Maybe we don’t really believe that the wrath of God is truly upon the lost.
D.G. Hart: 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.
RS: Did Jesus and Paul preach in the open air? Did Peter preach in the open air? Did they wait around for invitations from the local clergy? This is what the apostles did as well. Jesus sent them out two by two to go and preach, but I don’t recall the texts that deal with that saying that after receiving invitations He sent them out. The clergy were so rotten and are so rotten in places that they would not want the Gospel preached as they are opposed to it. They would never invite anyone who preaches the Gospel to their areas, but God still commands the Gospel to be preached. It is a lot like the early days of the apostles. Were they going to follow the practices and orders of the religious elite or were they going to obey God?
Acts 5:27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
D.G. Hart: 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.
RS: Well, we should be enthusiastic about revivals. The little girl (Phebe) was converted while she was being instructed and directed by her parents. Edwards reported on it. I am still not sure what they did that was so wrong. The Spirit brought a deep conviction on her and she sought the Lord. He brought life into her soul and her heart was changed. Edwards reported this. When God convicts sinners of sin and shows them that they deserve hell and nothing they can do can deliver them from it, they may have some strong feelings that do not fit with a nice calm Sunday afternoon. When God delivers sinners from the chains of darkness and the bondage of sin and translates them into the kingdom of His Beloved Son and gives them new hearts, the sight of His glory in this may indeed raise their heartbeat above normal. Amen!!
D.G. Hart: 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.
RS: Preaching the Word of God is not necessarily using human ingenuity. Romans 14:17 “for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” I simply fail to see how Edwards can be accused of using human ingenuity to produce a revival. Edwards preached the sovereignty of God and told the people that God must convert them. Finney used psychological (so to speak) pressure on people to get them to make a decision.
D.G. Hart: 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.
RS: But so far you have not shown that Edwards used human and natural means that were not ordained to gin up revival. So far it just appears that you don’t like it when people are not calm when God converts them.
D.G. Hart: 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.
RS: What lack of discernment? That he either didn’t know of what was going on with Phebe or perhaps he didn’t stop what was going on if he did? When people’s hearts are pierced with the Word of God as the Spirit can do, they want God. Acts 2 shows us this along with other passages in the Gospels and Acts. Jesus was a peripatetic preacher in that He walked around with His group of disciples and He preached in many places and He preached on hell. Not one time did He offer the sacraments to people or tell them to go to church and take the sacraments week after week. Not one time do we have Paul doing that either. They preached to the hearts of people and told them that God must save them. Jesus used many analogies that were directed to awaken people to their sinfulness and lost condition. It seems to me that your arguments against Edwards and Whitefield point in a direction that you may not want them pointed.
LikeLike
Richard, nobody is disagreeing that the natural man cannot understand spiritual things. But do you see that when you draw a straight line from critics of revival to the Pharisees and say they don’t understand the things of God you pretty much shut down the conversation (even if it keeps repeating itself)? So the irony is when you claim that confessionalist criticism of revival is to “have assumed almost a divine status” when no confessionalist critic has suggested a lack of spirituality but the revivalist keeps saying to be skeptical of revival is to resist the work of God.
LikeLike
Richard, are you forgetting that Jesus and the apostles preached in the synagogues? How does one do that without an invitation or at least approval? But in order to explain their non-synagogue preaching, weren’t they in a sort of unique position, going from the old covenant to the new, as in from synagogue to church? In other words, not all synagogues were approving and there weren’t established churches as we understand that now. And the point of any preaching was to establish local churches—it was not an end in itself. But in making the case for churchless revival by pointing to the unique situation of the early church, your continuationist slip is showing.
LikeLike
Richard, Jesus and Paul did not conduct open-air services. They taught people. And they were doing so where churches did not exist. Not so with Whitefield.
I’d hate to be married to you, btw. You seem incapable of noticing that when you think you’re right you also end up taking all of the covers. You won’t recognize that since we live in a fallen world, telling the truth (which the Bible commands) may need to be done in a way that doesn’t communicate that your wife looks fat. And again, this is a major question concerning the discernment of the likes of JE and GW. They thought God was behind them and so that gave them license to be “biblical.” They did not consider, even when church leaders criticized, that they may have been wrong to employ the methods they did. At least Finney admitted up front what he was doing. JE and GW thought that they were solely instruments of God. You seem to lack a similar discernment gene.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, nobody is disagreeing that the natural man cannot understand spiritual things. But do you see that when you draw a straight line from critics of revival to the Pharisees and say they don’t understand the things of God you pretty much shut down the conversation (even if it keeps repeating itself)?
RS: I see your point, and to some degree feel the weight of it, but the issue with Stout is that he simply assigned the power of Whitefield to the power of acting. That is precisely what a natural man has to do to explain what happened with the powerful preaching of Whitefiedl. I am not arguing that all who deny the truth of revival are doing what Stout did. I would say that some have seen the effects of revivalism and it blinds them to the biblical practices of revival. Revivalism is unbiblical and is a product of Pelagian thinking, but that is nothing against God’s sovereign work when He works in and through the preaching of His Word.
Zrim: So the irony is when you claim that confessionalist criticism of revival is to “have assumed almost a divine status” when no confessionalist critic has suggested a lack of spirituality but the revivalist keeps saying to be skeptical of revival is to resist the work of God.
RS: Whether or not any confessionalist critic has suggested a lack of spirituality or not in those who seek revival, it is certainly assumed. Notice the way people have spoken of Edwards and Whitefield. My point in the “divine status” comment is that it seems that confessionalists criticize revival (true) it is as if God cannot work in that way, but rather He is committed to working in the one way of the ordinary and never changing way of Word and Sacrament in the local church on Sunday morning. While there is a sense that God will always work through those means, He has demonstrated in Scripture and in history that He works through those on days other than Sundays and in places that are not the local church buildings.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, are you forgetting that Jesus and the apostles preached in the synagogues? How does one do that without an invitation or at least approval?
RS: Yes, but those were not the only places they preached. It is also the case that a synagogue was not a church and it appears from my reading of the historical background that people were more free to stand and offer a reading and/or teaching.
Zrim: But in order to explain their non-synagogue preaching, weren’t they in a sort of unique position, going from the old covenant to the new, as in from synagogue to church? In other words, not all synagogues were approving and there weren’t established churches as we understand that now. And the point of any preaching was to establish local churches—it was not an end in itself. But in making the case for churchless revival by pointing to the unique situation of the early church, your continuationist slip is showing.
RS: Ouch, now I am wearing a slip. I do believe that God continues to work in the world, so I am guilty of that, but that is not the same thing as holding to miracles and the like. I would not argue for a churchless revival, but am making a point that not all that is to be done is to be done within the walls of a church building. The Great Commission does not say invite all the people to the building, but it is that we are to go to them in some way. If I understand the situation with Whitefield at all, he would preach in churches when he was given the opportunity. However, he was not always given the opportunity so he would preach where he could. It is also true that the church buildings were not large enough to hold the crowds that were drawn to hear him preach.
Anyway, despite the fact that I may have a slip showing, I certainly believe that I don’t have to be a non-cessationist to believe that God still does mighty things in the world today. Jesus Christ has been resurrected and so He is a living Christ and all His enemies will be crushed. The preaching of the Word of God can still be preached with power and the Spirit and full conviction (I Thess 1:5) because the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all time. Not only do I need to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ each moment to cover my sin and my slip, but all people must have that if they are to be saved. God is still on the throne and He is very active in the world to do as He pleases.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, Jesus and Paul did not conduct open-air services. They taught people. And they were doing so where churches did not exist. Not so with Whitefield.
RS: True, Whitefield preached a lot in churches that did exist. I am amazed that you would make the claim that Jesus and Paul did not preach in the open-air, but maybe you mean something else.
D.G. Heart: I’d hate to be married to you, btw.
RS: Wow, what a morning. One, Zrim tells me my slip is showing. Two, you inform me that you would hate to be married to me. I am crushed beyond belief.
