I am guessing that the majority of the readers of this site do not read the “Reading Classics Together” posts. And, unless you’re reading the books along with us, why would you? But today (if you’ve read this far) I’d like you to read one. I think you’ll find it immensely useful. I am going to do little more than provide some quotes from Edwards, hoping it will give you a sense as to just how great and how applicable are his writings. These are drawn from The Religious Affections in a section where Edwards is explaining in what true affections, true Christianity, consists. In this section he says “Gracious affections are attended with evangelical humiliation.”

Here is how he defines his term. “Evangelical humiliation is a sense that a Christian has of his own utter insufficiency, despicableness, and odiousnesss, with an answerable frame of heart.” He compares this with legal humiliation which is a kind of false humility which may extend to any person. And he spends this chapter explaining the difference, showing that a true Christian will be marked by true humility. From here on out, you’re reading pure Edwards. There may be little flow from paragraph-to-paragraph as they are drawn from different parts of the chapter.

It concerns us greatly to look at this humiliation, as one of the most essential things pertaining to true Christianity. This is the principal part of the great Christian duty of self-denial. That duty consists in two things, viz., first, in a man’s denying his worldly inclinations, and in forsaking and renouncing all worldly objects and enjoyments; and, secondly, in denying his natural self-exaltation, and renouncing his own dignity and glory and in being emptied of himself; so that he does freely and from his very heart, as it were renounce himself, and annihilate himself. Thus the Christian does in evangelical humiliation.

It is inexpressible, and almost inconceivable, how strong a self-righteous, self-exalting disposition is naturally in man; and what he will not do and suffer to feed and gratify it: and what lengths have been gone in a seeming self-denial in other respects, by Essenes and Pharisees among the Jews, and by Papists, many sects of heretics, and enthusiasts, among professing Christians; and by many Mahometans; and by Pythagorean philosophers, and others among the Heathen; and all to do sacrifice to this Moloch of spiritual pride or self-righteousness; and that they may have something wherein to exalt themselves before God, and above their fellow creatures.

The deceitfulness of the heart of man appears in no one thing so much as this of spiritual pride and self-righteousness. The subtlety of Satan appears in its height, in his managing of persons with respect to this sin. And perhaps one reason may be, that here he has most experience; he knows the way of its coming in; he is acquainted with the secret springs of it: it was his own sin. Experience gives vast advantage in leading souls, either in good or evil.

He that has much grace, apprehends much more than others that great height to which his love ought to ascend; and he sees better than others, how little a way he has risen towards that height. And therefore estimating his love by the whole height of his duty, hence it appears astonishingly little and low in his eyes. And the eminent saint, having such a conviction of the high degree in which he ought to love God, this shows him, not only the littleness of his grace, but the greatness of his remaining corruption. In order to judge how much corruption or sin we have remaining in us, we must take our measure from that height to which the rule of our duty extends: the whole of the distance we are at from that height, is sin.

How can we rationally suppose the most eminent saints on earth appear to them [heavenly beings], if beheld any otherwise than covered over with the righteousness of Christ, and their deformities swallowed up and hid in the coruscation of the beams of his abundant glory and love? How can we suppose our most ardent love and praises appear to them, that do behold the beauty and glory of God without a veil? How does our highest thankfulness for the dying love of Christ appear to them, who see Christ as he is, who know as they are known, and see the glory of the person of him that died, and the wonders of his dying love, without any cloud of darkness? And how do they look on the deepest reverence and humility, with which worms of the dust on earth approach that infinite Majesty which they behold? Do they appear great to them, or so much as worthy of the name of reverence and humility, in those that they see to be at such an infinite distance from that great and holy God, in whose glorious presence they are? The reason why the highest attainments of the saints on earth appear so mean to them, is because they dwell in the light of God’s glory, and see God as he is. And it is in this respect with the saints on earth, as it is with the saints in heaven, in proportion as they are more eminent in grace.

