This morning brings us to our sixth reading in Jonathan Edwards’ The Religious Affections. This week we had a rather long reading of the first sign of authentic affections—the first chapter where we really get to the heart of the book.
Summary
This week’s reading dealt with the first authentic affection. Here is what Edwards sought to prove: “Affections that are truly spiritual and gracious do arise from those influences and operations on the heart which are spiritual, supernatural and divine.” It took him forty pages to do so!
Discussion
This chapter surprised me a little bit. While this was to be the first of the “positive signs” and the first to follow the section dealing with the many “signs of nothing,” the chapter had a clear negative tone to it. It seemed that Edwards proved “something” primarily by disproving “nothing.” That may not make much sense but perhaps you see what I’m getting at. He proved his point by spending page after page disproving other things. It seems that the back story for this chapter involves people in Edwards’ day attempting to prove they were true Christians by stating that God had given them such knowledge, through feelings or through Scripture or through any other means. He responds by showing that such means can be brought about even in unregenerate men. Thus true affections can only be brought about by truly spiritual, supernatural and divine operations.
Edwards distinguishes here between the spiritual man and the natural man. Those who are spiritual are those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit; all other men are natural. The Holy Spirit may influence them in various ways and even work certain things in their hearts and minds, but they are not men who have undergone that supernatural act of regeneration. This is a good distinction to make in our day as we live at a time when anyone who acknowledges some kind of a deity or who has some kind of faith is called spiritual. Oprah Winfrey is as “spiritual” a person as you’ll find, but she utterly rejects Christianity. Edwards reminds us that no one can be spiritual unless he is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Hence we can acknowledge other people as religious, but, when we look to Scripture, must deny that they can be spiritual; there is no Spirit in them.
This is not to say that the Spirit is unable to influence people who are unregenerate. “The Spirit of God, in all His operations upon the minds of natural men, only moves, impresses, assists, improves, or some way acts upon natural principles; but gives no new spiritual principle.” In other words, He can work even in natural men by using natural means. “He only assists natural principles to do the same work to a greater degree which they do of themselves by nature.” This was something I had never really considered in the past and I found it valuable to think about.
Now maybe I missed something in this chapter—maybe my mind was mush by the end, but I found few points of application. Perhaps it is that I have never really encountered people in life whose claim to Christianity is some inward voice or the fact that verses of Scripture have come to their minds. But somehow I struggled with really applying this portion of the book to my own life. I am hoping that someone can leave a comment offering a few points of application.
Next Time
For next week we will read the second distinguishing sign of truly gracious and holy affections. This is quite a bit shorter than this week’s reading, so should not pose quite as much of a challenge. In my book it comes out at only fourteen pages.
Your Turn
As always, I am eager to know what you gained from this part of the book. Feel free to post comments below or to write about this on your own blog (and then post a comment linking us to your thoughts). Do not feel that you can only say anything if you are going to say something that will wow us all. Just add a comment with some of the things you gained from the this week’s reading. To this point the discussion has been very helpful and engaging.
Comments (15) »
1. David Porter
August 21, 2008
11:03 AM
Tim,
I too found myself scratching my head with this particular point. For all the decoding required to understand his vernacular and his incredibly long sentence structure, I was frankly left, so far, wanting.
As I was reading the text, my mind continually wondered back to my college days. I attended a Christian liberal arts college and there was no shortage of scenes that made even my young spirit cringe.
I remember, for example, a country preacher telling me, that God told him, that it was God’s will that I come into his churches employ. I was a soloist that night and this small country church wanted me to lead a desperately needed upgrade to their music program.
This was the first time I had been confronted with such…well…what to say….delusion? These people sincerely believed that this man had a direct pipeline from God’s mind to his lips.
I do, however, intend to go back and re-read the first part of this section. I was curious about his “sensation of the soul” concept:
“But yet that idea which the saint has of the loveliness of God, and that sensation, and that kind of delight he has in his view, which is as it were the marrow and quintessence of his love, is peculiar, and entirely diverse from anything that a natural man has, or can have any notion of.”
He goes on to talk about a “sensation of soul”.
It made me wonder, if perhaps, I am missing something.
It certainly is a wonder that the Holy Spirit takes residence in my physical structure and/or soul. If the divine holy God of the universe is actually living inside me…then shouldn’t I be “glowing more”? Is there a complete and loving sensation that I should be experiencing?