D.G. Hart: You seem incapable of noticing that when you think you’re right you also end up taking all of the covers. You won’t recognize that since we live in a fallen world, telling the truth (which the Bible commands) may need to be done in a way that doesn’t communicate that your wife looks fat.
RS: You are correct, I don’t think I need all the covers. My female wife would beat me if I did that. I don’t need all the covers, but enough to try to show you that you don’t have all the covers either. Easy on my wife. She is one of those thinner people that runs a fair amount. I am, once again, a bit shocked that you would accuse me of this. I thought the OldLife folks were the ones that thought they had all the covers and would not share.
D.G. Hart: And again, this is a major question concerning the discernment of the likes of JE and GW. They thought God was behind them and so that gave them license to be “biblical.” They did not consider, even when church leaders criticized, that they may have been wrong to employ the methods they did.
RS: It is hard for anyone but natural men and those with OldLife blinders on (please, notice that there can be a big distinction between the two things in the phrase just before this) to not know that God was truly working in and through Edwards and Whitefield. Have you ever considered that the church leaders may have been like the leaders of the Pharisees? I see that in the world we live in today. God can give one man power in preaching and others are jealous and will try to tear that man down. Were they to listen to men or could God have truly led them through His Word and put a true conviction in their souls?
D.G. Hart: At least Finney admitted up front what he was doing. JE and GW thought that they were solely instruments of God. You seem to lack a similar discernment gene.
RS: Ah, so not only is my slip showing, you don’t want to be married to me, but now I wear the wrong kind of genes. Sigh, what a horrible day. But once again, you have slipped into explaining spiritual things like a natural man. I have also heard that scientists have proven that diarrhea is also a genetic problem……………… It runs in your jeans. I am not sure that Edwards and Whitefield thought that they were solely instruments of God, nor am I sure what you mean by that phrase. However, churches were filled when they preached, membership went up in churches in the areas, the morals of the town they were in were changed, and a lot more people began to partake of the sacraments. Even from your view, I am not sure why you think those are such bad things and how you could deny that God used their preaching to bring many of His elect to Himself.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, Jesus and Paul did not conduct open-air services. They taught people. And they were doing so where churches did not exist. Not so with Whitefield.
RS: Below are a few examples of Jesus, Peter, and then Paul. They preached to people in the synagogues which were full of unbelievers and among the crowds in many places.
1. Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5:1 He went up on the mountain)
2. Mt 11:7
3. Mt 12:46
4. Mt 13:2-3ff
5, etc
6. Acts 2:
7. Acts 3:11-4:2
8. Acts 4:5-13
9. Acts 5:27-29 (filled Jerusalem with this teaching)
10. Acts 5:42
11. etc
12. Acts 13:44-49
13. Acts 14:2-7, 9, 12-15
14. Acts 16:13-15
15. Acts 16:25-34
16. Acts 17:19ff
LikeLike
Richard, thanks for all the cites. But I believe preaching should be in the context of a religious service and I don’t see what Jesus and Paul were doing in the open air as conducting worship, complete from invocation to benediction.
Sorry to bring your wife into this, but I grew up with your blinders on. Revivalists rocked in my world. But when I began to mature as a Christian and looked at matters with a bid more candor, revivalists now neither rock nor roll.
I understand that you feel like the minority here, the one who has to keep reaching for more blankets. But in the larger non-Old Life world, you have all the blankets and even the remote (and never give it up).
LikeLike
Richard,
Sorry to intrude on the conversation, I don’t mean to just pile on here. However, you have raised an issue that I’d like you to clarify for me. Do you not have a problem with Whitefield (or anyone else for that matter) taking upon themselves to preach and teach to members of another minister’s flock without their permission? Those ministers had been duly called and appointed by the church and also ordained by God for the oversight and care of those people’s souls. But where is the calling of the itinerant preacher? What reason has anyone to believe that God has ordained them for any purpose (other than the general application of Rom 8:28) of being a means of His grace when the church, the one body that He promised to be with to the end of the age, to bless and to lead in truth and life exists and functions there already? Does the calling and setting apart of ministers by congregations/denominations and God’s entrusting of His people to those so appointed have no authority?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, thanks for all the cites. But I believe preaching should be in the context of a religious service and I don’t see what Jesus and Paul were doing in the open air as conducting worship, complete from invocation to benediction.
RS: Okay, I understand that and, I think, I understood that previously. However, in light of all the citations (and more could be brought in) why do you think that preaching should always be in the context of a religious service? Why do we think that worship must always include an invocation and a benediction?
D.G. Hart: Sorry to bring your wife into this, but I grew up with your blinders on. Revivalists rocked in my world. But when I began to mature as a Christian and looked at matters with a bid more candor, revivalists now neither rock nor roll.
RS: Well, at least we can agree on rock and roll noise and the need for true reverence. Stephen was a man who spoke the Word of God in a non-church setting, and one could call him an evangelist as well, but he was an evangelists that got rocked. But again, he was out preaching and spreading the Word of God outside the bounds of a building called the “church”. It is not comfortable out there and the crowds don’t always like those things, but it was done in the Bible. I have read that those awful men (in your eyes) like Howell Harris would go to fairs and the like and preach. While preaching people would have the old crank fire engines and they would shoot pigs blood on them. Taking the Word of God to people is more uncomfortable than remaining in the four walls and certainly more respectable in certain eyes. But as to being biblical, that is a different story.
D.G. Hart: I understand that you feel like the minority here, the one who has to keep reaching for more blankets. But in the larger non-Old Life world, you have all the blankets and even the remote (and never give it up).
RS: It is okay to be in the minority, but I do wish the Bible played a bigger part in the discussions. It is, after all, what the WCF said is to settle all disputes. So far I have not seen in the Bible an order set out authorizing in statement or in practice all of these things like OldLife says needs to be done.
LikeLike
Richard, now you’re pointing at big numbers and pumped up morality and religiosity to prop up revivalosity (is that better than revivalism?). I don’t see how this really differs from megachurch evangelicalism reasoning, which itself mirrors something deep within the American culture it ironically (hypocritically?) seeks to chastize: bigger annd better always means gooder and bestest and most realist. So what that more people were taking the sacaments in the wake of revivalpalooza? The biblical standard isn’t results oriented, it’s obedience oriented. So I’ll take five or six people who aren’t pillars of their community communing weekly at the small and local P&R and happily affirming the 3FU/WCF as evidence of God’s profound work in the world over swelling numbers of cultural change agents lukewarm about the confessions.
LikeLike
Drew Pressoir: Richard, Sorry to intrude on the conversation, I don’t mean to just pile on here.
RS: No need to think you have intruded. After all, the organ is not playing yet.
DP: However, you have raised an issue that I’d like you to clarify for me. Do you not have a problem with Whitefield (or anyone else for that matter) taking upon themselves to preach and teach to members of another minister’s flock without their permission?
RS: Does the Bible forbid that? In the time of Whitefield there were many, many of the ministers who were unconverted and living in open sin. If God was to be obeyed and those people were to hear the true Gospel, something had to be done.
DP: Those ministers had been duly called and appointed by the church and also ordained by God for the oversight and care of those people’s souls.
RS: Being duly called and appointed by a church or a denomination as such does not necessarily mean that the man is converted or that the person is truly ordained by God. But again, where do we see in the Bible that each and every minister has to be “duly called and appointed” in the way that this was done in 18th century England or in our day?
DP: But where is the calling of the itinerant preacher?
RS: The Bible specifically says that some are called to be evangelist. We see in the book of Acts that men were going places and preaching.
DP: What reason has anyone to believe that God has ordained them for any purpose (other than the general application of Rom 8:28) of being a means of His grace when the church, the one body that He promised to be with to the end of the age, to bless and to lead in truth and life exists and functions there already?
RS: When Christianity was as dead in England as it was then, it is not surprising that God would raise a trumpet to proclaim the Gospel. In that proclamation of the Gospel life came into the churches. The spiritual death that reigned there meant that good men would not be ordained but instead it was on a buddy system. In the US today, in certain denominations with good order, a man who believes the Gospel could not be ordained.
DP: Does the calling and setting apart of ministers by congregations/denominations and God’s entrusting of His people to those so appointed have no authority?
