Chapter 4.10

A History of Half-hearted Spirituality

From Ancient Paganism to Modern Mormonism

 

Overall Objective

To demonstrate the unbiblical nature of ignoring the mind in true Christian spirituality and worship throughout the history of the Church by understanding several heretical movements inside and outside of it.

Table of Topics

A) Half-hearted Spirituality in NT Era Paganism

B) Half-hearted Spirituality in Corinth

C) Half-hearted Spirituality in the Middle Ages

D) Half-hearted Spirituality in the Great Awakening

E) Half-hearted Spirituality among 17^th to 19^th Century Heretics

E.1) Jansenists

E.2) French Prophets

E.3) Shakers

E.4) Irvingites

F) Half-hearted Spirituality in Early Mormonism

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• The universal Church has historically rejected the half-hearted approach to spirituality advocated by emotionalism.
• Mindless pagan half-hearted worship (i.e. emotionalism) would seem especially evident in modern charismaticism.
• Mindless, half-hearted worship has been a common element in the spirituality of many non-Christian cults throughout history and is technically referred to here as emotionalism.
• Emotionalism is the unbiblical neglect or intentional suppression of reason in spirituality or worship practices resulting in unbiblical practices such as modern glossaism (speaking in a “tongue”) and being “slain in the Spirit” etc.
• Paul was concerned that pagan half-hearted worship had infiltrated the church in Corinth.
• For many centuries before and after the inception of Christianity, the very popular Greek mystery religions promoted a highly emotional form of worship that included weird physical actions, spontaneous and obscure utterances, and generally what was described in terms of madness. These were considered as signs of a higher spirituality, as opposed to the fruits of the Holy Spirit which are virtue.
• The Corinthian Christians lacked discernment. Accordingly, all ten times that the Apostle Paul used the word anakrino (“to examine, investigate, distinguish”) are in 1 Corinthians.
• The Apostle warned the Corinthians their mindless emotionalism was not only harmful, but evil.
• What was rejected as dangerous and unbiblical error in the Middle Ages is rampant in Christianity today in many forms.
• Because modern proponents of mindless half-hearted worship have no biblical support for it, they routinely cite experiences in real spiritual revivals of the past as historical support. However, they intentionally ignore the fact that these manifestations were predominantly experienced by unbelievers being convicted of sin under hell-fire preaching. The manifestations today are predominantly seen among expectant and susceptible believers after someone says, “Get ‘em spirit.”
• The Great Awakening teaches us that satan can infiltrate and derail a genuine work of God through emotionalism.
• Our belief that emotionalism has historically been denounced by Christians is demonstrated in a number of heretical movements in the history of the Church.

A) Half-hearted Spirituality in NT Era Paganism

Pagan worship in NT times was primarily made up of what is referred to as Greek mystery religions. The Encyclopedia Britannica relates:

Mystery religions were secret cults of the Greek-Roman world that offered to individuals a way to feel religious experiences not provided by the official public religion. . . . The mystery religions reached their peak of popularity in the first three centuries A.D. At that time an individual could choose among many religions of this type. . . . Christianity originated during the time . . . at which the mysteries reached their height of popularity. ^[1]

These religions received their designation as “mysteries” because these were essential to their spirituality. Dr. H. Wayne House explains:

In heathen religions this word referred to the hidden secrets of the gods which only the initiated could know. Those initiated into such mysteries claimed to have contact with the spirit world through emotional excitement, revelations, the working of miracles and the speaking of unknown words revealed by the spirits. ^[2]

 

Dr. House goes on to point out the differences in Christianity regarding a “mystery.” In addition to the fact that, “In the New Testament Church every Christian is initiated,” he adds:

The term mystery is used in the New Testament but with a different force. . . . In the New Testament it refers to the things of God that could not be known by man except through revelation from God. The revelation given of these things by the Holy Spirit is not obscure but clear and is given to be communication to God’s people (1 Cor 2:1–16). It is not given privately in unknown words. ^[3]

As far as the perspective of worship in these Greek mystery cults, the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics tells us, “The mystery-cults of the [Roman] empire were designed to induce both higher and lower forms of ecstatic feeling.” ^[4] In fact, the historical descriptions we have of such spirituality reveals that they were characterized by the half-hearted irrational “madness” we noted in chapter 4.8 which we have labeled emotionalism. Emotionalism is the unbiblical neglect or intentional suppression of reason in spirituality or worship practices resulting in unbiblical practices such as modern glossaism (speaking in a “tongue”) and being “slain in the Spirit” which we discuss in the next chapter.

