Tim,

I am finding too, that this is not that difficult a read. Some of his sentences are amazingly long however. He might hold the world’s record for the most commas in a sentence. I have actually grown fond of the way the older writers seems to turn their sentences inside out. A.W. Pink’s writing style was enjoyable to me as well.

I am not far enough into my biography of Jonathan Edwards to understand the complete context of this book. Seemingly large numbers of people were being born again during the Great Awakening. It must have been very chaotic and an overwhelming harvest for the church to figure out how to disciple great numbers at once.

As such, there must have been those who saw opportunity to draw attention to themselves by putting on false piety and those who simply behaved in various ways out of ignorance.

I thought I read somewhere that people were taken, during these times, in various physical ways. In other words, people would faint, they must have been quite vocal as well and causing quite a spectacle.

Thus the split that he eludes to between those who condemned any physical attributes and those who looked to physical attributes as “true spirituality”.

Anyone who has been in the church for any period of time understands his concern.

I have run across his reference to “animal spirits”, several times, and don’t really understand what he is referring to. Anyone have an idea?

Very enjoyable read and I look forward to dining again at Edwards’ text over the coming weeks.

This section of the book is a good reminder that much of what is considered ‘christian’ in America isn’t necessarily Christian. I think about this every now and then, but this passage is a call to distinguish true from false Christianity by not assuming that something is of God merely because it appears to be. This makes me think of the ‘revival’ in Florida where it is assumed that the Holy Spirit is working, but we need to be discerning and not assume the work is from God.

Personally, this section of the work impels me to more faithful ministry in my local church. Just because someone has the appearance of being a Christian doesn’t mean they are. Just because they enjoy Bible study or singing they aren’t necessarily regenerate.

In light of these things I pray that I become more discerning and fervent in ministry, seeking to lead people to see the beauty of who Christ is and what He has done. At the same time, I pray that I don’t become overly critical or cynical toward professing Christians…I pray that I don’t require more evidence of regeneration than the Scriptures and that I am generous in my love toward professing believers.

Tim, Although I’m not reading through Edwards with you all, I did read it a couple of years ago and these posts are a good refreshment of a great book. I think Edwards’ book could be one of the most important books for us today in light of disuptes over what “Spirit-filled” ministry and worship looks like. I read John Owen’s The Dominion of Sin and Grace a few weeks ago and was surprised at how similar this and Religious Affections were, at least in their method. Similar to how Edwards will look at what may consitute genuine affections and discuss why they may or may not be, so also Owen looks at how what looks like freedom from sin may actually be the dominion of sin. Both emphasize that what we see visibly may or may not correspond to reality, but we cannot go simply by how things look to us from the outside. They’re dealing with two different matters (true and false affections for Edwards, living under grace or under sin for Owen), but their manner of unpacking their subjects is very similar. I just found that interesting.

I would like to comment about David Porter’s comment: “I have run across his reference to “animal spirits”, several times, and don’t really understand what he is referring to. Anyone have an idea?”

It was earlier thought in the western world, that the four human substances, blood (sanguine humour), yellow bile (choleric humour), black bile (melancholic humour), and phlegm (phlegmatic humour), caused various “affections” in human beings. People believed that the humours gave off vapours or SPIRITS that went up to the brain and produced the various characteristics or affections. For example when the melancholic humour played up, the individual would become melancholic and sad. Doctors at the time of Hippocrates and after believed that they had to balance the bodily fluids to make a person well.

Jonathan Edwards acknowledges that the flesh, which is a biological thing, whose characteristics and humours we share to some extent with other biological creatures (ANIMALS), also produces some affectations. We need to distinguish from these natural fleshly affections and holy affections of our heart/soul/spirit, which is beyond the realm of biology and ‘animal spirits’.

Nahomi,

I think this is what you are talking about?

http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/73/animal_spirits.html

Edwards isn’t saying that high religious affections and bodily reactions to them are not from God. He believes that many times they do come from the gracious working of God. He is just explaining all possibilities, including the negative. He bemoans the negative attitudes towards the expression of religious affections that have developed. Edwards observed that many of those who displayed bodily reactions, such as crying out, falling, etc., were truly converted; they had experienced strong physical responses to the powerful work of the Holy Spirit in them.

I was convicted in section III by Edwards’ talk about the trees with an overabundance of leaves (usually not much fruit) and the clouds that look promising but never deliver rain to the dry, thirsty ground. Don’t want to be that, and I feel I have been too many times. Lord, deliver me from self-deceit.

Tim C. wrote, “And this is exactly the same as preaching—just because a person preaches from the Bible does not necessarily indicate that he is honoring Scripture and using it rightly.”

This is a good point, though I think what Edwards is explaining is that if a text of Scripture comes suddenly into the mind and you don’t know where it originated, the way it is abused is by the conclusion that it must be from God because it came suddenly, unexpectedly in this way and manner.