Christian affections are like Mary’s precious ointment that she poured on Christ’s head, that filled the whole house with a sweet odor. That was poured out of an alabaster box; so gracious affections flow out to Christ out of a pure heart. That was poured out of a broken box; until the box was broken, the ointment could not flow, nor diffuse its odor; so gracious affections flow out of a broken heart. Gracious affections are also like those of Mary Magdalene (Luke 7 at the latter end), who also pours precious ointment on Christ, out of an alabaster broken box, anointing therewith the feet of Jesus, when she had washed them with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head. All gracious affections that are a sweet odor to Christ, and that fill the soul of a Christian with a heavenly sweetness and fragrancy, are broken-hearted affections. A truly Christian love, either to God or men, is a humble broken -hearted love. The desires of the saints, however earnest, are humble desires. Their hope is a humble hope; and their joy, even when it is unspeakable, and full of glory, is a humble broken-hearted joy, and leaves the Christian more poor in spirit; and more like a little child, and more disposed to a universal lowliness of behavior.

If you are reading the classics with us, please read sections VII and VIII for next week (they are reasonably short and shouldn’t pose too much difficulty when doubled-up).

Today we come to our tenth reading in Jonathan Edwards’ The Religious Affections. This is a long book but we’re making our way through it just as quickly as we can, I think. To speed up would be to leave us with very long and difficult readings. And so we press on, one “sign” at a time.

Summary

We continue to progress through the twelve signs of truly gracious and holy affections. So far we’ve seen:

1. They are from a divine influence.
2. Their object is the excellence of divine things.
3. They are founded on the loveliness of the moral excellency of divine things.
4. They arise from the mind’s being enlightened, rightly and spiritually to understand or apprehend divine things.

Added to the list this week is this fifth sign: Truly gracious affections are attended with a reasonable and spiritual conviction of the reality and certainty of divine things.

Discussion

This was a dense chapter and easily one of my favorites so far. I read it aloud to myself which seems to have aided my understanding and enjoyment of it. There is much to say about it, but I will hold to just a few points.

The first thing I need to get my mind around was Edwards’ use of the word reasonable. I am accustomed to using this word as a synonym for “rational” or “normal.” But Edwards uses it in its more pure form as a means of saying “by the mind.” So a reasonable conviction is a conviction formed by a rational and well-reasoned mind. Or that is how I understood it. Thus a person who has truly gracious affections has a conviction of the reality and certainty of divine things that is attended by both a reasonable and spiritual conviction. Said otherwise, the Christian’s conviction of the reality of the divine is based on both his heart and his mind.

Edwards insists that all those who are truly saved “have a solid, full, thorough and effectual conviction of the truth of the great things of the gospel; I mean, that they no longer halt between two opinions.” The great doctrines of the Christian faith are no longer doubtful or disputable or probable or matters of opinion; instead, these matters are settled and determined, undoubted and indisputable, so much so that the Christian is willing to venture his all upon such truth. This conviction is effectual in that it has a visible effect upon them, ruling their lives and governing their decisions.

True affections must be attended with a persuasion of the truth of the great truths of the faith and a sense of their reality. This is a distinguishing characteristic of true affections because there are many religious affections that are affecting but not convincing. Such affections will burn out quickly. As I usually do when reading Edwards, I found some contemporary application to this and began to think of the emerging church and many contemporary Christians for whom doubt is a virtue. For such people conviction is, if not a sin, a sign of a wrong mindset. Yet Edwards, looking to Scripture, tells us that certainty is a hallmark of one who is truly converted and not a sign of arrogance or misunderstanding. A Christian must be persuaded in both heart and mind.

I enjoyed Edwards’ correction that, though we are to have a reasonable conviction, this does not require that we have exhaustive or scholarly knowledge. The gospel is available to even the most simple of us.

The gospel was not given only for learned men. There are at least nineteen in twenty, if not ninety-nine in a hundred, of whose for whom the Scriptures were written, that are not capable of any certain or effectual conviction of the divine authority of the Scriptures by such arguments as learned men make use of. If men who have been brought up in Heathenism, must wait for a clear and certain conviction of the truth of Christianity, until they have learning and acquaintance with the histories of politer nations, enough to see clearly the force of such kind of arguments; it will make the evidence of the gospel to then immensely cumbersome, and will render the propagation of the gospel among them infinitely difficult. Miserable is the condition of the Houssatunnuck Indians, and others, who have lately manifested a desire to be instructed in Christianity, if they can come at no evidence of the truth of Christianity, sufficient to induce them to sell all for Christ, in any other way but this.