One of the earliest descriptions of spirituality in the Greek mystery religions is from the ancient Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484-425 B. C.). In Melpomene he writes of a certain King Scylas of the Scythians who secretly “formed a desire to be initiated in the rites of Bacchus-Dionysos,” an ancient Greek mystery religion, after which Herodotus records:

Now the Scythians make the rites of Bacchus a reproach against the Hellenes, for they say that it is not fitting to invent a god like this, who impels men to frenzy [manesthai: mania]. So when Skyles had been initiated into the rites of Bacchus, one of the Borysthenites went off to the Scythians and said: “Whereas ye laugh at us, O Scythians, because we perform the rite of Bacchus and because the god seizes us, now this divinity has seized also your king; and he is both joining in the rite of Bacchus and maddened [manetai: mania] by the influence of the god. ^[5]

Regarding a time somewhat later, Christopher Forbes, Professor of NT and Hellenistic History at Macquarie University reports:

The use of drums, cymbals and flutes is a recurrent theme in the orgiastic worship of Cybele, as is frenzied shouting. . . . That various forms of shouting, along with violent physical activity, were characteristic of Dionysian worship in [the early centuries A.D.] is amply attested in our sources. . . . [A]n abnormal state of mind [for] participants in Dionysian rituals . . . is normally assumed . . . [and] a feature of the rituals, and . . . this state is accompanied by violent physical activity and/or shouting.

Several very clear statements of this are to be found in Latin literature of the first century B.C. The best known of these is the account given by Livy of the “Bacchanalian Conspiracy” of 187-6 B.C. Livy writes as follows:

[I]nitiatory rites which at first were imparted to a few, then began to be generally known among men and women. . . . [A]mid the howlings and the crash of drums and cymbals no cry could be heard. . . . Men, as if insane, with fanatical tossings of their bodies, would utter prophecies. . . . [T]here are men very like the women, debauched and debauchers, fanatical, with senses dulled by . . . noise and shouts at night.

A pattern is clearly evident here. The features that are considered characteristic of the cults of Dionysus and Cybele are outbursts of shouting, the music of cymbals, drums and flutes, and frenzied dancing, sometimes also accompanied by frenzied cries. ^[6]

So much so that worship in the Greek mystery religions of this time was commonly referred to as, “Dionysiac frenzy.” ^[7] Forbes goes on to relate:

This impression is reinforced by a reading of Vergil’s [70-19 B.C.] and Lucan’s descriptions [39-65 A. D.], in their “Aeneid” and “The Civil War” respectively, of visits to oracles [pagan prophets]. . . . Lucan’s Pythia [prophetess] is frenzied, and a shriek . . . marked the onset of her inspiration. . . . Vergil describes the prophecy of the Sibyl in the following terms:

[H]er heart swells with wild frenzy . . . nor has her voice a mortal ring, since now she feels the nearer breath of deity. . . [and speaks with] her raving mouth. . . . In such words the Cumaean Sibyl chants from the shrine her dread enigmas . . . wrapping truth in darkness. . . . [Then] the frenzy ceased and the raving lips were hushed. . . .

In the account of Appius Claudius’ visit to Delphi [a shrine of the ancient Greek mystery religions] [we read of the prophetess that] . . . wild frenzy overflowed through her foaming lips; she groaned and uttered loud inarticulate cries with panting breath. ^[8]

Such practices persisted into the second century, as the early Church critic Celsus (c. 170) described pagan mystery religion worship when he wrote:

There are many who, although of no name, with the greatest facility and on the slightest occasion, whether within or without temples, assume the motions and gestures of inspired persons . . . [who speak] strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning: for so dark are they, as to have no meaning at all. ^[9]

In the third century, the early Church leader Origen (c. 185-c. 254) distinguished pagan spirituality from the biblical kind by remarking that when “the Jewish prophets” had contact with the Holy Spirit, “they became clearer in mind.” He asks then:

If, then, the Pythian priestess [in a Greek mystery religion] is beside herself when she prophesies, what spirit must that be which fills her mind and clouds her judgment with darkness, unless it be of the same order with those demons which many Christians cast out of persons possessed with them? ^[10]

Origen is contrasting the effect of the Holy Spirit on the real Prophets with that of demonic spirits on pagan prophets. The latter seemed to be out of their mind, instead of “clearer in mind,” and the out-of-control body movements made by pagan prophets could be contrasted with the self-control exhibited by those filled with the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Tim 1:7; Gal 5:23).