RS: Jesus said that all authority had been given to Him. When the Church is strong and functioning as it should, yes those men have the authority given to them by God. But when they are not upholding the Gospel, they are not a true church. It is not surprising, then, that God would call a true man of God to go out and preach to His sheep and warn all of the wrath to come.
LikeLike
Richard, one reason the Bible doesn’t play a bigger role is that you and I interpret it differently. So another approach is to look at the history of the church and there you find no one ever using the word revival until recently (I’m not even sure that Edwards did). If word use doesn’t suggest something to you, I’m not sure what would.
BTW, why wouldn’t you invoke God’s presence and blessing at the beginning of worship or close the service with God’s blessing? Talk about being biblical.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, now you’re pointing at big numbers and pumped up morality and religiosity to prop up revivalosity (is that better than revivalism?).
RS: I am not trying to prop up revival, but simply trying to point out that it happens to be a much closer picture of the Bible than confessionalism. Acts 2 did give numbers as well. At other times in the books of Acts we see people burning idols. Giving of numbers is not the problem, it has to do with the focus and intent. My point was that instead of revivial being against the local churches, it actually built them up.
Zrim: I don’t see how this really differs from megachurch evangelicalism reasoning, which itself mirrors something deep within the American culture it ironically (hypocritically?) seeks to chastize: bigger annd better always means gooder and bestest and most realist.
RS: Uhm, so the Holy Spirit used megachurch reasoning in the book of Acts? It tells us that 3,000 souls were added in one day. Again, it is the point and focus of the issue.
Zrim: So what that more people were taking the sacaments in the wake of revivalpalooza?
RS: I thought that was a great things for the guys on your side of the block. You folks have been saying you were opposed to revival because it was not for the local church and its preaching and sacraments. I pointed to the fact that the churches were filled and people were taking the sacraments as a result of the revival. In other words, true revival is not opposed to true churches, but instead BY DEFINTION true revival builds up true churches.
Zrim: The biblical standard isn’t results oriented, it’s obedience oriented. So I’ll take five or six people who aren’t pillars of their community communing weekly at the small and local P&R and happily affirming the 3FU/WCF as evidence of God’s profound work in the world over swelling numbers of cultural change agents lukewarm about the confessions.
RS: So while you assert that the biblical standard is not results oriented, you then point to some results. It is a great sign, according to you, that numbers (small number) meet and commune weekly while happily (watch those feelings) affirming the 3FU/WCF as evidence of God’s profound work. Allow me to point to just a few problems with that.
1. You are happy with small numbers, but knock large numbers. Why not just be content with the number that God sends whether large or small? Neither (large or small) is necessarily a sign of the workings of God.
2. Why does it matter if people are or are not the pillars of the community? I thought that we were to pray for all sorts and groups of people.
3. Does the Bible set out that people are to commune weekly? Is that a biblical standard of holiness or church practice?
4 How can it be that affirming the confessions ( 3FU/WCF) is so wonderful when we are to confess Christ?
5. Wouldn’t it be better to study the Scriptures (which we are commanded to do) rather than the confessions (which we are not commanded to do)?
Does this mean that you are guilty of confessionalolatry?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, one reason the Bible doesn’t play a bigger role is that you and I interpret it differently.
RS: So we are to put it on the shelf and not use it?
D,G. Hart: So another approach is to look at the history of the church and there you find no one ever using the word revival until recently (I’m not even sure that Edwards did). If word use doesn’t suggest something to you, I’m not sure what would.
RS: But the Bible uses the word “revive” which is what “revival” is based on. Off hand, the work I can think of is when he wrote to some ministers in Scotland in an attempt to get them to pray for the “revival of religion” at more or less the same time others were praying.
D.G. Hart: BTW, why wouldn’t you invoke God’s presence and blessing at the beginning of worship or close the service with God’s blessing? Talk about being biblical.
RS: When people speak of invocations and benedictions, I think of written prayers at stated times. One, it is certainly not wrong to pray at the beginning and the end of each service. Two, on the other hand, is it really written out in Scripture that this is a necessity? Shouldn’t the whole service, in one sense, be a prayer meeting? Should we not pray for the preaching during the sermon and lift up our hearts to God during the singing (hopefully worship)?
LikeLike
Richard, like a good practical divinity fellow, you don’t know that a benediction is the word of God, not a prayer?
And you evade the point from church history. You see revive and experience everywhere through your affection illuminated glasses. You reason like a Landmark Baptist.
So how about church history? You don’t find it before the 18th century. Doesn’t mean you are wrong (though I think you are). But it does mean that revival is not historic.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, like a good practical divinity fellow, you don’t know that a benediction is the word of God, not a prayer?
RS: Yes, I am aware that OldLife types would read a short passage of Scripture as a form of prayer. But is this commanded in Scripture? By the way, I am not arguing with the practice as such.
D.G. Hart: And you evade the point from church history. You see revive and experience everywhere through your affection illuminated glasses. You reason like a Landmark Baptist.
RS: But Landmark Baptists can reason very well when they are arguing for the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, so I will take that as a compliment. I wasn’t aware that I was evading your point, I am simply not convinced it is a good point since the fact that a word has not been used in history is not an argument that has a lot of weight. The concept is what is important. However, I think that I did show that Jonathan Edwards used the term. Since he did not explain it, I would imagine that it was known to the Scottish ministers as well.
D.G. Hart: So how about church history? You don’t find it before the 18th century. Doesn’t mean you are wrong (though I think you are). But it does mean that revival is not historic.
RS: The word “revive”, “reviving”, and “revived” are used in the Bible and I would hope that you think it is true history (I know you do). The reviving of the people of God is surely not such a bad thing.
Below is one paragraph of a shortened version of James Buchanan’s chapter on revival written in 1843 (original chapter).
“It being admitted that the real and active agency of the Spirit of God for the conversion of souls may reasonably be expected in the Christian church, the only question which remains to be considered is whether that divine agent will always act in one uniform method, quietly and gradually extending the kingdom of Christ by the successive conversion of individual sinners, as he is wont for the most part to do: or whether he may not, for wise reasons, and in the exercise of that sovereignty that belongs to him, act occasionally in a more extraordinary and remarkable way, turning multitudes at once, and perhaps suddenly, from darkness to light, and bringing about a general Revival of the power of religion in particular places and congregations? In other words, may we reasonably expect that the Spirit of God will occasionally produce a remarkable religious Revival?”
LikeLike
Richard, think about word usage. You may actually doubt revival is as certain as you believe.
As for Buchanan, I have no problem affirming that God is sovereign and may accomplish his purposes any way he pleases. That in no way proves that what you say is a revival is a revival. And when we look at the effects of those movements you laud, we see activities and beliefs that suggest the Spirit is not at work. What is more, where revival has thrived, it has called into question the ordinary and gradual ways in which the Spirit works such that revivalists like Edwards and Tennent required a conversion narrative to show authentic faith. They require the extraordinary and distrusted the ordinary. If they were like Buchanan, they may not have split the church. But like you, they insisted that either the revival was a work of God, or its critics were carnal.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, think about word usage. You may actually doubt revival is as certain as you believe.
As for Buchanan, I have no problem affirming that God is sovereign and may accomplish his purposes any way he pleases. That in no way proves that what you say is a revival is a revival. And when we look at the effects of those movements you laud, we see activities and beliefs that suggest the Spirit is not at work.
RS: I hope you see that just because there are activities and beliefs that are around certain movements and perhaps have attached themselves to these movements (though not part of the movements in reality), that the whole movement should not be declared bad because of that. If so, no movement in the history of humanity would be declared bad.
D.G. Hart: What is more, where revival has thrived, it has called into question the ordinary and gradual ways in which the Spirit works such that revivalists like Edwards and Tennent required a conversion narrative to show authentic faith.
RS: Where (in his writings) did Edwards require a conversion narrative to show authentic faith?
D. G. Hart: They require the extraordinary and distrusted the ordinary.
RS: Are you sure of that? While seeking revival is one thing, and certainly Edwards sought that, he certainly focused on the ordinary means of grace Sunday after Sunday.
