The Blog of Hobbes

[Jonathan] Edwards’ analysis of the correlation between physical responses and lasting inner change also remains pertinent. Some showed strong reactions and enjoyed lasting change; some, strong reactions and no significant change; some, no reactions, and no change; and some, no reactions and lasting change. Edwards’ observations invite two conclusions. Firstly, the revival phenomena are neutral in themselves, neither proving nor disproving an authentic work of God. Secondly, the phenomena neither guarantee nor preclude significant inner change. In short, while revival phenomena were initially endorsed by Edwards with some enthusiasm, his later conclusions suggest that the church is wise to move beyond ecstatic spirituality as soon as pastorally appropriate. Such eruptions may be spontaneous and authentic, but placed centre stage they tend to generate inauthentic conformity, exhaustion, disillusion and unreality.

Even when genuine, such phenomena matter little and are of no lasting consequence. Ecstatic spirituality is a so-what spirituality, deserving neither the hysterical denunciations of Chauncy nor the hype of its indiscriminate devotees. Edwards scrupulously sought to distance himself from both polarities.

[Rob Warner, 'Ecstatic Spirituality and Entrepreneurial Revivalism: Reflections on the "Toronto Blessing"' in Walker and Aune (eds.), On Revival: A Critical Examination (Paternoster 2003), p226]

Well, I think there are some “manifestations” that clearly disprove an authentic work of God. For example, gratuitous physical violence.

If God had put us to find out a way of salvation when we were lost, we could neither have had a head to devise, nor a heart to desire, what God’s infinite wisdom had found out for us. Mercy had a mind to save sinners, and was loath that the justice of God should be wronged. It is a pity, says Mercy, that such a noble creature as man should be made to be undone; and yet God’s justice must not be a loser. What way then shall be found out? Angels cannot satisfy for the wrong done to God’s justice, nor is it fit that one nature should sin, and another nature suffer. What then? Shall man be for ever lost? Now, while Mercy was thus debating with itself, what to do for the recovery of fallen man, the Wisdom of God stepped in; and thus the oracle spake:- Let God become man; let the Second Person in the Trinity be incarnate, and suffer; and so for fitness he shall be man, and for ability he shall be God; thus justice may be satisfied, and man saved. O the depth of the riches of the wisdom of God, thus to make justice and mercy to kiss each other!

Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (Banner of Truth, 2002), p 72-73

I have greatly enjoyed D.A.Carson’s review of three books on the bible, posted at the Reformation21 website. As ever, Carson writes with penetration, clarity and grace. It is a long article, so it has taken me some time to work my way through it. But, it’s been well worth it. Along the way, I enjoyed the following insight from Carson’s overview of the third chapter of John Webster’s book Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch:

Webster’s third chapter, “Reading in the Economy of Grace,” is a penetrating and sometimes moving contrast of two theologies of reading, or, more precisely, two anthropologies of reading. On the one side stands Schopenhauer, who embodies attitudes to reading that dominate today’s culture; on the other side stand Calvin and Bonhoeffer, with quite different approaches to reading Scripture. Schopenhauer contrasts reading with “thinking for yourself”: too much reading may so swamp the mind that the mind’s originality is squashed. The summum bonum, then, remains the human mind, the mind’s autonomy, its originality. By contrast, Calvin and Bonhoeffer insist that thought must be subordinate to the Word. For the Christian, reading Scripture “thus involves mortification of the free-range intellect which believes itself to be at liberty to devote itself to all manner of sources of fascination” (90). Or again:

For Calvin, the counter to the vanity, instability and sheer artfulness of the impious self is “another and better help”, namely “the light of his Word” by which God becomes “known unto salvation.” God counters pride by self-revelation through Scripture. Scripture is on Calvin’s account “a special gift, where God, to instruct the church, not merely uses mute teachers but also opens his most hallowed lips. Not only does he teach the elect to look upon a God, but also shows himself as the God upon whom they are to look”. . . . This does not entail wholesale abandonment of any appropriation of the tools of historical inquiry, but raises a question about their usefulness by asking whether they can foster childlike reading of the text (77).