NT scholar Grant R. Osborne confirms the consensus of modern scholarship that:

In the ancient world, pagan prophets were commonly associated with ecstatic utterances, trances, and frenzied behavior. . . . In the hellenistic [ancient Greek] world the prophetess of Delphi and the Sibylline priestess spoke in an unknown or unintelligible speech. Moreover, the Dionysian rites contained a trancelike state as well as glossolalia [unintelligible tongue utterances ^[11]]. ^[12]

Along the same lines, NT scholar J. D. G. Dunn relates:

What Celsus (and Lucian) understood as the nonsense [speech] born of madness was accepted at the level of Volksreligion [popular religion] as the sure sign that a prophet was genuinely inspired by the god for whom he spoke. By lifting the prophet to this high level of ecstasy, the deity thereby authenticated the message delivered previously in understandable language. Put simply, among the common people [obscure, meaningless] “tongues” was recognized as the divine legitimation of prophecy in the Hellenistic age. ^[13]

In addition, Anthony Thiselton agrees and writes:

[There was a] widespread assumption in hellenistic religions that a major criterion of the presence of divine inspiration or divine indwelling was the suspension of the rational or the ordinary in ecstatic experiences or ecstatic speech. ^[14]

Finally, Martin Nilsson, in his book, A History of Greek Religion notes that mindless half-hearted worship was common in all ancient mystery religions, and explains why:

Not every man can be a miracle-worker and a seer, but most are susceptible to ecstasy, especially as members of a great crowd, which draws the individual along with it and generates in him the sense of being filled with a higher, divine power. This is the literal meaning of the Greek word “enthusiasm,” the state in which “god is in man.” The rising tide of religious feeling seeks to surmount the barrier which separates man from god, it strives to enter into the divine, and it finds ultimate satisfaction only in that quenching of the consciousness [mind] in enthusiasm which is the goal of all mysticism. ^[15]

To summarize, for many centuries before and after the inception of Christianity, the very popular Greek mystery religions promoted a half-hearted, irrational, although highly emotional form of worship that included weird physical actions, spontaneous, obscure, and meaningless utterances, and generally what was described in terms of raving, frenzy, and madness. ^[16] These were considered as signs of a higher spirituality, as opposed to the fruits of the Holy Spirit which are virtue. Unfortunately, this unbiblical ancient pagan perspective was carried into the Corinthian church.

B) Half-hearted Spirituality in Corinth

As discussed in the previous chapter, it was precisely first century pagan emotionalism that Christ was concerned about when He said regarding prayer, “when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans” (Matt 6:7). Accordingly, His words should be interpreted in the cultural/religious context described above.

The Apostle Paul was concerned about the same pagan worship influences in Corinth. If we remember the nature of first century pagan worship described above, it should not surprise us that some of the Corinthians had carried such practices into the Church. Accordingly, John MacArthur writes:

In Corinth paganism was spelled with a capital P. . . . One of the greatest threats of all [to the Corinthian church] was the continuing influence from pagan mystery religions that they had formerly practiced. For over a thousand years these religions had dominated that part of the world. . . . Several pagan practices were especially influential in the church at Corinth. . . . New Testament Corinth was filled with priests, priestesses, religious prostitutes, soothsayers, and diviners of the mystery religions who claimed to represent a god or gods and to have supernatural powers that proved their claims. Unbelievably, some of their dramatic and bizarre practices were mimicked in the church. ^[17]

When the Apostle writes to this church, in this city, his obvious concern regarding pagan, and even demonic influence in the Corinthian church, is to be expected and it is obvious. This concern is demonstrated, for example, by his comments regarding pagan sacrifices to idols in this letter (cf. 8:1-13; 10:14-22). Even though many of the Corinthians were probably Christians, he is still compelled to tell them:

[M]y dear friends, flee from idolatry . . . the sacrifices [i.e. worship practices] of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord [Christian communion] and the cup of demons too [pagan worship practices]; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons [pagan worship practices]” (10:7, 14, 20-21).

Either ignorance or a refusal to recognize the non-Christian elements in pagan worship led the Corinthians to “be participants with demons.” That should sober any Christian to ensure that their worship is “in spirit and in truth” instead of ignorance or merely emotion.

The Apostle also reminds them in chapter 12: “You know that when you were pagans [worshiping like they do], somehow or other you were influenced and led astray [apagomenoi] to mute idols” (v. 2). Here, the Apostle describes the Corinthians’ worship experience “when [they] were pagans” as being apagomenoi, a strong word implying a total lack of self-control (cf. Matt 27:2, 31). Accordingly, C. K. Barrett comments on this passage in his well regarded commentary and says the Apostle’s wording:

suggests moments of ecstasy experienced in heathen religion, when a human being is (or is believed to be) possessed by a supernatural. . . . Paul himself in this verse appears to think of demons as ravishing those who take part in heathen worship.^[18]

David Aune, a recognized expert on first century worship practices, as well writes:

A careful examination of the context shows that when Paul referred to the pagan background of the Corinthian Christians in I Cor. 12:2, he was in all probability referring to pagan religious experiences of possession trance ^[19]

In agreement, Frederick Dale Bruner describes the mindless, ecstatic worship that the Apostle feared was occurring in Corinth:

The very characteristic of the Corinthians’ heathen past, [Paul] argues, was the sense of being overpowered and carried away by spiritual forces. . . . “There is no doubt at all,” Schrenk comments, “that Paul intends to say here, The truly spiritual is not marked by a being swept away . . . that was precisely the characteristic of your previous fanatical religion.”