I am not looking for the sort of sensationalism that most seek. But…if I were alone on a mountain top, with no one around…is there a more pure communication, a greater sensation of soul than I am currently aware of?
I sensed that Edwards possesses something that I don’t.
Am I the only one to feel this way?
2. Chuck
August 21, 2008
11:07 AM
Point of application: determine whether you are truly regenerate where you are a “temple of the Holy Spirit” in your daily life or simply a natural man who is moved by the Spirit for seasons (I’m thinking of the kings in Daniel for example).
3. Scott D. Andersen
August 21, 2008
11:16 AM
Love the book. I’ve been quiet in the comments for a couple of weeks but staying current on the reading and enjoying very much Tim’s reviews and all everyones comments.
The last couple of weeks I’ve been looking hard at Gal 5:16 Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. I found this section very helpful in thinking deeper what it means to walk in the Spirit. Especially all the positive things Edwards said regarding this that “True Saints in the NT are called Spiritual.” We have Spiritual Blessings and Spiritual Wisdom and Spiritual Understanding, the indwelling Spirit, mind of the Spirit, etc.
In connection with this also especially interesting to me was Edwards showing the equivalence of the phrases “Witness of the Spirit” and “Earnest of the Spirit.” And then further defining what the “Witness of the Spirit” is not with what it is. As opposed to an inner voice saying “you are my child”..”you are my child.” Edwards is emphatic it is no mere suggestion of an otherwise secret. Such an idea “greatly debases that high and most exalted kind of influence and operation of the Spirit, which there is in the true witness of the Spirit.[45] That which is called the witness of the Spirit, Rom. 8, is elsewhere in the New Testament called the seal of the Spirit” So that Edwards continues on to show that the witness of the Spirit is “grace itself in the soul.”
All of this which I read in Edwards has been very helpful in thinking deeper and hopefully by grace learning to live more obediently to the exhortation “Walk in the Spirit.”
Rather long but if helpful I’ve listed some of the quotes from Edwards to which I was referring.
sda
Edwards Wrote:
“That which many call the witness of the Spirit, is no other than an immediate suggestion and impression of that fact, otherwise secret, that they are converted, or made the children of God, and so that their sins are pardoned, and that God has given them a title to heaven. This kind of knowledge, viz., knowing that a certain person is converted, and delivered from hell, and entitled to heaven, is no divine sort of knowledge in itself.”….
“This notion greatly debases that high and most exalted kind of influence and operation of the Spirit, which there is in the true witness of the Spirit.[45] That which is called the witness of the Spirit, Rom. 8, is elsewhere in the New Testament called the seal of the Spirit”
“And therefore undoubtedly the seal of the great King of heaven and earth enstamped on the heart, is something high and holy in its own nature, some excellent communication from the infinite fountain of divine beauty and glory; and not merely a making known a secret fact by revelation or suggestion; which is a sort of influence of the Spirit of God, that the children of the devil have often been the subjects of. The seal of the Spirit is a kind of effect of the Spirit of God on the heart, which natural men, while such, are so far from a capacity of being the subjects of; that they can have no manner of notion or idea of it, agreeable to Rev. 2:17”
“Another thing which is a full proof that the seal of the Spirit is no revelation of any fact by immediate suggestion, but is grace itself in the soul, is, that the seal of the Spirit is called in the Scripture, the earnest of the Spirit. It is very plain that the seal of the Spirit is the same thing with the earnest of the Spirit, by 2 Cor. 1:22: “Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts;” and Eph. 1:13, 14, “In whom, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession unto the praise of his glory.”“
4. Justin Keller
August 21, 2008
12:18 PM
Both in my current pastorate and in my experiences in college, I have met plenty of people who would call themselves Christians because of an experience or voice or emotional response. This was precisely the sort of situation in which Edwards himself ministered during the Great Awakening. So I find much relevance in this section, and appreciate his “negative” approach because he is so careful to say what things are not in order to say what they are.
5. Mike
August 21, 2008
2:32 PM
“So I find much relevance in this section, and appreciate his “negative” approach because he is so careful to say what things are not in order to say what they are.”
