- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (8/28)
- Next Post »A La Carte (8/29)
Reading Classics - The Religious Affections (VI)
- 08/28/08
- 24
This morning brings us to our seventh reading in Jonathan Edwards’ The Religious Affections. This week we looked to the second sign of authentic affections.
Summary
We continue to progress through the twelve signs of truly gracious and holy affections. So far we’ve seen:
- They are from a divine influence.
- Their object is the excellence of divine things.
Discussion
After being maybe a little bit confused or disappointed with last week’s reading, I found that this one smacked me right between the eyes. Edwards discusses something I’ve thought about before and a subject for which John Piper obviously (and by his own admission) owes much to Edwards. “The primary ground of gracious affections is the transcendently excellent and amiable nature of divine things as they are in themselves; and not any conceived relation they bear to self, or self-interest.” In other words, “the supremely excellent nature of divine things is the first, or primary and original, objective foundation of the spiritual affections of true saints.” All this to say that the greatest benefit we receive as Christians is Christ himself. Forgiveness of sins is an incredible gift; sanctification is something for which we give thanks to God; a better understanding of the world is a great benefit; but the best thing Christians receive is Christ. Edwards makes this point time and time again through the section—he will not let the reader escape without understanding this one thing. “The first foundation of a true love to God is that whereby He is in Himself lovely, or worthy to be loved, or the supreme loveliness of His nature.”
There are many applications of this teaching. I thought immediately of evangelism and how we tend to make much of people when we share the gospel with them instead of making much of God. Even if we are not fans of Joel Osteen, we may still try to woo people towards God by promising a kind of “Best Life Now” if only they will become Christians. But rarely do we tell them that the best gift of all is Christ. I thought of the megachurch movement, the church growth movement, and how those churches sometimes seem to offer everything but God. But as Edwards says, “If men’s affection to God is founded first on His profitableness to them, their affection begins at the wrong end; they regard God only for the utmost limit of the stream of divine good, where it touches them and reaches their interest, and have no respect to that infinite glory of God’s nature which is the original good, and the true foundation of all good, the first foundation of all loveliness of every kind, and so the first foundation of all true love.” Such a hypocrite “lays himself at the bottom of all, as the first foundation, and lays on God as the superstructure.” Rather than having a faith that begins with God, they have a faith that begins with self and adds God only as an afterthought.
When Edwards wrote about the “natural principle of self-love,” there were a couple of lines that stood out to me. “A dog will love his master that is kind to him,” and “Saul was once and again greatly affected, and even dissolved with gratitude towards David, for sparing his life, and yet remained an habitual enemy to him.” He uses these examples to teach that men may express gratitude toward someone without truly loving him. People can love what another person does for them, and even by affected by it, while never loving that person. And so unbelievers can seem to enjoy the benefits that come to those who know Christ even while hating Him. We are prone to loving God’s gifts more than God Himself. And so we must examine our hearts to determine whether we love God for what He is in Himself or if the foundation of our love is what He can do for us. “True saints have their minds, in the first place, inexpressibly pleased and delighted with the sweet ideas of the glorious and amiable nature of the things of God.”
A final great quote: “A true saint, when in the enjoyment of true discoveries of the sweet glory of God and Christ, has his mind too much captivated and engaged by what he views without himself, to stand at that time to view himself, and his own attainments. It would be a diversion and loss which he could not bear, to take his eye off from the ravishing object of his contemplation, to survey his own experience, and to spend time in thinking with himself. What a high attainment this is, and what a good story I now have to tell others!”
Next Time
For next week we will read the third distinguishing sign of truly gracious and holy affections. It is another section that should be quite manageable as it’s about the same size as this week’s reading.
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.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (24)
I think this is probably how Jesus felt when the crowds seemed to love the signs and miracles more than they loved Him.
Tim,
I struggled with this particular passage. Perhaps I missed something and someone can point me in the right direction.
It seemed to me that Edwards was suggesting that the true believer puts the beauty of Christ and who he is first and foremost, and if we love him for what he has done for us, then this is a selfish love, and this kind of love should be a secondary love only.
I then tried, with all my heart, to imagine a love for Christ that was void of his many gifts to me. I can’t seem to get there.