D.G. Hart: If they were like Buchanan, they may not have split the church.
RS: Edwards split the church? Whitefield split the church?
D.G. Hart: But like you, they insisted that either the revival was a work of God, or its critics were carnal.
RS: I have argued that one critic of Whitefield was interpreting him as a natural man, but I don’t recall making the argument that all critics of revival were or are carnal. Misguided, yes, but not necessarily carnal.
LikeLike
A little more of Buchanan on Revival:
“That we may proceed to the calm and impartial consideration of this question, it may be useful, first of all, to obviate and remove some prejudices which might either prevent us from entertaining it at all, or unfit us for deciding it aright.
“It is of great importance to form a clear and definite idea of what is meant by a ‘Revival’ of religion. It properly consists in these two things:–a general impartation of new live, and vigor, and power, to those who are already of the number of God’s people; and a remarkable awakening and conversion of souls who have hitherto been careless and unbelieving: in other words, it consists in new spiritual life imparted to the dead, and in new spiritual health imparted to the living.
” A Revival properly consists in one or both of these two things—a revived state of religion among the members of the church, and the increase of their number by the addition of souls converted to God. Can it be doubted by any professing Christian, either such a Revival is possible, or that it is desirable? Why, what is the end of the gospel ministry? What great design of our Sabbaths and our sanctuaries? What the purport of all gospel promises in reference to the kingdom of grace? Is it not, that such souls as have heretofore been ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ may be quickened into spiritual life and that such souls as have already been quickened into life may grow in spiritual health and vigor, and be revived and restored when they have fallen into declension and decay? Do we not all pray for these things? And is it not our privilege to expect, that for these things our prayers will be heard and answered?”
LikeLike
Richard, my point wasn’t to be discontent with the numbers God sends, whatever they may be. It was to not be razzle-dazzled by bigness and shininess. Like adults try to impress upon children who are naturally oriented otherwise, not all that shimmers is gold. And, yes, it is to privilege the ordinary before the extraordinary and the understated before the enthusiastic. That’s what a theology of the cross, as opposed to that of glory, is all about.
And there you go again, dissing a happy affirmation of the confessions for the sake of no creed but Christ. But enter our Mormon friends and all of a sudden you’ll go creedal all up in here. I still don’t understand why you can go creedal in the presence of Arians but when confessionalists do it every week to set ourselves apart from all manner of worldiness it’s confessionalolatry.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, my point wasn’t to be discontent with the numbers God sends, whatever they may be. It was to not be razzle-dazzled by bigness and shininess.
RS: I was not totally unaware of your point, but there are others who are proud of their excusivity and therefore their smallness. The numbers game is not limited to those who desire big numbers. But anyway, the Bible does give numbers at times, though certainly the glory is not to men. But again, the point about Edwards and Whitefield is that their ministries did not lead people away from the church, but instead was within (Edwards) and then to (Whitefield).
Zrim: Like adults try to impress upon children who are naturally oriented otherwise, not all that shimmers is gold. And, yes, it is to privilege the ordinary before the extraordinary and the understated before the enthusiastic. That’s what a theology of the cross, as opposed to that of glory, is all about.
RS: I guess I would prefer that people be content with the ordinary when God sovereignly works through that, but if He does send the extraordinary then know that it is of Him. The theology of the cross teaches us that Christ has purchased His elect, He has purchased the Spirit for the elect, and that they will be saved in His time and in accordance with His pleasure. As far as I am concerned, anyway, we should always seek the face of God and rest in Him regardless of what He does. I guess I don’t see that looking to true revival denigrates the Sunday by Sunday worship of the church.
Zrim: And there you go again, dissing a happy affirmation of the confessions for the sake of no creed but Christ.
RS: Not exactly, but I did leave myself open to that criticism. It was interesting that people have to have a happy affirmation rather than just an ordinary affirmation. My real point, I think, is that affirming a confession is one thing, but there has to be more. Even the Bible is a dead letter apart from the Holy Spirit opening the spiritual eyes to it. Jesus said that there were those that searched the Scriptures looking for eternal life and yet did not come to Him. The Scriptures are to lead us to Christ and His words are spiritual and are life. At least that is what He said in John 6.
Zrim: But enter our Mormon friends and all of a sudden you’ll go creedal all up in here. I still don’t understand why you can go creedal in the presence of Arians but when confessionalists do it every week to set ourselves apart from all manner of worldiness it’s confessionalolatry.
RS: Is going creedal like going postal? Perhaps confessionalolatry is a bit strong for most folks. I was actually going for confessionalosity (contrasting with your revivalosity toward me) and the other came out. I considered that to be inspired at the moment and so left it (you did say my slip of non-cessationism was showing, so I thought I would hike my skirt a little more for fun). I guess I would say that a confession should help us stay true to Scripture which is to guide us to Christ. A mere affirmation, and even a happy affirmation, seems to fall short of that. But a happy affirmation sure sounds like joy to me.
LikeLike
Richard, Presbyterians split during the 1740s over revivalism. You know that, right?
I don’t think that revivalism is bad because of what happened later. My point is that the piety revivalism or revival encourages is at odds with important teachings in Scripture, like living quiet and peaceable lives, like being content, like looking to Christ rather than self, like covenant children don’t necessarily need to convert to make a true profession. I get it that revivalists affirm some important parts of Scripture. So do Roman Catholics. The problem is that revivalists emphasize some at the expense of others and don’t keep all the balls in the air. You seem to think that because of the good, the bad can be overlooked (as if there is any bad in Edwards for you).
Edwards did require a conversion narrative for church membership, right? Didn’t all the Puritans? Where does the Bible require that? Being born again is not conversion. In fact, thanks to revivals conversion now means what it did not mean in the sixteenth century when for Calvin and Ursinus conversion was a life-long process, meaning, sanctification.
You now back away from your complaint about the natural man on revivals and seem to limit it to Stout (even though Stout is not a natural man). But the important thing to notice is that a revivalist’s natural tick is to look at critics as natural men. Why else would you quote all that Scripture at me?
LikeLike
Richard, and now I object to Buchanan. I don’t see how one sermon or harrangue can cover both believers who may need more repentance and faith and unbelievers. The terrors of the law don’t work. It’s like having VBS materials for covenant children and unbelievers from the neighborhood.
Plus, the Christian life is one long revival, by B’s standards. I don’t want believers to have great outbursts of piety. I had them. They didn’t last past going back to school in the fall after the embers of the Christian youth camp fire cooled. I want slow and steady growth, life long faith and repentance. And I don’t see how the outburst model has been at all good for the church.
Btw, do you have a citation for the B quotes?
LikeLike
Richard, you say that if the extraordinary happens, we should know it is from God. But what are the criteria for knowing it is from God? Here you list gets awfully selective and historically naive. What you consider to be a great effect — Phebe’s angst — is actually very questionable on so many levels. Plus, the revival fires cooled in Edwards’ own town. So how genuine could the revival have been even on your own grounds. Think perseverance of the saints, man!
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, Presbyterians split during the 1740s over revivalism. You know that, right?
RS: Ah, but that is not the same thing as the church splitting. As you know, there was more to that issue as well. Harvard was too liberal for some and so there were divisions over new schools. I am not sure that was the only issue, but it was one.
D.G. Hart: I don’t think that revivalism is bad because of what happened later. My point is that the piety revivalism or revival encourages is at odds with important teachings in Scripture, [1] like living quiet and peaceable lives, [2] like being content, [3] like looking to Christ rather than self, [4] like covenant children don’t necessarily need to convert to make a true profession.
RS: 1. Jesus and Paul did not live quiet and peacable lives. A true revival is not necessarily opposite of living quiet and peacable lives as such. 2. I am not sure how true revival leads people to be discontent. 3. True revival would certainly lead people away from self to Christ. 4. Sorry, I don’t see the covenant child concept in the New Testament. Jesus was also very clear with one covenant child (Nicodemus) that he needed to be born from above. John was also clear that one must be born of the will of God rather than according to natural descent of the will of any human flesh or man.