Perhaps this has alaways been my problem. I agree entirely with the first part (he is so careful to say what things are not), but I search and search and do not find a substantive answer to the latter (to say waht they are).
Reading the book multiple times (and I do love Edwards), I always get the feeling that he has disproved everything but left me with virtually nothing.
As it were, it seems:
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H, and I are NOT signs of being spirit endwelled.
Being Spirit Indwelled is a sign of being Spirit Indwelled.
What does that look like? Not A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H, and I.
Then what does it look like? Being Spirit indwelled.
And the wheel keeps on going, round and roun.
Maybe I’m missing something or too dumb to understand him.
6. Chuck
August 21, 2008
5:21 PM
Good point, Mike. I think the sermon on the mount may shed light - Jesus never says “do these actions and you will know you’re a Christian.” That was the Mosaic Law and we failed.
So Edwards can only simply say what it’s not. If he were to write on what he THOUGHT it was, we would all do that and become papistic
7. Kwame Nyarko
August 21, 2008
7:49 PM
With a ton of examples and scripture, Edwards excellently supports the starting proposition.
If “affections that are truly spiritual and gracious do arise from those influences and operations on the heart which are spiritual, supernatural and divine,” then it is very important that he carefully spells out those influences that may seem convincing but may only be the common influences of the Spirit, the workings of the devil etc and not the influences which are spiritual, supernatural and divine.
He then continues to carefully and intricately explain what evidence or witness the Spirit of God gives us that we are the children of God.
One thing that stood out to me was the use of the term “the spirit of grace, the spirit of love, the spirit of a child” interchangeably. This makes sense since
“it is perfect love, or strong love only, which is so witnesses or evidences that we are children as to cast out fear, and wholly deliver from the spirit of bondage”
Also, “the strong and lively exercises of a spirit of childlike, evangelical, humble love to God, give clear evidence of the soul’s relation to God as His child; which does very greatly and directly satisfy the soul.”
kan
8. Thomas Sullivan
August 21, 2008
7:56 PM
I made this comment before, but it may have been overlooked:
Archibald Alexander wrote in his book, Thoughts on Religious Experience” in 1844, “His {Edwards} Treatise on the Religious Affections is too abstract and tedious for common readers; but it is an excellent work, although I think his fourteen signs of truly gracious affections might be reduced to half the number on his own plan.”
STILL, it is possible to get something out of this first positive sign. Edwards wrote, “On the other hand, though the Spirit of God may many ways influence natural men; yet because it is not thus communicated to them, as an
indwelling principle, they do not derive any denomination or character from it; for there being no union, it is not their own.”
Application - only in the spiritual man is there a change in the governing disposition. The natural man’s character has not changed, and he is still at enmity against God. Romans 8:7, and in time that enmity will manifest itself.
When Edwards talks about the Spirit communicating Himself, he can mean no other than changing that which is acted upon. A couple of changes that he says will be manifest is holiness, joy and fellowship with the Father and Jesus Christ.
I have mentioned an excellent work describing the Holy Spirit working upon the natural faculties of the unregenerate without changing them, and that is “The Twofold Working of the Spirit” by A W Pink, his detailed amplification of Hebrews 6:4-6. If you do not possess this work, the chapter has been reproduced online here.
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Hebrews/hebrews_025.htm
The doctrine of the Common Influences of the Holy Spirit affecting the unregenerate compared to the saving influences of the Spirit CHANGING the very disposition of the regenerate was examined at great length by the puritans. Thomas Goodwin, his works volume 6, has an amazing description of the Temporary Believer. This is titled, “Of the difference of the works on temporary believers and those truly called, and that they differ in their nature and kind.”
I believe we have to be patient to read on as Edwards details at great length the differences and the effects of the quickening power of the Spirit. “True Religious Affections beget the lamb-like, dove-like temper of Jesus.” etc.
But remember an old puritan said “for every one look within, take ten looks to Jesus.” for your spiritual well being.
9. Elizabeth Esther
August 21, 2008
7:57 PM
Hi everyone! I’m new to the discussion but I read the assigned chapter this week. I’ve read Edwards in college, but it’s been nice to read him again.