And finally, I enjoyed his discussion of those who have been martyred for the faith and the implication of those who have died as “witnesses” to the faith. “The true martyrs of Jesus Christ, are not those who have only been strong in opinion that the gospel of Christ is true, but those that have seen the truth of it; as the very name of martyrs or witnesses (by which they are called in Scripture) implies. Those are very improperly called witnesses of the truth of any them, who only declare they are very much of opinion that such a thing is true. Those only are proper witnesses, who can, and do testify, that they have seen the truth of the thing they assert. … Having had the eyes of their minds enlightened to see divinity in the gospel, or to behold that unparalleled, ineffably excellent, and truly divine glory shining in it, which is altogether distinguishing, evidential, and convincing: so that they may truly be said to have seen God in it, and to have seen that it is indeed divine; and so can speak in the style of witnesses.” Those who have given their lives for the faith are men and women who have proven that they were convicted in mind and heart, for they had seen, they had been witnesses of, the power of God.

Next Time

For next week, as you might expect, we will read the sixth distinguishing sign of truly gracious and holy affections. I think we are only a week or two away from being able to cover two signs per week, thus speeding our progress through the book a little bit!

Your Turn

As always, I am eager to know what you gained from this part of the book (and to know that I’m not the only one left reading). 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. The discussion in the past weeks really has been very helpful to me and to others. So please keep it up!

Today we come to our eighth reading in Jonathan Edwards’ The Religious Affections. Though this book is a long haul, we are making some good progress, and I happen to think that it is getting better and better, particularly as we head into chapters which provide opportunity for reflection and application. This week we looked to the third sign of authentic affections.

Summary

We continue to progress through the twelve signs of truly gracious and holy affections. So far we’ve seen:

1. They are from a divine influence.
2. Their object is the excellence of divine things.

Added to the list this week is this third sign: They are founded on the loveliness of the moral excellency of divine things.

Discussion

Last week Edwards taught that the greatest benefit Christians receive from Christ is Christ Himself. “The supremely excellent nature of divine things is the first, or primary and original, objective foundation of the spiritual affections of true saints.” And so, as Christians, we are drawn primarily not to the benefits that come to those who are adopted into the family of Christ, but we are drawn to Christ. This week Edwards built further upon that foundation, saying that truly gracious and holy affections are founded on the loveliness of the moral excellency of divine things. For the benefit of “the more illiterate reader,” (a status I’m sure I qualify for), he spent a couple of awfully confusing pages distinguishing between moral and natural excellency. If I read it properly, by “moral excellency” he refers simply to holiness. This stands in contrast to God’s natural excellency which refers not to His moral goodness or holiness but to his power, knowledge, eternality, omnipresence, and so on.

“Holy persons, in the exercise of holy affections, do love divine things primarily for their holiness. They love God, in the first place, for the beauty of His holiness or moral perfection, as being supremely amiable in itself. Not that the saints, in the exercise of gracious affections, do love God only for His holiness; all His attributes are amiable and glorious in their eyes; they delight in every divine perfection; the contemplation of the infinite greatness, power, and knowledge, and terrible majesty of God, is pleasant to them. But their love to God for His holiness is what is most fundamental and essential in their love. Here it is that true love to God begins; all other holy love to divine things flows from hence.” Thus anyone who loves God for His moral excellency (or holiness) will find that he also and subsequently loves God for each of His attributes. But that love needs to begin with God’s holiness.

Edwards proves this by going on to show that the beauty of all divine things flows from their holiness. Saints are beautiful because of the holiness of God that He provides to them; the beauty of the Christian faith is in its holiness; the excellence of Scripture is in its holiness; Christ’s human nature and divine nature are beautiful through holiness; the gospel, Christian doctrine and salvation are holy and thus are beautiful; and finally, heaven is beautiful to the Christian because it is a place of uninterrupted holiness. “It is primarily on account of this kind of excellency that the saints love all these things.”

There were many notable quotes in this section, but here are just a couple I wanted to draw attention to. “A holy love has a holy object. The holiness of love consists especially in this, that it is the love of that which is holy, for its holiness.” And, “We know that holiness is of a directly contrary nature to wickedness; as therefore it is the nature of wickedness chiefly to oppose and hate holiness, so it must be the nature of holiness chiefly to tend to, and delight in holiness.”