D.G. Hart: I get it that revivalists affirm some important parts of Scripture. So do Roman Catholics. The problem is that revivalists emphasize some at the expense of others and don’t keep all the balls in the air. You seem to think that because of the good, the bad can be overlooked (as if there is any bad in Edwards for you).
RS: I suppose I am waiting for some truly bad stuff on those who advocate true revival. I understand that when God moves things are not quite as staid as you want them, but from my reading of the Bible people are very uncomfortable when they are in the presence of God. Isaiah was very uncomfortable.
D.G. Hart: Edwards did require a conversion narrative for church membership, right? Didn’t all the Puritans? Where does the Bible require that? Being born again is not conversion. In fact, thanks to revivals conversion now means what it did not mean in the sixteenth century when for Calvin and Ursinus conversion was a life-long process, meaning, sanctification.
RS: I guess it has to do with what is meant by a conversion narrative. Yes, he required a credible profession to be a member and so did the Puritans. By biblical definition to be part of the church is to be a regenerate person and only those who are regenerate are married to Christ. If one thinks that the visible church should strive to be like the invisible, then only those who at least appear to be new creatures in Christ should join.
Whatever Calvin meant by that, the Bible is crystal clear in teaching on the fact that a person must be born again or born from above. This new birth is of the inner man and not just some external things.
Calvin III:III:16 “I will not gather evidences from the prophets, wherein they sometimes scorn the follies of those who strive to appease God with ceremonies and show them to be mere laughingstocks, and at other times teach that outward uprightness of life is not the chief point of repentance, for God looks into men’s hearts. Whoever is moderately versed in Scripture will understand by himself, without the admonition of another, that when we have to deal with God nothing is achieved unless we begin from the heart. And the passage from Joel will contribute no little to the understanding of the rest: “Rend your hearts and not your garments” [ch 2:13].”
“In like manner, the pastors of the church would not be doing ill today if, when they see ruin hanging over the necks of their people, they were to cry out to them to hasten to fasting and weeping.”
III:III:3 “Indeed, I am aware of the fact that the whole of conversion to God is understood under the term “repentance,” and faith is not the least part of conversion.”
III:II:33 “But our mind has such an inclination to vanity that it can never cleave fast to the truth of God; and is has such a dullness that it is always blind to the light of God’s truth. Accordingly, without the illuminatin of the Holy Spirit, the Word can do nothing.” From this, also, it is clear that faith is much higher than human understanding. And it will not be enough for the mind to be illumined by the Spirit of God unless the heart is also strengthened and supported by his power. In this matter the Schoolmen go completely astray, who in considering faith identify it with a bare and simple assent arising out of knowledge, and leave out confidence and assurance of heart.”
D.G. Hart: You now back away from your complaint about the natural man on revivals and seem to limit it to Stout (even though Stout is not a natural man).
RS: I don’t think I backed away from what I meant, though perhaps you did not understand what I meant and got trapped by some implications of some sort. At one point I said that it is possible for a Christian to use reasoning in a naturalistic way (not an exact quote, but something like that). Whether Stout is a believer or not I don’t know, but his interpretation of Whitefield as an actor and the results that came through him as a result of his acting is nothing more than a natural man’s way of looking at things. Other men do this, but I have not argued that all who resist the grand truth of true revival are natural men.
D.G. Hart: But the important thing to notice is that a revivalist’s natural tick is to look at critics as natural men. Why else would you quote all that Scripture at me?
RS: Not necessarily as natural men, but also men acting or thinking like a natural man. Why would I quote Scripture? Because as the WCF says it is the final authority on all matters.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, and now I object to Buchanan. I don’t see how one sermon or harrangue can cover both believers who may need more repentance and faith and unbelievers. The terrors of the law don’t work. It’s like having VBS materials for covenant children and unbelievers from the neighborhood.
RS: The terrors of the law don’t work? Don’t work for what? Jesus sure preached the terrors of the law and Paul said that it was the law that shut the mouths of men.
D.G. Hart: Plus, the Christian life is one long revival, by B’s standards. I don’t want believers to have great outbursts of piety. I had them. They didn’t last past going back to school in the fall after the embers of the Christian youth camp fire cooled.
RS: Then they were not real outbursts of piety.
D.G. Hart: I want slow and steady growth, life long faith and repentance. And I don’t see how the outburst model has been at all good for the church.
RS: Acts 2 was not good for the church? While you want slow and steady growth, the Bible is not always focused that way. Notice the prayers of Paul in Ephesians 1 and 3. He was panting after more of Christ for others.
D.G. Hart: Btw, do you have a citation for the B quotes?
1) His work on The Holy Spirit. Chapter 9 is on revival
2) A shortened version of chapter 9 is provided in The Ulster Awakening (oh ick, a book on revival) by John Weir. This shortened version was taken from Banner of Truth Magazine, Issue 44, Sept-Oct 1966.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you say that if the extraordinary happens, we should know it is from God.
RS: Or perhaps can know that it is from God.
D.G. Hart: But what are the criteria for knowing it is from God?
RS: Bible standards for the work of the Spirit in holiness and love.
D.G. Hart: Here you list gets awfully selective and historically naive.
RS: They are selected from the Bible. But of course you understand that from my point of view those who deny true revival are historically naive at that point. But wait, maybe there is another issue going on that is not history at all. Someone is interpreting things through something else. Ah, perhaps history does not determine the truth of these things after all.
D.G. Hart: What you consider to be a great effect — Phebe’s angst — is actually very questionable on so many levels.
RS: But anything can have questions raised about them. Institutes III:IV:2 “WE must, I admit, carefully and sharply urge every man, but weeping bitterly for his sins, to what his displeasure and hatred toward them, for we ought not to repent this sorry which begets repentance unto salvation [II Cor 7:10].”
Institutes III:III:3 “Mortification they explain as sorrow of soul and dread conceived from the recognition of sin and the awareness of divine judgment. For when anyone has been brought into a true knowledge of sin, he then begins to truly hate and abhor sin; then he is heartily displeased with himself, he confesses himself miserable and lost and wishes to be another man. Furthermore, when he is touched by any sense of the judgment of God (for the one straightaway follows the other) he then lies stricken and overthrown; humbled and cast down he trembles; he becomes discouraged and he despairs…Now these words, if only they hae a right interpretation, express well enough the force of repentance.”
D.G. Hart: Plus, the revival fires cooled in Edwards’ own town. So how genuine could the revival have been even on your own grounds.
RS: That is the nature of revival. The whole book of Acts and then the rest of the NT did not maintain the same intensity as Acts 2. God pours out His Spirit and then withdraws according to His good pleasure.
D.G. Hart: Think perseverance of the saints, man!
RS: I prefer to think of the preservation of God which the perseverance of saints absolutely depend on. But I do get your point. However, persevering is easier during times of revival and certainly help in the days after that as well.
LikeLike
Richard, if you don’t think the Presbyterian Church was a church than you are even more pietistic than I feared. Really, I expected more from you. You can’t even admit that a revival split the church so you won’t count Presbyterians as a church. Wow!
So you really try to live a life like Jesus and Paul? Double wow!
It’s not what I want or what I find to be staid. God is indeed a God of order and compliance with his order and rules would seem to be a good thing. God of course can act outside his order — that’s what a miracle is. But humans should not be so quick to advocate going against God’s order.
As for the covenant child in the NT, have you thought about Timothy?
LikeLike
Richard, so God withdraws his Spirit? Triple Wow!
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, if you don’t think the Presbyterian Church was a church than you are even more pietistic than I feared. Really, I expected more from you. You can’t even admit that a revival split the church so you won’t count Presbyterians as a church. Wow!
RS: I fear you are reading too quickly. The Presbyterian aspect of the Church is not the Church. Those who are Presbyterian and are believers are part of the Church. If some who are Presbyterian and yet are not true believers, then they are not part of the Church. If a particular denomination divides, at times it is a denomination splitting but not the Church splitting. Local churches can split, but then that is a church that is splitting. Until you can show me that the only reason that a Presbyterian denomination split was because of an awakening or a revival, then I will remain skeptical. As I claimed in my earlier post, they had lots of problems not specifically related to the revival.