I can’t wrap my mind around it. God chose me from before the foundations of the earth, God knitted me in my mother’s womb, God sent me his effectual call and has shown me a secured inheritance. These things shape and form my very worldview.
If I didn’t have these things, then what would my view of Christ be? Frankly…I draw a complete blank.
I read and understood his words about a dog loving his master in return for his love. But if a dog and a man passed each other in the woods, not knowing one another, would the dog love the man?
I guess I don’t understand what Edwards is trying to say.
I read his admonishment regarding “loving him because he first loved us”.
I found myself awake last night asking the Holy Spirit to help me understand.
Before God regenerated my heart, there was no disposition to love him. In fact, the scriptures teach that before God’s miraculous touching of my heart, there was nothing but enmity for God and Christ.
God, it seems to me, did in fact make the first move. How could I possibly love him outside of that? How could I possibly love him outside of him first loving me?
Am I missing something here?
David,
I’d like to try to help, if I can. These are fine, subtle distinctions, and that is why he took so many pages to try to distinguish them, and his language is a bit difficult at times. Yes, He had to first love you and open your eyes to see His beauty, but is it His beauty you see and that you delight in, or merely the idea that you are special to God. Are you foremost captivated by His loveliness, or by the idea that the God of the universe is captivated by you? I think that’s the question Edwards puts forth.
I know I almost always and immediately like a person who clearly and obviously likes me. It’s difficult not to, and such a one may quickly become one of my favorite people. It’s difficult even to dissuade me from liking such a person (which I’m not sure speaks well of my character). But there have been people in my life who I’ve admired deeply and wanted to know, and who I love because of who they are, and the kind of person they are, their talents and strength of character - their personal attributes. What these people say to me will be valued by me because of who they are - they may remain strangers to me all my life, yet my feelings toward them will remain. If at some point one of these individuals singled me out for friendship, well, you could imagine how that might make me feel - it would be wonderful, and humbling, etc. It’s a bit like that - in love God reveals Himself to us, through Christ, as the kind of God He is, and we see His glory as it is revealed in Christ, and we are delighted. And that is the foundation. I know that during the times when I’ve struggled with assurance, all those times I’ve wanted to see the glory of God in the face of Christ, and am distressed at the prospect of being separated from that wonderful hope. I know He is lovely, and because of that I want Him, not anything else, just Him.
I’d quote from God is the Gospel, by John Piper here, but my copy has been loaned out, so I’ll paraphrase a question he asks there: If you could have heaven, with all you’ve ever dreamed of, all your loved ones, perfect health, freedom from pain and worry, all the pleasures you could think of, but God not be there, would you be happy with that?
Blessings as you pray throught these things. It’s good and necessary to struggle in this way at times.
Thank you so much David for the question and Laurie for your reply! I was right there with David. Perhaps I should be sure I’ve had my second cup of coffee before I pick Edwards up in the mornings, but it doesn’t always work out that way. ;) For such a small section, I thought it was much harder to wrap my head around it as David said. It’s nice to know I’m not struggling alone.Thanks so much everyone for contributing to the discussion!S-
Laurie,
Thank you so much. I see through your interpretation of Edwards text a beautiful thing. Of course heaven without Christ would be no heaven.
You said:
“Yes, He had to first love you and open your eyes to see His beauty, but is it His beauty you see and that you delight in, or merely the idea that you are special to God. Are you foremost captivated by His loveliness, or by the idea that the God of the universe is captivated by you? I think that’s the question Edwards puts forth.”
In my reading, I didn’t catch Edwards putting it in these terms. I will have to go back and re-read.
I can assuredly answer your question. I am eternally captivated by Christ loveliness, but it all started with his love for me. Without that, I can see nothing.
And..with his electing love of me…all I can see is his loveliness. Certainly not anything is lovely in me in comparison. I am not worthy of being mentioned in the same breath.