Edwards offers this point of examination and application. “You may try your discoveries of the glory of God’s grace and love, and your affections arising from them.” And here is how we do that: God’s grace can appear lovely for two reasons, either for its profitability to me or for its intrinsic holiness. “In this latter respect it is that the true saints have their hearts affected, and love captivated, by the free grace of God.” So like last week, Edwards is pushing Christians to test their hearts to see if they love God for what He does (and, in particular, what He does for them) or for who He is. The truest, purest love, says Edwards, is love that is directed at who God is. God is first holy and our affections ought to be drawn to this holiness. Anyone can be drawn to the benefits of knowing God, but only a true believer can be drawn to the holiness of God. Christians, having been given a kind of spiritual sense, are led or drawn to what is holy. This sense is a distinguishing characteristic of those who have been regenerated by God.

I’ve heard it said that a Christian cannot read this book without deeply questioning his own faith. At the very least, I think, a Christian cannot read this book without having to question the ground of his faith. And I have been forced to ask myself the questions Edwards is raising here. Do I love God for who He is, or do I love Him for what He does? Or pushing just a bit further, is my love for God founded on Him or on myself?

Next Time

For next week we will read the fourth distinguishing sign of truly gracious and holy affections. Though it is a little bit longer than what we’ve read during the past couple of weeks, I think there is little benefit in dividing it into multiple readings. So have at it!

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. The discussion in the past weeks really has been very helpful to me and to others. So please keep it up!

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.

This morning brings us to our fifth reading in Jonathan Edwards’ The Religious Affections. This week’s reading was a very short one—just a few pages. I know that several of you took the opportunity to catch up with last week’s lengthy reading. So hopefully by now we are all on the same page!

Summary

In the Introduction to the book’s third part, Edwards asks the reader to keep three things in mind as he describes the distinguishing signs of truly gracious and holy affections (and here I’m relying on Sam Storms’ excellent summaries of these points):

1. There will never be a time or system or standard of analysis of such issues that will yield infallible results. We will never be able to claim that we can, without error, discern who is a believer and who is not.
2. We should not expect to find biblical signs that will enable a backslidden person to reassure himself that he is in a good way with God. It is God’s design that backslidden persons should have no assurance of their salvation.
3. We should not expect that the signs by which we hope to differentiate between true and false affections will ever prove sufficient to convince those who are hypocrites and who have been deceived about their salvation.

Keeping these things in mind, we’ll turn in the following weeks to the twelve signs which will allow us to distinguish true religion from false religion.

Discussion

Because we read only a few pages, there was not a lot of content to interact with this week. However, there was one section that jumped off the pages at me. I very much appreciated Edwards’ exhortation that it is God’s design that men obtain assurance not by thinking a lot about assurance and not by a process of rigorous self-examination, but primarily through “mortifying corruption, and increasing in grace, and obtaining the lively exercises of it.” So assurance is obtained less by self-examination and more by action.

Edwards gives the example of the Apostle Paul and says, “He obtained assurance of winning the prize, more by running than by considering. The swiftness of his pace did more towards his assurance of a conquest than the strictness of his examination.” This is such an important point and I am guessing it is one Edwards will return to later in the book. When we experience moments of concern or doubt about our salvation, so often we can spend time thinking about ourselves and looking primarily inward for assurance of our faith. But the Bible makes it clear that we will be known by what we do and what we are. So we need to look outwards to see if we are putting sin to death and if we are living in the way Christ tells us to live. Here we will see whether or not we are being conformed to His image and whether our not our trust is in Him.

Finally, I was glad to see Edwards affirm that we can never know perfectly whether or not another person is saved. “It was never God’s design to give us any rules by which we may certainly know who of our fellow professors are His, and to make a full and clear separation between sheep and goats.” God has reserved this infallible knowledge for Himself and so we look for distinguishing characteristics, always knowing that we are so easily fooled.

Next Time

For next week we will read the first distinguishing sign of truly gracious and holy affections. This is a long section (around 40 pages in my edition) but I don’t see any real benefit in dividing it into two readings. So please read that section for next Thursday. Because it is a lengthy reading, you may wish to begin in the next day or two!

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 excellent!

This morning brings us to our fourth reading in Jonathan Edwards’ The Religious Affections. You can click here to read more about this effort. If you have not been reading with us and would like to participate, this is as good a time as any to join in. Next week we’ll begin the real meat of the book and what has come before, though important, shouldn’t hinder your enjoyment of the rest of it.