It is important to notice that Paul places this valuation of the spiritually “sweeping” at the very outset of his treatment of “spiritual things” in Corinth. As the superscripture to his essay in chapters twelve to fourteen Paul has written: Seizure is not necessarily Christian or paramountly spiritual. ^[20]

Likewise, Dr. Thiselton remarks here:

Needless to say, any notion of a community “working itself up” by psychological autosuggestion or repetitive devices designed to heighten emotion would be entirely alien to Paul’s ethics of controlled speech. ^[21]

Then in chapter 13 the Apostle’s mention of “a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” was most likely an allusion to musical instruments that were well recognized as being used in pagan temples. Accordingly, the Pentecostal NT scholar Gordon Fee explains a “clanging cymbal” refers to:

an instrument expressly associated with the pagan cults. . . . In particular with the cult of Cybele, where some of the more bizarre forms of “ecstasy” also occurred. . . . Perhaps, then, this is an illusion to 12:2 and their former associations with such cults.^[22]

Likewise, Dr. House writes regarding the mention of these particular musical instruments in the context of correcting Corinthian worship:

This may be an allusion to the use of these instruments in the mystery cults. These instruments were used to produce the ecstatic condition that provided the emotional intoxication needed to experience the sacramental celebration. ^[23]

Then in chapter 14 the Apostle’s hypothetical description of how a Corinthian unbeliever would react to seeing all the Corinthian believers speaking in tongues is significant. The Apostle says the Corinthian visitors will “say that you are mad [mainesthe]” (v. 23). The Greek word here means much more than just “crazy” as an American might interpret it. In the context of religious worship at the time, it was used in Greek literature as a technical term referring to the ecstatic state of worshipers in the Greek mystery religions. Accordingly, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology notes:

mainesthai is the technical term of the cult of Dionysus and of the inspired “mantic” divination, the best known of which were the Sibyls [prophets] in the grip of divine power. . . . The use of mainesthai [in 1 Cor 14] reminds us of the madness in [Greek mystery religions] in which a man is carried away in mania . . . into an ecstasy caused by the deity. ^[24]

Likewise, Dr. Thiselton writes concerning the meaning of mainesthai:

[I]n the classical Greek background . . . [the] hellenistic understanding of the verb in the context of religion . . . was emotionally “high” or out of control. . . . [T]he verb often applies . . . to the production of sounds while someone is out of his mind . . . hence it hardly overtranslates to use . . . two English terms: raving and out of your mind. [T]he term carries the double meaning of emotional lack of self-control, expressed as raving, and an unattractive, even frightening loss of rational sanity. ^[25]

Obviously, some of the Corinthian Christians thought the mindless, emotional half-hearted worship of their pagan past was an acceptable part of authentic Christian worship. What was needed was the discernment to distinguish the two. That this church lacked such discernment is illustrated by the fact that the Apostle Paul used the word anakrino (“to examine, investigate, distinguish”) ten times in his writings, and every one of them was in 1 Corinthians.

Accordingly, the Apostle gave the following instructions to the Corinthians in order to ensure that their worship services would be distinguished from those of the pagan mystery cults. First of all, he speaks to the selfishness inherent in pagan worship. Professor House writes:

Ecstatic religion by its very nature is self-oriented. Christians were to use their Christian χαρίσματα [charismata, “gifts”] for the common good [1 Cor 12:7], but the pagans were totally concerned about their own personal experience, an attitude also prevalent among Corinthian Christians. ^[26]

Accordingly, in the context of instructions for corporate worship, the Apostle tells them that any, “manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good” (1 Cor 12:7), that “Love . . . is not self-seeking,” and that in their congregational worship they should “Follow the way of love” (1 Cor 13:4-5; 14:1). Such instructions were intended to combat the fact that, as Dr. House says, “pagans were totally concerned about their own personal experience.”

This is why a few sentences after the Apostle writes that others-oriented love must be followed in the worship service (14:1), the Apostle addresses the kind of incoherent tongue speech practiced in the pagan temples and says, “He who speaks in [that kind of] a tongue edifies himself” (14:4), which had nothing to do with the Christian religion but everything to do with the pagan kind. Elsewhere we demonstrate in detail that the Apostle was not referring here to the supernatural Christian variety of tongues that manifested itself in the ability to speak understandably in a human foreign language unknown to the speaker as a miraculous sign to unbelievers (cf. 14:22). ^[27]

Here the Apostle is addressing the world-wide phenomenon found in many pagan religions where people speaking babble think they’re being spiritual. It was selfish worship to babble in a speech no one understood and for the sake of Christian love the Apostle insisted that if the babble could not be interpreted like a human language into something coherent and edifying for others that the would be speaker was to remain silent (cf. 14:27-28). While pagan worship was centered on the personal experience of the worshipper, the Apostle did not want this kind of self-centered worship occurring in the Christian assembly.