In fact, am most happy to be his slave: (http://www.lightsource.com/oneplace/grace_to_you/20080706/)
Like David, I also struggled with this a bit. But thanks to a little help from Laurie, I think what we see here is at least part of the reason God gave us marriage. We love our husbands or wives, not because of what they give us or do for us. In the end, we love them because of who they are. In the same way, we must love Christ for who he is, not for what he’s done for us. If my hushand gave me much and did much for me, but he was not here with me, I would be of all women most miserable. Laurie’s paraphrase of Piper is excellent because the answer to her question of whether we could be happy in a heaven without Christ can only be a resounding “No!” In the end why we wait with such great anticipation for heaven is to see Jesus. He is the focal point of our affections. Not what he’s done, but who he really is
I suppose angels worship and adore Christ even though they personally know not redemption. They praise Him for His attributes of infinite grace and mercy as made manifest through the redemption of fallen man. So too should be our praise and adoration of the Giver Himself and secondarily should be our gratitude for Him making us the recipients of such gifts. The personal results is but icing on the cake.
Did I get it? Sure wish Edwards wrote with a Southern accent.
Tim, excellent summary…Laurie, excellent reply! Everyone’s comments are so heartfelt and revealing…may we all love God with all of our heart, mind, body and strength…may we know Him and apprehend His ways.
David,I borrowed the word “captivated” from the text:speaking of a kind of “natural” affection some may have for God (as opposed to “spiritual” affection) he says, “…they allow God to be lovely in himself, no otherwise, than that he has forgiven them, and accepted them, and loves them above most in the world, and has engaged to improve all his infinite power and wisdom in preferring, dignifying and exalting, and will do for ‘em just as they would have him. When once they are firm in this apprehension, ‘tis easy to own God and Christ to be lovely and glorious, and to admire and extol them. ‘Tis easy for them to own Christ to be a lovely person, and the best in the world, when they are first firm in it, that he, though Lord of the universe, is captivated with love to them, and has his heart swallowed up in them, and prizes ‘em far beyond most of their neighbors, and loved ‘em from eternity, and died for ‘em, and will make ‘em reign in eternal glory with him in heaven….And as this sort of persons begin, so they go on. Their affections are raised from time to time, primarily on this foundation of self-love and a conceit of God’s love to them.”
Truthfully, the reason that word “captivated” jumped out at me was because of a book I’ve had several women over the last few years recommend to me. I’ve not read it; but I’ve been alarmed by it’s wild popularity, especially because I’ve seen no lasting fruit come from it. One gal I know to be an unbeliever, read it and went on romantically about how God is captivated by us and wants to love us, and how good it made her feel. A few weeks later the book was gone, and so was her enthusiasm. The others, who are professing evangelicals, were likewise very emotionally affected for a while, could really speak of little else, they talked about feeling affirmed, special, feminine and beautiful, etc. Then, well, nothing. And this is just the sort of thing Edwards is addressing here.
I must say, this section, has caused me to search my own heart as well, I’m perfectly capable of conceit. I want to know Him, and I do not want to be deceived, least of all by myself, which I’m certainly capable of doing; sometimes my capacity for self-deception terrifies me. But, in the end I found the soul-searching to be comforting, assuring. It enabled me to see that my soul can be satisfied in Him only. And, David, it doesn’t surprise me in the least to hear that you also have arrived at the same conclusion!
(please read through to the end to see if this makes sense)
Now Edwards asked some questions and answers them. Based on these and what I understood from the section and some other readings, I will attempt to add to the great answers that have already been provided to David’s statement.
David’s statement was
“It seemed to me that Edwards was suggesting that the true believer puts the beauty of Christ and who he is first and foremost, and if we love him for what he has done for us, then this is a selfish love, and this kind of love should be a secondary love only.”
Edwards said:
“And so, they say, it is from self-love, or a desire of his own happiness, that he desires God should be glorified, and desires to behold and enjoy His glorious perfections. But then they ought to consider a little further, and inquire how the man came to place his happiness in God’s being glorified, and in contemplating and enjoying God’s perfections. There is no doubt but that after God’s glory, and the beholding His perfections, are become so agreeable to him that he places his highest happiness in these things, then he will desire them as he desires his own happiness. But how came these things to be so agreeable to him that he esteems it his highest happiness to glorify God? Is not this the fruit of love? A man must first love God, or have his heart united to Him, before he will esteem God’s good his own, and before he will desire the glorifying and enjoying of God as his happiness.”
In other words, this (union with God) must be there before the glorifying and enjoying God can be there.