Summary

This week we finished Part III in a reading that was probably too long. Here Edwards continues laying out his signs of “nothing.” This is to say that he points out things that are often offered as proof of authentic spirituality when in reality these cannot be said to prove or to disprove faith.

These were the seven characteristics he pointed out in the first half of the section:

• Intense or high affections
• Physical manifestations
• Excessive excitement and talkativeness
• The way in which affections are brought about
• That Scripture is brought to mind
• The existence of love in the affections
• The fact that a wide variety of affections may exist

In this second part he adds to this list:

• Comfort, joy and convictions of conscience
• Spending much time in religious activity or worship
• Praising God
• Confidence in the experience of the divine
• That true Christians believe these people to be truly saved

He offers his thoughts, at some length, on each of these.

Discussion

This section, though not exceedingly difficult to read, was undoubtedly too long. Forty pages is a tall assignment when it comes to Edwards. We’ll try to keep things more manageable in the future. As much as I am enjoying the book, I am looking forward to getting to the real heart of the book starting next week. At that time we’ll turn from the negative signs to the positive ones. I am prepared for a difficult, soul-searching time! But for today, let me offer some scattered thoughts on this week’s reading.

As I read this week, I kept thinking of that so-called revival in Florida. I’ve seen many video clips of what is going on there and it is amazing how often they parallel the marks of “nothing” Edwards discusses in this book. There are high emotions and affections, physical manifestations, excitement, Scripture, joy, worship, praise, experience of God…but all of these things may mean nothing! I thought of this revival as I read Edwards words that “[God] commonly first manifested Himself in a way which was terrible, and then by those things that were comfortable.” In God’s extraordinary revelations of Himself in Scripture, He often appeared first in a terrifying way and only then in a comfortable way. Yet in what passes for revival today, we often find that God appears only in a way that seems so very human, so very comforting.

I appreciated Edwards’ talk of the sufficiency of Scripture. “Which should be enough with Christians, who are willing to have the Word of God rather than their own philosophy, and experiences, and conjectures, as their sufficient and sure guide in things of this nature.” Too often Christians, or those who claim to be Christians, force Scripture and experience into opposition with each other. And when that happens experience always seems to win. But Edwards insists, as any Protestant should, that Scripture must be our “norming norm.” We cannot allow anything to diminish Scripture’s importance or to downplay its sufficiency. As much as we love experiences of God, we must understand that these are secondary means and that Scripture is primary.

I enjoyed this brief but profound sentence: “Nor does the Spirit of God proceed discernibly in the steps of a particular established scheme, one half so often as is imagined.” Even the most serious student of God must allow that God is in no way constrained by what we think we know of Him. What He says He will do, He will do; but what He tells us is only the smallest glimpse of His character.

And finally, closer to the end of the chapter, I had to highlight this (which is a great section but should have caused Edwards to fail English class): “There are no other principles which human nature is under the influence of, that will ever make men conscientious, but one of those two, fear or love; and therefore, if one of these should not prevail as the other decays, God’s people, when fallen into dead and carnal frames, when love is asleep, would be lamentably exposed indeed: and therefore God has wisely ordained, that these two opposite principles of love and fear should rise and fall, like the two opposite scales of a balance; when one rises the other sinks.” In explanation he says, “Fear is cast out by the Spirit of God no other way than by the prevailing of love; nor is fear ever maintained but when love is asleep.” Thus a person who would seek to have assurance of his salvation must have a heart stirred by the love of God. When love is absent, it is replaced by fear, just as light, when absent, is replaced with darkness.

There are many other passages I highlighted, but these will suffice for now!

Next Time

For next week’s reading we will complete only a short section—the Introduction to Part III. In my Banner of Truth edition this runs from page 120-124. Simply read from the beginning of Part III until immediately before the first mark of truly gracious and holy affections.. This will give people a chance to catch up and will also keep us from reading an exceptionally large section the week after.

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 excellent!

Today we come to the second week of reading through The Religious Affections. You can click here to read more about this effort.

This weeks’ reading really marked my first significant attempt at plowing through a substantial part of Edwards’ work. While I began with some trepidation, I have to say that it wasn’t as bad as I may have feared. Sure the language was a bit obscure and sure Edwards often uses several sentences when he could probably get away with just one, but overall I didn’t find that it was too difficult. Tough, yes; impossible, no.