D.G. Hart: So you really try to live a life like Jesus and Paul? Double wow!
RS: Why not, after all it is biblical. We are commanded to be holy as He is holy. A disciple is one that denies self and follows Christ. Paul told us to follow him as he followed Christ.
D.G. Hart: It’s not what I want or what I find to be staid. God is indeed a God of order and compliance with his order and rules would seem to be a good thing. God of course can act outside his order — that’s what a miracle is. But humans should not be so quick to advocate going against God’s order.
As for the covenant child in the NT, have you thought about Timothy?
RS: I have thought of Timothy.
Acts 16:1 “Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek.”
The evidence seems to be lacking that Timothy was a child of the covenant in the sense I think you mean. All we know is that his grandmother and then mother were believers, though the text (II Tim 1:5) does not tell us when they became believers. From the two following verses it would appear that Paul was the spiritual father and so had been an instrument in the conversion of Timothy. Paul was also the one that had Timothy circumcised.
1 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
2 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my beloved son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, so God withdraws his Spirit? Triple Wow!
RS: Ephesians 4:30 “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” Here you have those who are truly saved and yet the Spirit can be grieved (withdraw).
Why have you ignored all of my Calvin quotes? Here are some of them again.
Repeated from old Post–D.G. Hart: What you consider to be a great effect — Phebe’s angst — is actually very questionable on so many levels.
Repeated from old post– RS: But anything can have questions raised about them. Institutes III:IV:2 “We must, I admit, carefully and sharply urge every man, but weeping bitterly for his sins, to what his displeasure and hatred toward them, for we ought not to repent this sorry which begets repentance unto salvation [II Cor 7:10].”
Institutes III:III:3 “Mortification they explain as sorrow of soul and dread conceived from the recognition of sin and the awareness of divine judgment. For when anyone has been brought into a true knowledge of sin, he then begins to truly hate and abhor sin; then he is heartily displeased with himself, he confesses himself miserable and lost and wishes to be another man. Furthermore, when he is touched by any sense of the judgment of God (for the one straightaway follows the other) he then lies stricken and overthrown; humbled and cast down he trembles; he becomes discouraged and he despairs…Now these words, if only they have a right interpretation, express well enough the force of repentance.”
LikeLike
Richard, you said, “I guess I don’t see that looking to true revival denigrates the Sunday by Sunday worship of the church.” Again, the very statement seems to presume that the weekly, ordered, and orthodox worship of God by his church is somehow distinguished from this thing called “revival.” So don’t you see that by looking for revival you’re saying that the the Sunday-by-Sunday worship of the church isn’t enough? I wonder how you’d characterize the orthodox worship of the church or even what the point is if you’re looking for something more.
But I think that were I to tell my wife on our anniversary that the tried and true marriage all these years has been one thing, but I’m looking forward to revival she’d have every right to read that as a sophomoric denigration. So I can’t help but think revivalists are the misguided-foot-in-mouth romanticists of the church.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, you said, “I guess I don’t see that looking to true revival denigrates the Sunday by Sunday worship of the church.” Again, the very statement seems to presume that the weekly, ordered, and orthodox worship of God by his church is somehow distinguished from this thing called “revival.” So don’t you see that by looking for revival you’re saying that the the Sunday-by-Sunday worship of the church isn’t enough? I wonder how you’d characterize the orthodox worship of the church or even what the point is if you’re looking for something more.
RS: Note the verses below. The church is to come together to seek the face of God and to seek for Him to manfiest His glory each day of the week. The church is to come together with desire for His glory and kingdom. The church should desire and long for the Lord to come to the church and manfiest His presence and glory to them. The church should desire that He would glorify Himself in the salvation of many. I fail to see the problem with wanting more of God and then more of God and then….
Isaiah 44:3 “For I will pour out water on the thirsty land And streams on the dry ground; I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring And My blessing on your descendants.”
Mat 6: 9 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
10 ‘Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
Isaiah 63:15 Look down from heaven and see from Your holy and glorious habitation; Where are Your zeal and Your mighty deeds? The stirrings of Your heart and Your compassion are restrained toward me.
Isaiah 64:1 Oh, that You would rend the heavens and come down, That the mountains might quake at Your presence– 2 As fire kindles the brushwood, as fire causes water to boil– To make Your name known to Your adversaries, That the nations may tremble at Your presence! 3 When You did awesome things which we did not expect, You came down, the mountains quaked at Your presence. 4 For from days of old they have not heard or perceived by ear, Nor has the eye seen a God besides You, Who acts in behalf of the one who waits for Him.
Zrim: But I think that were I to tell my wife on our anniversary that the tried and true marriage all these years has been one thing, but I’m looking forward to revival she’d have every right to read that as a sophomoric denigration.
RS: As with all analogies, they don’t tell the whole story. How about telling your wife that you only wanted to see her once a week and then you would affirm the wedding vows to her. I would think that the better picture is that of a spouse who wants more of the other spouse. So I can’t help but think that confessionalists don’t seek Christ enough and are satisfied with too little. As C.S. Lewis said, that is to be like little kids who would rather make mud pies when are offered a vacation at the beach. We are to love Him with our whole being, yet our being has the ability to expand. The more we have of Christ the more we should want of Him.
Isaiah 64:1 “Oh, that You would rend the heavens and come down, That the mountains might quake at Your presence– 2 As fire kindles the brushwood, as fire causes water to boil– To make Your name known to Your adversaries, That the nations may tremble at Your presence!”
RS: I would think that Isa 64:1-2 is descriptive of a biblical desire for God to come down and shine forth His glory. It is in line with the Lord’s Prayer in desiring that His name be hallowed and His kingdom to advance. There is a huge difference in the manifestation of God and His glory in times of spiritual famine (Amos 8:11 and Isa 64:6-7) and that of when He is pouring out His Spirit.
Zrim: So I can’t help but think revivalists are the misguided-foot-in-mouth romanticists of the church.
RS: Perhaps the revivalists of revivalism are, but true revival is something far different. It is the presence of God in and among His people and He is manifesting His glory to their souls.
LikeLike
Richard, the point of the analogy is to say what one seems to be looking for is right in front of him the whole time. So, all of the verses you cite are already happening in the weekly worship of God. True enough, this is the semi-eschatological era where we live in the already-not yet tension and are waiting for faith to be made into sight, so it’s happening in a type and shadow sort of way. That said, revivalosity seems like just another way to immanentize the eschaton, to bring forth that which only will come at God’s own hand and in God’s own timing. In a word, it’s a function of glorified human impatience.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, the point of the analogy is to say what one seems to be looking for is right in front of him the whole time. So, all of the verses you cite are already happening in the weekly worship of God. True enough, this is the semi-eschatological era where we live in the already-not yet tension and are waiting for faith to be made into sight, so it’s happening in a type and shadow sort of way. That said, revivalosity seems like just another way to immanentize the eschaton, to bring forth that which only will come at God’s own hand and in God’s own timing. In a word, it’s a function of glorified human impatience.
RS: On the other hand, it could be like the cry of Moses who cried out in Exodus 33:18, “”I pray You, show me Your glory!” It could be like the Matthew 5:6, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” It is an absolute verity that thiese things will only come at God’s own hand and in God’s own timing. However, when God wants to feed a hungry person, He puts it in the heart of a person to do it. A thought from long ago, “When God intends to bless His people, He sets His people a prayin.” God works through the desires and prayers of His people.
Do you not long for people to know God better and glorify Him more? Do you desire to see the lost converted? Then I am not sure why people have trouble with true revival.
Psalm 43:4 Then I will go to the altar of God, To God my exceeding joy; And upon the lyre I shall praise You, O God, my God.
Isaiah 61:10 I will rejoice greatly in the LORD, My soul will exult in my God; For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
Habakkuk 3:18 Yet I will exult in the LORD, I will rejoice in the God of my salvation.