Secondly, because pagan worship was often mindless, the Apostle told the Corinthians “I will pray with my [human] spirit, but I will also [at the same time ^[28]] pray with my mind; I will sing with my [human] spirit, but I will also [at the same time] sing with my mind (14:15). This is because if he prays with only his spirit like the pagans, “my mind is unfruitful (akarpos: unproductive, barren)” (14:14), which is not a good or Christian thing, but a pagan thing.

As argued in the previous chapter, the Apostle is not advocating two types of prayer and singing, a mindless one and a mindful one. Rather, he is describing whole-hearted worship, and worship that is “in spirit and in truth.” While pagan worship involved only the “spirit,” the only legitimate way for a Christian to pray and sing was with both the “spirit” (emotion) and the mind (reason, thinking, understanding, desires).

Thirdly, because pagan worshippers who seemed to be the most ecstatic were considered to be the most spiritual, the Apostle insisted on self-control in the Christian service. Accordingly, he wrote: “The spirits of Prophets are subject to the control of Prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace” (1 Cor 14:32-33). As noted in a previous chapter, Dr. House writes:

Contemporary descriptions take note of the fact that such self-control was totally lacking in the orgiastic ecstasies of the mystery cults. Hence, these safeguards would protect the church by distinguishing the counterfeit from the genuine manifestations of the Holy Spirit. . . . In the pagan glossolalia [tongues speaking], no thought was given to the harmony of participants in group worship. Only the individual experience was important. Paul wrote that unity is a sign of the Spirit’s activity. ^[29]

Therefore, the Apostle instructed that no more than two or three people with the real Christian gift of tongues were to speak in the service, and then only one at a time (cf. 14:27). If anyone were to prophesy they were not to do so in an uncontrollable frenzy like the heathen prophets but with self “control” (14:32).

Fourthly, because pagan worship services tended to be chaotic, disorderly, and dominated by female prophetesses, the Apostle reminded the Corinthians that “God is not a God of disorder but of peace,” and that “women should remain silent in the churches” (14:33-34). ^[30]

Finally, the Apostle warned the Corinthians that breaking these rules for God-pleasing worship was evil, not just harmful. In the context of correcting their congregational worship the Apostle wrote, “Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults” (1 Cor 14:20). At the conclusion of his instruction he writes, “If anybody thinks he is a Prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored” (1 Cor 14:37-38). In other words, if the Corinthians did not heed these corrections to the mindless emotionalism they were practicing, they would be disobeying God.

In fact, it would seem that pagan influences had infiltrated the Corinthian church service to such a degree that it was almost indistinguishable from what occurred in the pagan temple down the street, causing visitors to think they were mantic (cf. 14:23). We are reminded of God’s response to another pagan-like worship service when He said, “Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to Me” (Isa 1:13). It would seem the Corinthian congregation was on the verge of the same kind of condemnation.

C) Half-hearted Spirituality in the Middle Ages

It is popular in emotionalism literature to support this perspective by calling upon the extra-biblical writings, opinions, and experiences of what we will refer to as classical mysticism in which there is an emphasis on spiritual disciplines and a claim that these will result in an intimate experience with God. D. D. Martin defines such classical mysticism in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology when he writes:

Briefly and generally stated, mystical theology or Christian mysticism seeks to describe an experienced, direct, nonabstract, unmediated, loving knowing of God, a knowing or seeing so direct as to be called union with God. ^[31]

 

During the Middle Ages, it was primarily through extremes in classical mysticism that emotionalism was practiced in the Church. It must be noted that the monastic orders preserved true spirituality in the Church throughout long periods of its history, and several of the godliest people who ever lived were monks. However, it was the mystical aspect of the life of some monks that illustrated the dangers of emotionalism. The historical foundation for this in classical mysticism is described by John McClintock and James Strong:

The number of the Mystics was not large in the Church until the 6^th century, when they rapidly increased, under the influence of the Grecian writings of the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. . . . The object of the author of these writings was to give a Platonic development and coloring to the deep mysteries of the Christian faith, and to lead the soul on by contemplative energy to adulation with the Deity.