Summary

Our assigned reading for this week was nothing less than the entirety of Part 1. While the reading was long, I think it made sense to read it as a unit rather than dividing it into two smaller portions. This makes sense logically as well as in terms of timing since it will take a very long time to read this book if we do only 15 pages at a time. In this first part, Edwards writes about the nature of the Affections and their importance in religion.

Having said that, a reader who is participating in this reading challenge sent along this comic. I definitely feel some of this:

Edwards first seeks to define true religion, saying, “true religion, in great part, consists in holy affections.” He defines the affections in this way: “The affections are no other than the more vigorous and sensible exercises of the inclination and will of the soul.” He bases this definition on the understand that the human soul has two faculties, one of which he terms understanding. This is the faculty that allows the human soul to discern, view and judge. The second faculty he terms inclination or will or heart. It is this one that allows the soul not to just perceive and view things, but to incline or disincline it. Holy affections are those that are distinguished by “vigorous exercise of the inclination and will towards divine objects.”

The bulk of the chapter is given to ten biblical proofs that true religion lies much in the affections. It concludes with three inferences or applications from this doctrine.

Discussion

This was a long and dense chapter but one of uneven importance, meaning that there were some portions that were more important than others. I’m grateful for this since otherwise I don’t know that I could have absorbed very much! I am going to provide thoughts on just a few areas that jumped out at me.

After providing his ten biblical proofs that true religion requires true affection, Edwards summarizes by saying, “It is evident that religion consists so much in affection, as that without holy affection there is no true religion; and no light in the understanding is good which does not produce holy affection in the heart: no habit or principle in the heart is good which has no such exercise; and no external fruit is good which does not proceed from such exercises.” All of this to say that an affectionless Christian is no Christian at all. While the presence of affection does not necessarily prove a person to be a Christian, the complete absence proves that he cannot be one. Just last night my son asked how he can know that he is a Christian and here Edwards gives us a mark to look for. Is your heart stirred by these affections? If it is, that may point you to the reality that you are saved; if it is not, it will point you to the sad reality that you are unsaved. Affections are too close to the heart of the faith to be completely absent. At one point Edwards says, “I am bold to assert that there never was any considerable change wrought in the mind or conversation of any person, by anything of a religious nature that ever he read, heard or saw, that had not his affections moved.”

Edwards’ second inference about the affections is a logical one. If true religion lies in the affections, we must pursue those things that tend to move our affections. Here he points to prayer, preaching and praise. True Christians will necessarily wish to pursue such means of grace to stir our hearts and to grow in our affections. The application is obvious: do you find that your affections are tied to such means of grace? Is listening to a sermon a delight or a chore? Is prayer a duty or a delight?

The chapter’s final exhortation is one worth pondering. “So has God disposed things, in the affair of our redemption, and in his glorious dispensations, revealed to us in the gospel, as though everything were purposely contrived in such a manner as to have the greatest possible tendency to reach our hearts in the most tender part, and move our affections most sensibly and strongly. How great cause have we therefore to be humbled to dust that we are no more affected!” And really, what excuse do we have for being so little affected by the great things revealed to us? What a hard-hearted people we are…

Next Time

Our reading for next week will take us from the beginning of Part 2 up to the end of the seventh (VII) point. So stop when you hit point VIII and see “Nothing can certainly be determined concerning the nature of the affections by this, that comforts and joys seem to follow awakenings and convictions of conscience, in a certain order.” In my book (the Banner of Truth edition) this will take us from page 54 until page 78.

Your Turn

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.

This morning we kick off the fourth round of Reading Classics Together, an effort in which we read some of the great Christian classics together and convene here once a week to discuss them. In the past we’ve read J.C. Ryle’s Holiness, John Owen’s Overcoming Sin and Temptation and A.W. Pink’s The Seven Sayings of the Saviour on the Cross. We’ve had hundreds of people participate by reading the books together and discussing them each week. All along we’ve been reading some of the classics of the Christian faith—books many of us wish to read but books few of us have ever made time for. And now we begin on the fourth classic—The Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards. Well over 100 people have agreed to participate in reading this book together…and it all begins today. This is going to be our toughest challenge yet, I’m am sure!