Romans 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
LikeLike
But, Richard, God intends to bless his people and sets them praying all the time. And Moses’ prayer has been aswered in that he already has shown his glory in the first advent of Christ in his own timing and in his own way–is it possible that revivalosity is trying to bring about the not yet second advent on human timing and in human ways? Have you considered that his first advent went largely unrecognized because human expectation of timing and mode wouldn’t allow it, and that contrariwise revivalosity is impatient and bored with the ordinary means of grace for the same reasons?
Yes, confessionalists do desire those things (and I get the implication of impiety hidden within the question, ahem). But the reason we have trouble with revivalosity is that it sure seems like it’s not very content for them to come in God’s own timing and through his means, polite acknowledgment notwithstanding.
LikeLike
Zrim: But, Richard, God intends to bless his people and sets them praying all the time.
RS: But what does it mean to pray for His kingdom to come if it is not that He would send showers of blessing now? He does not always “set them a prayin” with the same intensity and desire at all times.
Zrim: And Moses’ prayer has been aswered in that he already has shown his glory in the first advent of Christ in his own timing and in his own way–is it possible that revivalosity is trying to bring about the not yet second advent on human timing and in human ways?
RS: It might be hard to show that the desire of Moses was limited to the advent of Christ. He wanted the glory of God to go with them as they went into the land. He wanted the presence of God to be with them in power. But yes, it is certainly possible (broadly speaking) that revivalism tries to bring about the second advent in their own way. But again, revivalism is far different than true and biblical revival. True revival desires the glory of God to shine forth through His Church both now and for eternity. In true prayer God shapes the hearts of His people so that they can be instruments of His glory in the world. Surely we desire the glory of the Lord to be manifested in a greater way in a purer and more focused worship and in souls being converted now.
Zrim: Have you considered that his first advent went largely unrecognized because human expectation of timing and mode wouldn’t allow it, and that contrariwise revivalosity is impatient and bored with the ordinary means of grace for the same reasons?
RS: Yes, I have read on that and considered that. However, that is no hindrance with seeking the Lord to come down and that the nations would tremble in His presence. True revival comes from a desire planted in the soul by God Himself and is a people seeking His face (presence and glory) on His own terms and in His own timing. It is not trying to talk God into something, it is seeking God for Himself and desiring to be an instrument in the manifesting of His glory.
Zrim: Yes, confessionalists do desire those things (and I get the implication of impiety hidden within the question, ahem).
RS: No implication there, but just saying that most likely you desire those things. Most likely you would not mind those things to be there with a bit more power. The desire for those things and for them to come in greater power is what I am saying is a desire for true revival.
Matthew 11:12 “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.
Zrim: But the reason we have trouble with revivalosity is that it sure seems like it’s not very content for them to come in God’s own timing and through his means, polite acknowledgment notwithstanding.
RS: Yes, but if God chose to send revival, would you be content with that? I understand (I think) why you think it seems that those who desire revival seem to be less than content. I hope you see why I think that perhaps confessionalists seem way too content.
John 2:17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME.”
Jesus had great zeal for the house of God. Why shouldn’t His people have some zeal for the manifestation of His glory and honor? Why shouldn’t we have longings and desires so that we truly seek for His name to be hallowed and for His kingdom to come?
Revelation 3:15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
LikeLike
Richard, praying for the kingdom to come and God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven seems to correspond with the closing words of Revelation that urge Christ to come soon, which is to say that the confessionalist prays along with Scripture for the second advent and that to be speedy. Doesn’t an eye toward the actual appearing beat looking for a second-rate substitute in the meantime? And that’s really what I hear all throughout your commentary, a quest for the not yet to swallow up the already. And I don’t know why you think the zeal quotient is wanting amongst confessionalists, unless you count being content with God having sent his Son for the remission of sins lazy. So on top of being prone to manufacture a pre-second advent, I wonder if revivalists ever realize how they come off as speaking as if the first was ho-hum.
And in citing Moses to make the case for seeking more and more glory and power in the here and now, you might consider that Moses was denied entrance into the promised land.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, praying for the kingdom to come and God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven seems to correspond with the closing words of Revelation that urge Christ to come soon, which is to say that the confessionalist prays along with Scripture for the second advent and that to be speedy. Doesn’t an eye toward the actual appearing beat looking for a second-rate substitute in the meantime?
RS: I don’t think that praying for the Spirit to be poured out is a second-rate substitute.
John 14:16 “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. 28 “You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Zrim: And that’s really what I hear all throughout your commentary, a quest for the not yet to swallow up the already.
RS: Well, maybe you are not hearing what I am saying, then. The quest is for the glory of God come come down and manfiest His glory. Indeed that may be a taste of heaven, but still the people of God throughout the Bible and history and longed for more of Him.
Zrim: And I don’t know why you think the zeal quotient is wanting amongst confessionalists, unless you count being content with God having sent his Son for the remission of sins lazy.
RS: I do think that is lazy (as stated). God saved sinners so that they would be zealous for good deeds. Titus 2:14 ” who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.” God saved sinners for a greater purpose and that is not so they can be content with being forgiven. God cleanses sinners from their sin so that He may dwell in His temple and manifest His glory through them.
Zrim: So on top of being prone to manufacture a pre-second advent, I wonder if revivalists ever realize how they come off as speaking as if the first was ho-hum.
RS: I doubt that hardly anyone would think that at all. The second Person of the Trinity took human flesh to the glory of the Father. He lived a perfect life doing all to the glory of the Father. He sent to the cross and died for the glory of the Father. He purchased the Holy Spirit to be given to His people to the glory of the Father. He died in order to make His people zealous for good deeds, and nothing is good unless it is done to the glory of God. The first coming of Christ is not rendered ho-hum by seeking revival, but it is rather exalted by seeking revival as it is in line with all that Christ did.
Zrim: And in citing Moses to make the case for seeking more and more glory and power in the here and now, you might consider that Moses was denied entrance into the promised land.
RS: Yes, Moses himself was denied entrance. But God and the people of God were not. The prayer of Moses was for the glory of God and so his prayer was answered.
LikeLike
According to a recent Gospel Coalition review of “The Joy of Calvinism”, application comes down to the “how does it feel” question. But without Bob Dylan’s tone!
The GD review by Ted Gluck: “There is, in fact, a lot of ink devoted to love in this book, which may be a surprise/wake-up call for certain kinds of curmudgeonly, joyless Calvinists.If you’re not a devoted, loyal TGC reader and have stumbled upon this site and this review some other way, or if you have Calvinist leanings but haven’t consumed the entire young Calvinist library (or consumed
the entire mug of Calvinist Kool-Aid), I would encourage you to read this book.
“You… should read this book because it devotes considerable space to how Calvinism feels. There are all kinds of books about what we believe, but very few, I think, about how it should makes us
feel—which, primarily, is joyful! One of the tenets of Calvinist subculture is to not trust our feelings, and I get that. I get the intent. I get that knowledge of God and truth about God should be our
foundation, rather than our moods or appetites. But this book does a brilliant job of summing up the feeling of Calvinism—a feeling that is driven by our knowledge of a God who loves personally,
unconditionally, irresistibly, and unbreakably.
From page 19: “The absence of affirmative and spontaneously devotional expression of
Calvinistic theology has left a gaping hole in the public understanding of what Calvinism is. “
LikeLike
Richard, I’m not saying God pouring out his Spirit is a second-rate substitute either. I’m saying revivalosity is a second-rate substiutute for Jesus’ actual return in power and glory.
The quest is for the glory of God come come down and manfiest His glory. Indeed that may be a taste of heaven, but still the people of God throughout the Bible and history and longed for more of Him.
He already has come down in his first advent in weakness and humility. His Word and sacraments are the taste of heaven in the inter-advental age while we await his second advent yet to come in power and glory. The point is that power and glory are inappropriate for now. This age is characterized still by weakness and humility. Can you see that by this construal how revival and revivalism are one and the same no matter how much you try to distinguish them?
And if revivalists don’t think the first advent was ho-hum then maybe they should stop suggesting that confessionalists who put the accent on it are being lazy.