The highest attainment in Christian philosophy he teaches is to behold in spirit and to become one with God, who is neither darkness nor light, neither negative nor positive. Three steps lead to this blissful consummation: purification, illumination, and vision; terms adopted from the various grades of Eleusinian [Greek mystery cult] initiation. ^[32]

These renowned Christian historians go on to relate:

That among this class of devout men there was often genuine piety, with a living faith which realized Christ within them the hope of glory, is not to be doubted. But delusion soon sprang up, and men, given to mental introversion, mistook the dreams of their own distempered imagination for realities. Sudden impressions were cherished as the illapse of the Spirit. . . . The obscure, unintelligible, and even absurd descriptions given by Mystics of these phenomena, reproduced even by modern theological writers, make mysticism synonymous with quietism (q.v.), and all forms of fanaticism and enthusiasm. ^[33]

To their credit, many medieval mystics rightly denounced a merely intellectual, philosophical approach to God, and highlighted the importance of a personal relationship with Him. However, while historical Christendom has stressed the exclusive superiority of Scripture, reason, prayer, and obedience for experiencing God, classical mystics exalted other practices as well.

Dr. Martin explains that in classical mysticism there are generally three stages which the mystic passes through in order to reach a union with God. These include the Purgative Way in which one enters certain strict disciplines such as prayer, fasting, and confession in order to purify one’s soul from all spiritual sin, distractions, and temptations. Next is the Illuminative Way, in which the person disengages and separates themselves completely from the world in order to prepare themselves for a closer experience of God.

The final stage of classical mysticism is described as the Unitive Way, in which one enters the focused contemplation on God through which a deeper experience of communion with God is supposed, and which is often referred to as the beatific vision. The classic description of these mystical stages is found in John of Cross’ (1542-1591) book, Dark Night of the Soul.

While a Christian can recognize value in such spiritual disciplines, there seems little biblical justification for the extreme teachings and practices of classical mystics. Dr. Martin explains:

Scriptural sources for [classic] Christian mysticism are found largely in the Logos-incarnation doctrine of John’s Gospel, in imagery such as that of the vine and branches (John 15) or Christ’s prayer for union (John 17), as well as in aspects of the Pauline corpus. The latter include the description of Paul’s rapture into the third heaven (II Cor. 12:1-4) or statements such as that referring to a life “hid with Christ in God.” (Col. 3:3) . . .

For medieval mystics Moses’ “vision” of God (Exod. 33:12-34:9) and his reflection of God’s glory upon leaving Mount Sinai (Exod. 34:29-35; cf. 11 Cor. 3:7) served as proof texts, and the allegorized spiritual marriage of the Song of Solomon, together with the other OT wisdom literature, provided unlimited scriptural resources until the shift to spiritual from literal-grammatical humanist and Reformation hermeneutics took place. ^[34]

We will not take the time to address these biblical passages here, but even a cursory examination of them clearly reveals that clear support for mystical claims is not found among them. One gets the sense, really, that classical mysticism can be both selfish and works oriented. Particularly when it is implied that the performance of certain acts result in a formula for communion with God.

Accordingly, the respected Presbyterian theologian Donald Bloesch, rather an expert on classical mysticism writes:

[F]aith is a gift of God whereas mystical rapture is to some degree a work of man. To be sure, the final union with God is regarded as a divine gift, at least in the circles of Christian mysticism, but it is held that one can prepare oneself for this union by spiritual exercises . . .

Faith is a response to Agape, the outgoing love that God has for man, whereas mystical religion is centered in Eros, the self-regarding love that prompts man to seek union with the divine. Faith speaks of the descent of God to man, while the concern in mysticism is man rising to God . . . the knowledge that it brings is self-knowledge, not a knowledge of the will and purpose of God. . . .

It is not self-fulfillment or self-realization but self-denial that characterizes the way of faith. Mystics also speak of self-denial, but only as a means to self-realization. They may well engage in rigorous practices of mortification but for the ultimate benefit of the self. ^[35]

While mystics claim the kind of relationship we will have with God in Heaven, it needs to be remembered that not only is His revelation progressive, but so is our relationship with Him. ^[36] In our feelings oriented culture, it is not surprising that Dr. Martin comments that “Western interest in Eastern mysticism and religions” are growing.

Along these lines, one Bible Teacher remarks:

The fact is that the various ancient practices of [classic mysticism] are not unique to Christianity. The meditative techniques that make people feel closer to God work for those who do not even know God. Thomas Merton (who is recommended by Dallas Willard) went to the East to find spiritual practices. They work just as well for those who do not know Christ, probably better. Many ancient Roman Catholic practices were invented at times when many illiterate pagans were ushered into the church, sometimes at the point of a sword. Those pagans were not exactly the type to search the Scriptures daily in order to find the things of God. ^[37]

In addition, a few remarks about some of the more prominent medieval mystics would seem to reveal unbiblical extremes in their lives. One of the more exemplary examples of classical mystics was Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153). While his personal virtue and religious reforms in the Church are to be admired, his emphasis on mega mysticism led him to confidently affirm that his own extra-biblical thoughts were in fact God’s thoughts. ^[38] He constantly promoted the seeking of emotional experience rather than the study of the Scriptures.