“Read Religious Affections, at all costs read Religious Affections! And anything else you can get your hands on by this great saint.”
—John Piper I generally follow a certain format in posting about the chapters we are reading, but will deviate from that today. The assigned reading for this morning was simply the book’s Preface. The Preface is short and contains little of real substance, but I guess we need to begin somewhere! Edwards uses it to state the purpose for which he has written this book. He will seek to answer this question: What are the distinguishing qualifications of those that are in favor with God, and entitled to His eternal rewards?

Sam Storms summarizes the book’s purpose by saying, “He endeavored to identify what constitutes true and authentic spirituality. Or, to put it in the form of a question: Are there certain features or characteristics in human thought and behavior that serve as ‘signs’ of the saving activity and presence of the Spirit of God? Again, is it possible for us to know with any degree of certainty whether or not a person who claims to have experienced the saving grace of God is truly born again?” This is essentially the same question said in many ways and it is the question we expect Edwards to answer in the text of this book. We will do well to keep this question in mind each week as we give ourselves to reading The Religious Affections. And it is an important one to answer for, as Edwards says, “it is by the mixture of counterfeit religion with true, not discerned and distinguished, that the devil has had his greatest advantage against the cause and kingdom of Christ.” From the earliest days of the church until today, the devil has done much damage to the cause of Christ in the world by men and women deluded into thinking that they are Christians when they are not.

It is my hope and expectation that this book will arm us to better discern the state of our own hearts and to see and understand the defining characteristics of those who belong to Christ. To quote Edwards, “It greatly concerns us to use our utmost endeavors clearly to discern, and have it well settled and established, wherein true religion does consist.”

Next Week

Next week we will begin to discuss the heart of the book and I’d suggest we read all of Part I. In my book this comes to 32 pages—a rather long reading, but I think it makes sense to attempt to read it as a unit rather than dividing it rather artificially. I’ll try to keep future readings shorter since I know that 32 pages of Edwards may prove a challenge (or a chore!) but please bear with me. Just read five pages per day through the week and you’ll have no trouble keeping up.

Would You Like to Participate?

If this is the first you’ve heard of Reading Classics Together and it sounds like something you’d like to participate in, we’d be glad to have you along. I will be reading from the Banner of Truth edition of the work, but you can follow along in any of the unabridged editions (of which there are many available). For technophiles, there is a Kindle edition available for only a couple of dollars. For those who are not interested in spending money, CCEL has the complete text available in HTML, PDF and other formats right here.

If you wish to purchase a printed copy of the book, you can do so from Amazon, Westminster Books, Monergism Books or just about anywhere else good Christian books are sold.

We are only a few pages into the book so it’s definitely not too late for you to begin reading with us.

As anyone knows who has studied the life of Jonathan Edwards, he dedicated a large portion of his ministry to thinking, writing and teaching about the freedom of the will. And, of course, he eventually published a classic work dealing with the subject. In writing the book he thought back to the days when revival had swept his church, his community and the area around it. And as he reflected on the individuals who had been swept up in the revival, or those who had made professions of faith in the years following, he became aware of a fundamental flaw in many of these professions. “Self-controlled individuals, as he had observed in his parishes for the past fifteen years, would acknowledge guilt for particular sins, but not guilt for their fundamentally rebellious hearts.”

Little has changed. I have met countless people who consider themselves Christians and who admit to sin in their lives and feel guilt and remorse for individual sins, but who seem unable or unwilling to admit the incontrovertible fact that their hearts are in rebellion against God. The Bible tells us in plain terms that we are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners. And I don’t think we can overstate what a fundamental difference this is! We do not need to seek forgiveness merely for the sins we commit, but for our fundamentally evil and rebellious hearts—hearts that, in their natural state, hate God and are fully and completely and gleefully and willingly opposed to Him.

In his must-read biography of Edwards, George Marsden summarizes Edwards’ assessment of this problem. “Guided by conscience, they saw particular sins as failures of will power, which might be overcome by exercising greater self-control.” When sin has been defined merely as individual acts of the will, it is possible for humans, even devoid of God’s help, to overcome those evil acts and deeds. A man who explodes in anger or a woman who grumbles against her husband can overcome those sins in their own power. Unbelievers can throw off addiction and poor behavior through an act of the will. But they can never address the heart of the issue. While they may make cosmetic changes, they can never overcome the deeper issues because they can never change their hearts.