I really enjoyed this section b/c I come from a background where the “name it & claim it” way of reading Scripture was practically an art form. They would let the Bible fall open, and wherever their finger landed—that was God speaking directly and “immediately” (to use Edwards’ words) to them. I laughed out loud when I read Edwards’ example of a Christian remembering the words, “Fear not, it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” Edwards says “the reason why the promise seems excellent to them is only…from self love.” (p.149).
Edwards’ analysis was truly helpful to me in that I began to understand how NOT to approach Scripture promises. Also, I enjoyed his explanation of “secret facts” and how believers rely too heavily on their own misguided interpretation of private revelation.
The final section that was particularly helpful to me was Edwards exhortation that “If a sinner be once convinced of the veracity of God and that the Scriptures are His word, he will need no more to convince and satisfy him…”(p.151)
It was so encouraging me to know that I can just rest in what God has said and how He has spoken as revealed in His Word. Sometimes, though, is it possible for God to bring things to our remembrance? Just wondering, because it has happened to me at very opportune moments. I hope Edwards wasn’t denying this completely. He did make a caveat regarding this, but it seemed a little vague?
Anyway, thank you for letting me join in. I will continue reading.
10. Jeri
August 21, 2008
8:05 PM
I found this section to be pretty relevant; the warnings and descriptions could apply to many people I’ve known (and actually, I still know many who think along the lines Edwards describes, even if they’re not claiming visions, dreams and voices.) I think Edwards was specifically addressing things he’d heard, heard of and seen. He takes care to state it one way, then back up and come around at it from another direction, then just in case something got missed or forgotten he circled around and said it again. Then once again for good measure. :)
It was helpful to me (though I felt mushiness of brain at times, too.) I want to go back to this section again after we’ve finished the book and read it more thoughtfully.
11. David Porter
August 22, 2008
1:55 PM
Contemplating more on Edwards’ “sensation of the soul”: http://tinyurl.com/5s7tlk
12. Laurie
August 23, 2008
2:01 AM
Slow as usual, but here’s the link to my comments on this section: http://lmokenyon.livejournal.com/107407.html
13. Nahomi Dhinakar
August 23, 2008
9:22 AM
Sadly, in our case, we meet people of the kind we read about almost as often as much as we meet truly spiritual people (disclaimer: as far as we can discern truly spiritual people :) ) So the reading was painful but comforting that the phenomenon we are experiencing is not unique to us.
I have posted my summary at: http://couragetotremble.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/the-religious-affections-part-iii1/
I did feel that I could have condensed the last 20 pages into half a page, but brushed the thought aside. I intend to go on making the summaries and go over them when we are done with the reading. I am sure I will see the whole picture better then. Even otherwise quotes such as the one brought to our attention by David Porter (“But yet that idea which the saint has of the loveliness of God, and that sensation, and that kind of delight he has in his view, which is as it were the marrow and quintessence of his love, is peculiar, and entirely diverse from anything that a natural man has, or can have any notion of.”) are treasures that make the exercise well worth it.
14. Steve Burlew
August 27, 2008
10:32 AM
Tim -
Please forgive me for not thinking of this or mentioning it some time ago, brother. But if/when you’re reading through something like this from Banner of Truth, I would be happy to do whatever I can to make the book as accessible and affordable as possible to encourage more people to read along with you. We obviously can’t give our books away, but for something such as what you’re doing here, well, I’d love to support you and encourage more and more people to discover the likes of Edwards (or Owen or Baxter or Watson or …….).
:-)
You brother and Christ’s servant,
Steve B.
Banner of Truth, Carlisle, PA
15. Thomas Sullivan
August 27, 2008
4:56 PM
Hi Steve! Book prices, what an interesting subject! When I purchased the Banner of Truth collection of Edwards’ works in 1985, the set was a mere 36.95! Thomas Brooks, John Flavel’s works were 49.95, and John Newton 59.95 and the 16 volume set of John Owen was 99.95! at Trinity Book Service (now CVBBS there in Carlisle) Back in those days - 1985, a hardback volume of Dabney’s Systematic Theology was 9.95! and the three volume set of Dabney’s Discussions was 21.95!
Now even the Hendrickson Publishers edition lists for 129.95 on Amazon. I am tempted to ask - does the set come with a lock of Edwards hair for that price?
So, we don’t need a lower price necessarily, we need you to invent a time machine to take us back 23 years.
Or is that asking a tad too much!
Thomas - Grand Rapids, MI