So no one can love Christ for what He did without first being in union with him. Therefore, it cannot happen that one genuinely loves Christ for what He did without loving Christ Himself (being in union with him). Furthermore/ to restate, since we cannot know the beauty of the person of Christ without the act of God, (ie God drawing us and giving us the free gift of salvation) there is no enjoying the person of Christ, outside of what Christ has done for us. Therefore, it is not possible, to esteem it as ones highest happiness to glorify God, out of mere self-love.
Let me borrow from one of my favorite teachers, John Owen.
In Owen’s work, “Of Communion with God” he states:
“The teaching of God is the real communication of all and every particular emanation from himself unto the saints whereof they are made partakers. That promise, John 6:45 - ‘It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me’ inwraps in itself the whole mystery of grace, as to its actual dispensation unto us, so far as we may be made real possessors of it. ”
This teaching brings us from death to life, brought unto Christ -
“it is of and from the Father: him we hear, of him we learn, by him are we brought unto union and communion with the Lord Jesus. This work he employs the ministers of the gospel Acts 26:17,18”
A person who is motivated by self-love and has not been taught of God is not able to “desire the glorifying and enjoying of God as his happiness.”
Yes, we are to place the beauty of Christ before the awesome and marvelous and ever to be desired gifts of our God and Savior Jesus, but outside of what He has done, no man can even begin to love the Lord.
So David, do not find it strange that you are not able to picture a love for Christ outside of what Christ has done for you because what God did is the beginning of our loving Him for who He is. We would not know of His awesomeness outside of what He did before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4-14). We need the gifts of Christ (first and foremost His life on the cross) at all times. That is why in living the cross-centered life, we are to preach the gospel to ourselves daily and constantly be reminded because this is the main thing.
We need Him and always will. We need what he has given us even to be able to love Him for who He is, and not for what He has given us.
So as we daily endeavour to love him for who He is, and not for what He has done, we constantly go back to what He did, asking for grace to adore Him for Him.
kan
In this weeks reading, these words also stood out to me
“On the contrary, false affections begin with self, and an acknowledgment of an excellency in God, and an affectedness with it, is only consequential and dependent. In the love of the true saint God is the lowest [most fundamental] foundation; the love of the excellency of His nature is the foundation of all the affections which come afterwards, wherein self-love is concerned as a handmaid; but the hypocrite lays himself at the bottom of all, as the first foundation, and lays on God as the superstructure; and even his acknowledgment of God’s glory itself depends on his regard to his private interest.”
I was reminded of Job, who after all that happened in that day (Job 1:13-22), worshiped and blessed God. Can we say that his statement on the blessedness of the name of the Lord was not dependent on
“his regard to his private interest?”
I am convinced that Job had the love of the excellency of God as the foundation because his response, utterly amazing, was not based on the circumstances surrounding him.
kan
I think Laurie’s comments are helpful - maybe I can just assist in a relief of the confusion. Edwards is not saying that a saint won’t be absolutely thankful for the salvation he has received, or the benefits of that salvation. What he is attempting to show is that a hypocrite can appreciate that salvation only for mercenary motives - to quote from “Hypocrites Deficient in the Duty of Prayer” by Edwards. For a while they {Hypocrites} are affected with their hope: they think that God hath delivered them out of a natural condition, and given them an interest in Christ, thusintroducing them into a state of safety from that eternal misery which they lately feared. With this supposed kindness of God to them, they are much affected, and often find in themselves for a while a kind of love to God,excited by his supposed love to them. Now, while this affection towards God continues, the duties of religion seem pleasant to them; it is even with some delight that they approach to God in their closets…”
Edwards shows that the hope of the hypocrite never rises higher than self. He has no real affections for God, nor can he possibly delight in the beauty of God’s incommunicable attributes.
THAT BEING SAID, the immediately followers of Jonathan Edwards - such as Samuel Hopkins - took this TOO FAR and attempted to say that a true saint should be willing - in his evangelical conviction and humiliation to be DAMNED for the glory of God. That such a response is a good response because one has so learned to glory and delight in God’s attributes.
But such a response is foolish because persons who are damned HATE God, and evangelical humiliation would never desire to be God’s enemy so long as “the praise of His glorious justice” be maintained.