Francis of Assisi (1182–1226) was encouraged to pursue a more experiential spirituality when he visited a small, dilapidated church, and heard a voice from the crucifix above its altar commanding him to repair the building. Assisi was later to experience stigmata, or the supposed wounds of Christ, on his body, which contributed to his death sometime after. ^[39]

Teresa of Avila (1515–1582) supposedly had numerous visions of Christ, the first of which occurred at the age of forty when she fell into a trance. She was eccentric to say the least, wearing a shirt made of hair and often whipping herself to experience pain. ^[40]

Francis de Sales (1567–1622) promoted the mystical way as well and his orthodoxy comes into question when history records him as a foremost opponent of the Reformed doctrines of grace and one who reclaimed thousands back to the heretical doctrines of Romanism. ^[41]

Of course, other religions have had their own mystics who promoted and alleged the same things. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the Muslim Sufi mystics claimed a direct, immediate knowledge of God through contemplation, and practiced severe physical abuse on themselves. ^[42]

Accordingly Dr. Bloesch adds:

While mainstream Catholic theology became increasingly sacramental, movements arose in and outside the church that emphasized the immediacy of spiritual experience. Some of these were in fact heresies-grave imbalances in thought or devotion-whereas others represented completely new faith orientations that often assumed a Christian veneer.

All these movements can be regarded as variations of religious enthusiasm, denoting a rapturous experience of being taken up into God or being transported beyond materiality into the realm of “pure spirit.” Religious enthusiasm in this sense is closely related to spiritualism, which makes the inner light rather than holy Scripture the indefeasible criterion. The appeal is often to new revelations that supplement or supersede Holy Writ. A religious enthusiast is also likely to be a perfectionist, since the promise of the Spirit is the complete transformation of the human psyche. ^[43]

Remarkably, what was rejected as dangerous, unbiblical, unspiritual error in the Middle Ages is rampant in Christianity today in many forms. Just how ridiculous such mysticism can become is illustrated by Yale Professor of Church History, Kenneth Latourette who writes concerning this period of time:

In the Eastern as in the Western wing of the Catholic Church there was mysticism. . . . A special form of contemplation arose which is known as Hesychasm. It sought through special practices to attain the beatific vision of God. . . . The Hesychasts claimed that by holding their breath, fixing their eyes upon their navels, and making the spirit reenter the soul, they could be enveloped by the light which shone around Christ at the time of his transfiguration on Mt. Tabor. ^[44]

Please don’t try this at home.

D)  Half-hearted Spirituality in the Great Awakening

Because modern proponents of mindless half-hearted worship have no biblical support for it, they routinely cite examples of outcries, faintings, and trembling recorded in real spiritual revivals of the past as historical support. However, they intentionally ignore the fact that these manifestations were predominantly experienced by unbelievers being convicted of sin under the hell-fire preaching of Wesley, Whitefield, and Edwards. The manifestations today are predominantly seen among expectant and susceptible believers after someone says, “Get ‘em spirit.”

Accordingly, Hank Hanegraaff, a long-time member of a charismatic church himself, writes:

Counterfeit Revival [i.e. all of which is in charismaticism] deceptions are not limited to visionary hoaxes. They extend to revisionary history as well. As [they have] exchanged God’s enduring revelation for [their] own erroneous revelations, so, too, [they have] exchanged historical realities with historical revisionism. . . .

In teachings, transcripts, tapes, and television appearances, men like John Arnott (Toronto Airport Vineyard), Guy Chevreau (Catch the Fire), Gerald Coates (Holy Trinity, Brompton), and a host of other Counterfeit Revival teachers are actively deceiving devotees by revising history. Their primary ploy is to persuade people that sardonic laughter, spasmodic jerks, slaying in the spirit, and other “enthusiasms” were not only pervasive in the First Great Awakening, but were also promoted by such historical heavyweights as Jonathan Edwards. . . .

Leaders of the Counterfeit Revival have coopted one of the church’s true spiritual giants and dishonestly claimed him for their own. In the words of Counterfeit Revival leader DeArteaga, “The Lord has already chosen the predominant theologian of this revival. It’s not me! It’s Jonathan Edwards.”

Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. . . . Dr. Nick Needham has well said that anyone who believes Edwards would have approved of this paradigm shift “must surely have kissed a final farewell to his mind.” . . .