So it is the EXPERIENCE of the text coming to the mind suddenly and not the TRUTH contained in the text that is giving the person a certain conclusion. The TRUTH only can be of advantage to us as it is received in the heart after correct comprehension.

Let’s use an example. A pastor such as George Whitefield was able - it was said - to reduce an audience to tears merely by the way he uttered the word “Mesopotamia.” Now if such pathos is displayed in preaching a verse of the Bible, the hearer can easily be moved merely by the pathos itself, and not because he has been enlightened by the Bible verse. So such preaching can produce a certain affect on the natural unconverted hearer in his emotions, while the heart is still at enmity with the message, because he still is at enmity against God.

Since, however, the pathos has produced a certain emotion in his bosom, he supposes that it is the Spirit that has given him the feelings so he deceives himself.

It seems to me that Edwards is trying to define once and for all what a real Christian is, thinks, feels, looks like, etc.

He seems uncomfortable with the fact that there are tares among the wheat. Many of you also seem that way.

What is the point of so much straining and exercise?

If God is really gracious and fatherly and we have repented and have faith like the Scriptures say are you worried that He will exclude you because you are found wanting according to Edwards?

Perhaps I have missed the point of this book. I’m not finding anything in it so earthshaking that I couldn’t have lived without it. Why is this considered a classic?

Thomas Sullivan, thank you for the explanations you made above. They would make valuable footnotes in Edwards book itself. I am looking forward to more of your explanatory “footnotes” as we continue reading through Religious Affections.

sda

As a person who was a false professor of faith in Christ for many years, a “tare” if you will, I can definitely see the value in this book. The modern Church seems to operate with no category for such a thing as a false Christian, and as a result folks are rarely called upon to do any self examination. There is a heavy emphasis on experiences without means for discerning the nature of them, or any encouragement to do so. On the rare occasions when I did wonder if I was really a Christian I was usually directed back to some experience I’d had or prayer I’d prayed, or asked if I agreed to certain tenets of the faith, and was then reassured that certainly I must be saved (in spite of glaring evidence to the contrary, like a distinct absence of love for God, or His Christ, or His holiness, or His Church - but these were not generally brought up ).

There is definitely a limit to the degree to which we can or should evaluate others, particularly in the absence of gross immorality. But we will give an account for ourselves. And for those who teach and/or shepherd others there is a responsibility to not assume everyone who thinks themselves a Christian is truly converted. We must understand and make it clear, as Christ did, that there is such a thing as a false Christian, and what the fate of such a one will be: “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never new you; depart from Me you who practice lawlessness’” (Mt. 7:23). It is good for people to be taught to examine their experiences in light of the Scripture and the fruit of them. If even the performing of miracles and casting out of demons is not sufficient proof of one’s acceptance in the Beloved, how much more should we ordinary folk take heed and examine ourselves.

I can hardly think of a more dreadful end than to find myself before the throne of God self-decieved that I was His, when I never was. Yet Jesus warned that MANY will find themselves in that fearful position at the end. It is right that we should continue sounding the warning, and preaching the gospel, and teaching those in our sphere of influence: “be even more diligent to make your call and election sure” (1Peter 1:10).

Thomas, if the book was written in response to the falling away of so many professors, what was its result?

Did the falling away of professors stop? If so how?

And as an aside how did you or Edwards or Hodge know that God was provoked? Are you or they being modest? Please tell.

Laurie, as a former “tare” what led your to renewed faith?

Peter

Peter: Thanks for your questions. You asked did the book stop the falling away of professors? I guess you are assuming that apostates would pick up the book and read it? I have never assumed such.

The book was written to assist those (1) who questioned why so many who had lately made a profession had fallen away - so pastors would be much helped by it. (2) For those who had not fallen away but would question themselves as in 1 Corinthians 13:5 “examine yourselves whether you be in the faith etc.” (3) and for generations to come. I just taught a Sunday School on the Life of Asahel Nettleton - who was greatly used in the 2nd Great Awakening. When he read this book it was written in his bio. “it …had a momentous influence in giving him uncommon spiritual discernment, and in fitting him for that sphere of distinguished usefulness on which he afterwards entered.”

You asked - how did Edwards know that God was provoked? Answer: By His withdrawing His Spirit and influence in the churches. The witnessed result was a return of persons to a state of declension and doctrinal errors.

Read Edwards sermon, God Makes Men Sensible of Their Misery Before Revealing His Love and Mercy taken from Hosea 5:15

“I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.”

Now I humbly ask you a question. I realize this book is heavy plowing, but even if you can’t or won’t understand it, do you really want to raise a dust cloud to bother those who have desired to peruse its contents?

If that is yours or my demeanor, we should at least read the section of the book, true religious affections beget the lamb-like, dove- like spirit of Jesus.

I’ve posted on my blog here: http://staffaction.blogspot.com/2008/08/this-post-is-part-of-ongoing-series.html

Oops, my text cited were incorrect above. 1 cor 13:5 should be 2 Cor 13:5, and Phil. 1:12 should have been 1:6.