 |
"We proclaim
Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so
that we may present every man complete in Christ." |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Hearing God's Voice Revisited: Jonathan Edwards(Part 10)In a previous series of articles, I dealt with the very prevalent notion among well-meaning believers that God leads His people through dreams, impressions, nudges, promptings, and feelings.1 That series concluded over two full years ago (it sure doesn’t seem like that long). I figured it was time to briefly revisit the subject from an historical perspective and see what two great men of God believed about Christians receiving and acting upon these personalized divine directives. This month we will look at Jonathan Edwards, and next month, Charles Spurgeon. If you haven’t read the series of articles on “Hearing the Voice of God” and if this subject seems like new ground for you, then I would encourage you to read through those articles before you continue. I am not going to cover ground here that I already covered in the previous nine articles. The following is intended to supplement what I have already written on the subject. An Historical Aberration?I mentioned something in the previous articles that I didn’t elaborate much on. I asserted that “For 1800 years of church history this notion [that God speaks to His children apart from Scripture] was viewed as aberrant and even heretical. Today it is accepted and promoted as something that is essential to the life of the believer. What was once viewed as an attack on the authority and sufficiency of Scripture is now taught from pulpits, in books, and on Christian TV and radio.”2 In another article on the subject I wrote, “Although it has been tagged the 'traditional view,' it is a novelty among evangelical Christians. It does not go back any farther than the last century. J.I. Packer actually says it was not practiced any earlier than 150 years ago. “In other words, for almost 1900 years of church history, you will not read of Christians hearing God’s voice, using fleeces, getting peace about decisions, or following inner promptings or nudgings. For 1900 years of church history, this method was not practiced. In fact, it was condemned for being an attack on Scripture, which is what it is.”3 That is not to say that people in previous centuries never claimed to be led by impressions, nudgings, and feelings. There were many who did. However, this notion, which today is nearly a sacrament among evangelicals, was historically frowned upon, warned against, and rejected as being quite contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures. Let’s look at how Jonathan Edwards dealt with this teaching in his day. Edwards on Hearing God’s VoiceJonathan Edwards was born on October 5, 1703, in East Windsor Connecticut.4 Edwards is perhaps best known for his sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. It was Edwards’ preaching, writing, and teaching which were largely responsible (along with George Whitefield) for the Great Awakening, a revival that swept through the New England colonies in the early - mid 1700’s. George Whitefield proved to be the catalyst and eloquent orator that God used to spark the Great Awakening. Jonathan Edwards proved to be the theological anchor serving to keep the heightened religious affections of the people centered on Scripture. Edwards and Whitefield were close friends who shared deep theological convictions. There was one item germane to our subject here on which Whitefield and Edwards disagreed. Whitefield believed that God leads through impulses, nudges and promptings. Further, Whitefield openly endorsed Christians listening to and following such “leadings.” This raised serious concerns for Edwards, especially in the spiritually supercharged, emotional environment which was the by product of the revival (1739). Edwards was not quiet about his concerns and first spoke to Whitefield on this subject in October of 1740. The controversial subject that they discussed in that meeting was that of following purely subjective impulses as though they were the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Concerning that meeting with Whitefield, Edwards later explained to Thomas Clap, “I indeed have told several persons that I once purposely took an opportunity to talk with Mr. Whitefield alone about impulses: and have mentioned many particulars of our conference together on that head: that I told him some reasons I had to think he gave too great heed to such things: and have told what manner of replies he made; and what reasons I offered against such things. And I also said that Mr. Whitefield did not seem to be offended with me: but yet he did not seem to be inclined to have a great deal of discourse about it: And that in the time of it he did not appear to be convinced by anything I said.”5 Edwards’ concern was that the scope and effect of the Great Awakening would be shortened if Christians abandoned the Word of God for “impressions” and their own private “word from God.” He was open about his concerns and presented his reasons to Whitefield. Edwards’ ConcernsEdwards stated the reasons for his concern publicly in his New Haven sermon of September 1741. Iain Murray describes these concerns this way: “At a time of revival, when Christians have a ‘strong and lively sense of divine things’, all their faculties are invigorated - the mind is more intense, the ‘affections’ are heightened, and the imagination, also, may be more active. It is easy, in this condition, argued Edwards, to regard a strong impression made upon the imagination, and explainable by natural causes, as a direct leading of the Spirit.”6 The impulses that Edwards criticized were varied in their character and nature. Sometimes they would involve an element of the visionary. Sometimes they appeared to be prophetic, providing a foreknowledge of future events. Sometimes they appeared to be supported by various texts of Scripture. “And when such experiences were simultaneous with genuine revival, it was comparatively easy for their subjects to believe that they owed them directly to the Holy Spirit.”7 Edwards, however, cautiously disagreed. He argued that Christians might have a heightened sense of the Spirit, but “the imaginations that attend it are but accidental” and cannot be directly attributed to the Holy Spirit.8 Edwards offered some sound arguments against trusting in subjective feelings, impulses, and impressions. First, Edwards noted that his own reading of history and his own observation convinced him that where Christians based their actions or plans upon subjective impulses, unsupported by the clear teaching of Scripture, they were liable to be greatly disappointed. According to Edwards, “Many godly persons have undoubtedly, in this and other ages, exposed themselves to woeful delusions by an aptness to lay too much weight on impulses and impressions.”9 Indeed, I have to agree with Edwards. Some of the most foolish, unbiblical, unwise, and silly things I have ever seen mature Christians do have been as a result of “God speaking to their heart” and “telling them” to pursue some course of action. In the end, God gets blamed for a