Those who profess Christ can do the same thing; Christians are also capable of overcoming the appearance of sin and the outward manifestations of sin in their own power. Over the past week Aileen has dedicated a lot of her time to helping a neighbor who is preparing to sell her house. They have been painting the house and it is amazing to see what a fresh coat of paint can do to “clean up” a house. But it is merely a cosmetic change. Underlying issues, structural issues, can be masked for a time, but will show up again if they are not properly dealt with. Similarly, Christians can dedicate great effort and go to great pains to remove traces of sin from their lives. But all the time they may have done this without the aid and assistance of the Holy Spirit. They may never have owned up to their fundamental sinfulness, their natural enmity towards God. They may never feel or acknowledge guilt not only for what they do but for who they are.

The evidence proves that many Christians, and most likely the vast majority of those who identify themselves as Christians, have a worldview that is functionally secular. Many people who go to church every Sunday, who read Christian books and who read their Bibles and pray every day, still think like unbelievers. Their worldview—their way of seeing and understanding the world—is no different from before they claimed to be Christians. Jonathan Edwards, looking to the refusal of the people of his day to own up to their guilt, realized that “the liberal Christianity of the new republic would be built around such moral principles.” Modern day evangelicalism is likewise founded on such lax moral principles.

A couple of years ago I spoke to the administrator of a church in the area. This person had been a Christian for several years and was active as a leader in the church. Discussing a recent and high-profile crime that had been covered by the media, this person told me, “I just don’t understand how anyone could do that. I don’t understand how anyone could be that bad. I could never be that evil!” As we spoke, I realized that this was a person who knew that he committed sins, and yet one who clearly did not understand his inherently sinful nature. He knew he sinned but refused to believe he was a sinner. Sin is what he did, not what he was. Recently my thoughts turned to a couple we know who seemed to become believers, but whose lives did not seem to show much evidence of true life change. They were quickly drafted into service in their church and were soon actively involved in leadership and service. They were baptized despite highly-visible and unrepentant sin in their lives. They became members. And yet their lives, including this one very obviously and blatantly sinful aspect of their lives, did not change at all. Neither did the church seem to require or expect them to change. They modified aspects of their lives, I suppose, but that fundamental change of heart just never seemed to happen. As of the last time we saw them, they still did not seem to think, act, talk and, in many ways, live like Christians. They knew they sinned but didn’t seem to know that they were and still are sinners.

Here is how Marsden concludes this short section of the book:

Even the most popular evangelicalism of the next two centuries tended to emphasize guilt for and victory over known sins. Although the submission of one’s will to God and a subsequent infilling or baptism of the Holy Spirit typically would be urged as necessary to achieve moral purity, God’s power was most often seen as cooperating with or working through the native powers of the sovereign individual will. While American Christianity in general and evangelicalism in particular came in too many varieties to allow easy generalization, we can at least say that Edwards was correct in identifying a trend toward what he called “Arminianism” in what would become “the land of the free.”

The foundational problem that led to this low view of sin and God’s expectation of holiness was a wrong view of the freedom of the will. People did not realize that the will is wholly bound by the sinful nature. They felt that they were able, in their own power and through their own freedom, to change their behavior. They did not understand or care to understand the depth of their depravity. They may have sought God’s assistance in doing this, but did not rely on His grace and power. God merely cooperated with man’s inherent ability. And sadly, even centuries later, little has changed across a large spectrum of Christianity. Take a book from the shelf of your local Christian bookstore and you should not be surprised to read that your fundamental problem is not your sinful nature but your individual self-destructive acts.

The solution today is the same as it was in Edwards’ day. “People needed to be properly convinced of their real guilt and sinfulness, in the sight of God, and their deserving of his wrath.” Every Christian needs not only to own up to his sin and guilt, but to admit that he is deserving of God’s wrath. No one has properly apprehended God’s grace until he has understood his own sinfulness and knows that he fully deserves God’s just and holy punishment. The evangelical church of our day is a wrathless church—a church that speaks often of God’s love and grace, but rarely of the deepest necessity of this love and grace. The church today needs an infusion of the gospel, the whole gospel, which speaks not only of God’s love, but first of our desperate need of reconciliation. The gospel portrays us as we really are—as sinners who sin because of our fundamental guilt, our fundamental hatred of God. Only when we see ourselves as sinners can we truly see Christ as Savior. Only when we have identified ourselves as fallen in Adam can we truly and properly identify ourselves as raised up and set apart in Christ.