LikeLike
Lily,
Thanks for the links. Sorry, I have not checked here for a while, but I will try to read the links and if I have any comments/questions, I will let you know.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: According to a recent Gospel Coalition review of “The Joy of Calvinism”, application comes down to the “how does it feel” question. But without Bob Dylan’s tone!
RS: Disregarding Bob Dylan’s tone, if that is an accurate assessment of the book, then the book misses the truth of the matter.
McMark quoting: From page 19: “The absence of affirmative and spontaneously devotional expression of Calvinistic theology has left a gaping hole in the public understanding of what Calvinism is. “
RS: Perhaps that statement, at least without the context, goes too far. However, there may be a kernel of truth there. The kernel is that Calvinism has been viewed as intellectualism, going through the motions of ritual, and then a very stern approach to church.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I’m not saying God pouring out his Spirit is a second-rate substitute either. I’m saying revivalosity is a second-rate substiutute for Jesus’ actual return in power and glory.
RS: But those who have held to and those who presently hold to revival are looking for the Father and the Son to breath forth His Spirit who is the Spirit of Christ.
Zrim quoting RS: The quest is for the glory of God come come down and manfiest His glory. Indeed that may be a taste of heaven, but still the people of God throughout the Bible and history and longed for more of Him.
Zrim: He already has come down in his first advent in weakness and humility. His Word and sacraments are the taste of heaven in the inter-advental age while we await his second advent yet to come in power and glory.
RS: Yet we are told to preach the Word in power. We are told that the “kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Paul teaches us to pray for more of Christ.
Zrim: The point is that power and glory are inappropriate for now.
RS: Not at all.
Acts 1:8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
Romans 15:13 Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 2:4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
Ephesians 3:16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man,
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.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Zrim: This age is characterized still by weakness and humility.
RS: Believers are to be humble, but the truly humble are filled with the power of God. Indeed we are to be utterly weak in our own strength, but we are to be filled with His power.
Ephesians 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might.
Zrim: Can you see that by this construal how revival and revivalism are one and the same no matter how much you try to distinguish them?
RS: I cannot see that at all. Revivalism is man-centered and man-focused, but true revival is God-centered and God-focused.
Zrim: And if revivalists don’t think the first advent was ho-hum then maybe they should stop suggesting that confessionalists who put the accent on it are being lazy.
RS: Titus 2:14 ” who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.”
One purpose of the cross was to make for Himself a people zealous for good deeds. If confessionalists are just going to church on Sunday, affirming the confession, taking the sacrament and just waiting for Christ to come again, then they are being lazy. If confessionalists are not seeking His glory in all things, then they are being lazy. The list could go on, but you get my point. Another word for “lazy” is even worse. It is disobedient. Look, I get the idea that we may be talking by each other and maybe I don’t really understand what you are saying and you don’t really get the idea of what I am saying. However, to exalt the first coming of Christ in truth is also to live to the glory of a risen King now. To exalt the first coming of Christ in truth is to have that risen King manifest His glory in and through His people who are now His temple. How can the dwellling place of God not have the very life of God in them? How can the God of perfect joy and glory not manifest the truth of Himself to His people and the world? He lives in His people and they will share in who He really is.
LikeLike
Theologian of the Cross vs.Theologian of Glory
The theologian of glory observes the world, the works of creation. With his intellect he perceives behind these the visible things of God, His power, wisdom, and generosity. But God remains invisible to him. The theologian of the cross looks to the Crucified One. Here there is nothing great or beautiful or exalted as in the splendid works of creation. Here there is humiliation, shame, weakness, suffering, and agonizing death… [That] “God can be found only in suffering and the cross”… is a bedrock statement of Luther’s theology … Theology is theology of the cross, nothing else. A theology that would be something else is a false theology… Measured by everything the world calls wisdom, as Paul already saw, the word of the cross is the greatest foolishness, the most ridiculous doctrine that can confront a philosopher. That the death of one man should be the salvation of all, that this death on Golgotha should be this atoning sacrifice for all the sins of the world, that the suffering of an innocent one should turn away the wrath of God — these are assertions that fly in the face of every ethical and religious notion of man as he is by nature… God Himself has sent us into the hard school of the cross. There, on the battlefields, in the prison camps, under the hail of bombs, and among the shattered sick and wounded, there the theology of the cross may be learned “by dying”… To those whose illusions about the world and about man, and the happiness built on these, have been shattered, the message of the cross may come as profoundly good news.
Herman Sasse
Cheers, Zrim!
LikeLike
Richard, you don’t seem to be able to appreciate Paul’s point that the power of the gospel is rather ordinary compared with the might of the Jews and the wisdom of the Greeks.
LikeLike
Lily: Theologian of the Cross vs.Theologian of Glory
The theologian of glory observes the world, the works of creation. With his intellect he perceives behind these the visible things of God, His power, wisdom, and generosity. But God remains invisible to him. The theologian of the cross looks to the Crucified One. Here there is nothing great or beautiful or exalted as in the splendid works of creation. Here there is humiliation, shame, weakness, suffering, and agonizing death… [That] “God can be found only in suffering and the cross”… is a bedrock statement of Luther’s theology … Theology is theology of the cross, nothing else. A theology that would be something else is a false theology… Measured by everything the world calls wisdom, as Paul already saw, the word of the cross is the greatest foolishness, the most ridiculous doctrine that can confront a philosopher. That the death of one man should be the salvation of all, that this death on Golgotha should be this atoning sacrifice for all the sins of the world, that the suffering of an innocent one should turn away the wrath of God — these are assertions that fly in the face of every ethical and religious notion of man as he is by nature… God Himself has sent us into the hard school of the cross. There, on the battlefields, in the prison camps, under the hail of bombs, and among the shattered sick and wounded, there the theology of the cross may be learned “by dying”… To those whose illusions about the world and about man, and the happiness built on these, have been shattered, the message of the cross may come as profoundly good news.
RS: There may be some confusion on the author of the above statement as to what Luther meant by the ” Theologian of Glory”. To Luther, in this context, the Theologian of Glory was seeking his own glory. The theologian of the cross learned obedience through suffering. It is the glory of God that is seen in the theology of the cross.
Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation:
Thesis 18: ” It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.” He repeats this in his Bondage of the Will.
Thesis 22: “That wisdom which perceives the invisible things of God by thinking in terms of works completely puffs up, blinds, and hardens.”
Those who think that the theology of the cross means for them to work hard and suffer in their works are quite mistaken if they think that makes them theologians of the cross. All of our suffering is of no good if it is not done out of love for God and love for His glory.
1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
Psalm 115:1 Not to us, O LORD, not to us, But to Your name give glory Because of Your lovingkindness, because of Your truth.
Isaiah 42:8 “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Isaiah 48:11 “For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.
What did Jesus pray for just before He went to the cross?
John 17:1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,
4 “I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.
5 “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. 22 “The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. 24 “Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
The cross is where the glory of God shines brightest, which is why those who still see and seek their own glory have never truly been broken from self and given a sight of the cross. The cross is the highest theology of glory as long as it is all about the glory of God. There is no Gospel apart from the glory of God either.
II Cor 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you don’t seem to be able to appreciate Paul’s point that the power of the gospel is rather ordinary compared with the might of the Jews and the wisdom of the Greeks.
RS: I guess I will plead guilty to that, but I don’t think that was Paul’s point for all concerned. The Gospel is not ordinary at any point and in any way in and of itself. It is centered upon the triune God and declares the beauty and greatness of His glory. The Jews looked for signs and the Greeks looked for wisdom, but in their deadness they did not see what was truly extraordinary. It was the Gospel of the glory of God. It was the Gospel of God. It was the Gospel of the kingdom of God. There is nothing ordinary about the Gospel. It is there that the wrath of God was satisfied. It is there that the glory of God shines forth. It is there that the love of Christ for His Father shines ever so brightly. It is there that justice and mercy kiss. It is there that purchased grace is put on dispaly. It is there that that all of the promises toward the elect are revealed and applied. It is there that it is seen that Christ lives in His people and He is their very hope of glory. No, no, and a thousand times a thousand times no. The Gospel is not ordinary.
LikeLike