lot of frivolous, unwise, and often unbiblical decisions.10 Second, Edwards believed that for impulses to contain direct ‘messages’ from God they must necessarily partake of the nature of those extraordinary gifts which, he believed, were unique to the infancy of the apostolic church. In other words, we should expect that a genuine “message” from God would be attended by the same gifts (miracles, healings, tongues) that attended such giving of revelation during both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Yet Edwards rightly believed that such supernatural gifts no longer operated as they did in the New Testament era. Third, Edwards was concerned with the abuse of Scripture that often accompanied such “impulses” and “words from God.” The wrenching of texts from their original context to be used to support an impulse or impression can only prove to be a disaster. This abuse of Scripture was a grave concern to Edwards. Whitefield’s Change of HeartPartly due to the reasoned approach of Jonathan Edwards and partly due to a personal tragedy, George Whitefield experienced a change of heart after his October 1740 meeting with Edwards, after which Edwards said, “He [Whitefield] did not appear to be convinced by anything I said.” Prior to the birth of his only child in October 1743, George Whitefield declared his belief that the child would be a son and that he would be a great preacher of the gospel, even going so far as to say that the child would be named “John.” How did Whitefield receive this ‘revelation?’ The Lord apparently “showed” him this in the book of Luke where the birth of John the Baptist is announced. Using that passage of Scripture, Whitefield believed that God revealed to him, the sex, the name, and the future destiny of the unborn child. Unfortunately, four months later the infant who, as Whitefield ’fondly hoped’, ’was to be great in the sight of the Lord,’ died. Whitefield at once recognized his mistake, saying, “I misapplied several texts of Scripture. Upon these grounds, I made no scruple of declaring ’that I should have a son, and that his name was to be John.’” In 1745, while back in New England, Whitefield spoke of that tragic incident, saying, “Many good souls, both among clergy and laity, for a while, mistook fancy for faith, and imagination for revelation.” Between 1740 and 1745 George Whitefield began to appreciate the concerns that Edwards had raised. It seems that Whitefield saw the folly of following impressions.11 In the case of the impression given to Whitefield, the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist did not contain any special personal “message.” He misappropriated a passage of Scripture. In modern times, little has changed. Unfortunately, the twisting and misuse of Scripture to support such “personal revelations” is apparent to even the casual observer. I have had well-meaning people assert that God told them what the name of their unborn child should be as He impressed it upon their hearts while reading through a list of Old Testament names. “I was just doing my daily Bible reading and when I read that name. The Lord impressed upon my heart that that was what I was to name my child.” Similar abuse of Scripture occurs when words, phrases, verses are lifted from their context and given a special personal meaning which would have been foreign to the original readers. Was Edwards A Stodgy, Cold Christian?Perhaps you think that Edwards’s concerns are unwarranted. Maybe you think he was outside of the mainstream of Christian theology. Or maybe He was just a cold, stoic, stodgy Christian who had no real, warm, and affectionate walk with God. Nothing could be further from the truth! Edwards wrote at length about Christian affections and their proper role. He reveled in the joys, emotions, happiness, and warmth of intimate fellowship with God to a degree that puts most of us to shame, including those who claim that God is constantly whispering directives in their ears. Jonathan Edwards was solidly in the mainstream of orthodox and historic Christian belief regarding special revelations and personal impressions from God. His concerns were based on Scripture and reason. He saw the preoccupation of Whitefield and others in his day with receiving personalized revelation, impressions, and impulses as a dangerous trend which threatened to undermine the work of God in the Great Awakening. He saw it as a teaching which could only draw people away from the all-sufficient Word of God. Vintage EdwardsIn his tightly-reasoned and articulate style, Edwards summed up his concerns in writing in 1742: “One erroneous principle, than which scarce any has proved more mischievous to the present glorious work of God, is a notion that it is God’s manner in these days to guide His saints, at least some that are more eminent, by inspiration, or immediate revelation. . . . “This error will defend and support errors. As long as a person has a notion that he is guided by immediate direction from heaven, it makes him incorrigible and impregnable in all his misconduct. . . . “And why cannot we be contented with the divine oracles, that holy, pure Word of God, which we have in such abundance and clearness, now since the canon of Scripture is completed? Why should we desire to have any thing added to them by the impulses from above? Why should we not rest in that standing rule that God has given to His church, which, the apostle teaches us, is surer than a voice from Heaven? And why should we desire to make the Scripture speak more to us than it does? Or why should any desire a higher kind of intercourse with Heaven, than by having the Holy Spirit given in His sanctifying influences, infusing and exciting grace and holiness, love and joy, which is the highest kind of intercourse, that the saints and angels in Heaven have with God, and the chief excellency of the glorified man Christ Jesus?” 12 And what did Whitefield conclude on this matter? By 1745 he had grown to have a greater appreciation for Edwards’s insights. In a sermon on ‘Walking With God” (1746), Whitefield warned against two extremes that Edwards had also warned him about: “Though it is the quintessence of Enthusiasm to pretend to be guided by the Spirit without the written Word, yet it is every Christian’s bounden duty to be guided by the Spirit in conjunction with the written Word of God. Watch, therefore, I pray you, O believers, the motions of God’s blessed Spirit in your souls, and always try the suggestions or impressions that you may at any time feel, by the unerring rule of God’s most Holy Word. And if they are not found to be agreeable to that, reject them as diabolical and delusive! By observing this caution, you will steer a middle course between two dangerous extremes many of this generation are in danger of running into; I mean, Enthusiasm, on the one hand, and Deism, and downright infidelity, on the other.”13 Take these words to heart! Without Wax- Footnotes: 1. This nine part
series of articles appeared from August 2005 to April 2006 and are
available on our website (www.kootenaichurch.org) or by request from the
church office.
|
|||
|
Kootenaichurch.org is an internet ministry of Kootenai
Community Church |
||||