Edwards is showing that our own personal interest often will be forgotten during the moment of salvation because the Savior Himself is so much in view, or maybe the attribute of God’s kindness and goodness in themselves, or His wisdom in the way salvation is shown to be so amazing.
If one misunderstands Edwards, they must come to the conclusion that it is only correct to pray, Hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom Come, Thy will be done, but not to pray - give us this day, and forgive us our trespasses etc.
Piper’s illustration of the Grand Canyon is helpful here. If you walk up to the Grand Canyon and take in its grandeur and immense size, and beauty, you don’t reason with yourself how great it now makes you feel - as if contemplating it added to your own importance. You reason that your are a speck in comparison to it, or self is forgotten altogether as you are lost in something so spectacular to look upon.
So it is with a saint looking into the great attributes of God displayed in salvation. One will wonder about this great God with love and praise as its foundation, while self is forgotten.
Does this help a tad?
Thomas, I haven’t read Hopkins and his taking it too far, but one of the first things I thought of was Romans 9:3 “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.”
Anyways, I do think Edwards wants someone to think “What is my greatest desire- To be saved? or God be glorified? Now those two questions often have answers in the positive, but a true saint desires that God be glorified over his salvation.
As far as Paul, he wishes it could be so, but knows it’s an impossibility.
May we have the burden Paul has, that they may be saved.
Loads of wonderful thoughts to meditate upon. Thanks everyone.
I must go back and re-read this section. I haven’t done it yet, but clearly as I was reading this section, I missed Edwards’ point.
The next section will be read in the morning with a fresh mind, instead of in the evening nearly brain dead.
Thanks again!
Thanks everyone for the good discussion above. I was late in reading this section. Completed it last night - but I believe I gained some more with all your comments in mind. It made me read more carefully.
Simply put - the area that hit me hardest was the distinction between natural love and natural gratitude verses that love which is born of grace.
I really appreciated the following two references one from Jesus our Lord saying: (Luk 6:32) For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
and then the other from Job which shows God’s sentiments to such a “mercenary” love : Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for naught? (Edwards here I think added some depth to my take on Job 1.9 - Wow praise the Lord for such a gift as growing in grace and knowledge.)
And then, also, how Edwards could equate this natural affection even to a Judge who accepts bribes. The judge who favors the briber because of the judge’s own self-interest in the bribe.
So then we hope for more, for affections that are born of grace, which have even before self-interest a grace-born affection for the beauty, majesty, and excellency of the great God with whom we have to do. I liked that from Edwards. I’m happy to have him humble me with these thoughts and I’m happy also to have the added challenge to read more closely as I prepared for this section by considering all of your comments above and Tim’s review.
sda
Another thought:
Tim’s application of this section to evangelism is truly worth underlining. “making much of people” vs. “making much of God.” .. May the door utterance be opened to declare much of God to many.
Hello Mike: Good question. Could it be possible that Samuel Hopkins is correct that we should be willing to be damned for the glory of God? You mentioned Romans 9:3. Did Paul say that he would really be willing to be a vessel of wrath so that his brethren - the Jews - would be saved? Can we suppose that Paul would desire that he would be fixed in a permanent state of being God’s enemy, if it meant that the Jews would be saved? If Paul desired God’s glory, why would it help his desire for himself to HATE that glory as all of the damned do in hell? But further, such a desire would be to go beyond what the moral law requires. FURTHER, could it not be said that if he was willing to be a vessel of wrath for the salvation of his kinsmen, would it not be possible to be said that he was willing to pay a sacrifice that even Jesus did not pay. For though Jesus endured God’s wrath, as a substitute, His affections for his Father were always holy.
John Murray’s comments are helpful when he states that the Greek means that Paul COULD WISH, not that he actually prayed for it, but that hypothetically - so much was his affection for his brethren.
HOWEVER Samuel Hopkins is talking about taking God’s side against ourselves in contrition. This is o.k. if the contrite one ADMITS that he deserves God’s wrath. It appears that Hopkins, however, was looking at this demeanor - being willing to be damned for God’s glory - as a sign of proper contrition.
Let it be kept in mind that Edwards’ followers often misconstrued his words. No work of Edwards was so misused as “The Nature of True Virtue” and Edwards talk of “disinterested benevolence.” For the history of that gohere….http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/the_new_divinity.htm
These comments are all so helpful and respectful, and this whole process so edifying. I wish all discussion between believers could be so uplifting. It’s been a real blessing to participate!
Further on the mentioned struggle:
Edwards’ issue is not about “imagining a love for Christ that was void of his many gifts to me”… such I think is unnecessary and even inappropriate in Edwards’ biblical vision of a God who is intrinsically good with eternal pleasures at his right hand FOR US. God’s Goodness essential to his revealed identity (see also Churnock).
The issue is do you honestly see your comprehension/understanding of God’s instrinsic satisfying goodness (and greatness, beyond just his emanating goodness) AS the primary gift “for you”, (rather than all those benefits from him received by you); do you see enjoying God HIMSELF as THE eternal pleasure. And to truly do this, or begin doing this, you need a regenerate heart… mere orthodox confident belief in good biblical doctrine, even confidence in the truth of Edwards’ assertions, will not and cannot do the job without that ‘divine influence’ Edwards speaks of as the first sign of a truly gracious affection.
I believe this has great relevance also for the joyful fear of God of which the Scripture speaks of that we will possess in heaven. If you are only “into” God for the good benefits received by you apart from his all- Majestic nature, than it makes it hard to conceive of being happily awestruck by the glory of his manifested wrath and power throughout eternity.
I thank God that Edwards STRESSED that true saints do not first see that God loves them, and then see that He is lovely, but they see that GOD IS LOVELY, and Christ is excellent and glorious, and then, consequentially they see God’s love and favor to them. The love of the EXCELLENCY OF CHRIST’s nature is the foundation of the holy affections which follow.May I encourage you to read Edward’s sermon , THE EXCELLENCY OF CHRIST and John Piper’s summary in SEEING AND SAVORING JESUS CHRIST ( the third chapter, The Lion and the Lamb, the Excellency of Christ ) and in GOD IS THE GOSPEL -p. 52. I recommend ALTOGETHER LOVELY , a collection of nine of :Edwards sermons on the Glory and Excellency of Christ (available from Ligonier Ministrries.org ). Eight of these can be read at www.biblebb.com/edwards.htm (God the Best Portion of the Christian, The Excellency of Christ, Christ Exalted, Safety, Fullness, and Sweet Refreshment in Christ, Jesus Christ the Same Yesterday, Today, and Forever, The Pure in Heart Blessed, Christ the Example of Ministers, Praise One of the Chief Employments of Heaven).. And so I pray for that God will shine into the hearts of many the light of the knowledge of His glory in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:6and they will behold Him as true and beautiful and satisfying .
The language some how seemed harder than before. But it was well worth persevering with the reading, as the Edwards lens zooms in on yet another aspect.I have posted my summary at: http://couragetotremble.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/the-religious-affections-part-iiipoint-2/Appreciate all your comments above.-n-
Not long after I started reading this passage, my contrary nature raised 1Jn 4:19 as an objection, until I found that he raises it himself and answers it. * Edwards’ premise is: A saint does not love God because of what God has personally done for him but rather for who God is. Let us refer to the personal favour of God as (A)* 1Jn 4:19 says: We love Him because He first loved us. Let us refer to this love of God as (B).* Let us refer to the affection and love of an individual (whether saint or hypocrite) for God as (C).
(A) and (B) are two different things. (B) is talking about the ‘first cause’ love of God in chosing, calling, regenerating, and redeeming saints. When this happens, the saint’s very nature changes and he begins to be able to appreciate the wonder of God, and his heart has the ‘stock of love’ that Edwards mentions. After this, whenever he experiences (A), his heart is made more tender towards God, but (C) is an ever-present love in the saint’s heart in appreciation of who God is. I think, Edwards is pointing out that the recurring event in a hypocrite’s life is A —> C whereas 1 Jn 4:19 speaks of B —> C. To get the big picture, we must understand that for the saint it is B —> C —> A (where A makes his heart tender and acts as a glass to understand B even better), with Edwards currently focussing on the C —> A aspect in this point.
I noticed that Steven Gambill - Reformed Baptist Church of Nashville - has started a lecture series on the Treatise on the Religious Affections.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=816082233584
I finally got my thoughts together regarding Edwards’ second true affection: http://tinyurl.com/6bu5es
Thanks for everyones input!