Nowhere is the paradigm shift that has taken place in Christianity and our culture more obvious than in the contrast between the ministry of Edwards and the message of the leaders of today’s Counterfeit Revival. The ministry of Jonathan Edwards was characterized by dynamic expositional preaching. The message of the Counterfeit Revival is characterized by delusional experiential pandering. . . . The very thing that Edwards wanted people to be saved from is what Counterfeit Revival leaders are inducing people to indulge in. ^[45]

This revision of history in order to find support for current phenomena is unfortunate. John Wimber (1934-1997), founder of the Vineyard movement, would seem to have done this very thing when he claimed that he was concerned after a church meeting where people were falling and in convulsions, and so he consulted “books about, revivals.” He writes:

What I discovered was that our experience at the church service was not unique, people like John and Charles Wesley, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, and Jonathan Edwards all had similar experiences in their ministries. ^[46]

Again, what he doesn’t tell us is that with the exception of Finney, and at times, John Wesley, these men avoided this stuff like the plague. However, even Finney was to regret his promotion of emotionalism in evangelism. Dr. Tom Nettles relates:

Finney came to amend his views on “excitements.” In an 1845 letter on revival he addressed this issue in detail:

I have sometimes witnessed efforts that were manifestly intended to create as much excitement as possible, and not unfrequently have measures been used which seemed to have no tendency to instruct or to subdue the will, or to bring sinners to the point of intelligently closing in with the terms of salvation; but on the contrary, it has seemed to me to beget a sort of infatuation through the power of overwhelming excitement. I cannot believe that this is healthful or at all safe in revivals. ^[47]

Arnold Dallimore, perhaps the best biographer of early Evangelical Christianity, documents how a lack of discernment regarding overly emotional manifestations effected the great revival of the eighteenth century which we know of today as the Great Awakening. Specifically, the founder and foremost leader of the Awakening, George Whitefield (1714-1770), expressed several concerns regarding John Wesley’s encouragement of mindless manifestations in his meetings.

Even John Wesley at times attributed such things as falling, uncontrollable laughing, and jumping, to demonic influences. In 1740, for example, when an epidemic of laughter broke out during a gathering in Bristol, Wesley wrote, “I was a little surprised at some, who were buffeted of satan in an unusual manner, by such a spirit of laughter as they could in no wise resist.” ^[48] This is, it would seem, identical to the “holy laughter” practiced by emotionalists today as discussed in the next chapter.

Likewise, John’s brother, Charles Wesley wrote in his journal:

June 4th. I went on at five expounding the Acts. Some stumbling blocks, with the help of God, I have removed, particularly the fits. Many no doubt were, at our first preaching struck down, both soul and body, into the depth of distress. Their outward affections were easy to be imitated. Many counterfeits I have already detected. . . .

Another girl, as she began her cry, I ordered to be carried out. Her convulsion was so violent as to take away the use of her limbs, till they laid and left her outside the door. Then immediately she found her legs, and walked off. . . .

Last night, before I began, I gave public notice, that whosoever cried [out] . . . without . . . judging them [would] be gently carried to the farthest corner of the room. But my porters had no employment the whole night, yet the Lord was with us, mightily convincing of sin and righteousness. ^[49]

Despite the efforts of modern emotionalist teachers to claim the support of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) for their antics, the truth is that Edwards would have denounced them. No doubt, Edwards did not deny the place of emotion in God-honoring worship, but he insisted that such “holy affections” must be based on a whole-hearted worship that engages our rational and intellectual powers. No one, even to this day, has written more prolifically or insightfully on whole-hearted worship, and in his monumental study of this topic entitled A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, Edwards writes:

Gracious affections [i.e. desires, emotions from the human “spirit”] do arise from the mind’s being enlightened, richly and spiritually to understand or apprehend divine things. Holy affections are not heat without light; but evermore arise from the information of the understanding, some spiritual instruction that the mind receives, some light or actual knowledge. The child of God is graciously affected, because he sees and understands something more of divine things than he did before, more of God or Christ, and of the glorious things exhibited in the gospel; he has some clearer and better view than he had before, when he was not affected; either he receives some understanding of divine things that is new to him; or has his former knowledge renewed after the view was decayed.

1 John 4:7, “Everyone that loveth, knoweth God.” Phil. 1:9, “I pray that your love may abound more and more in knowledge, and in all judgment.” Rom. 10:2, “They have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” Col. 3:10, “The new man, which is renewed in knowledge.” Psalm 43:3, 4, “O send out thy light and thy truth; let them lead me, let them bring me unto thy holy hill.” John 6:45, “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” Knowledge is the key that first opens the hard heart, and enlarges the affections, and so opens the way for men into the kingdom of heaven; Luke 11:52, “Ye have taken away the key of knowledge.”

Now there are many affections which do not arise from any light in the understanding. And when it is thus, it is a sure evidence that these affections are not spiritual, let them be ever so high. Many that have had mighty strong affections at first conversion, afterwards become dry and wither, and consume, and pine, and die away; and now their hypocrisy is manifest; if not to all the world by open profaneness, yet to the discerning eye of living Christians by a formal, barren, unsavory, unfruitful heart and course; because they never had light to conviction enough as yet. . . .

Such is the nature of man, that it is impossible his mind should be affected, unless it be by something that he apprehends, or that his mind conceives of. But in many persons those apprehensions or conceptions that they have, wherewith they are affected, have nothing of the nature of knowledge or instruction in them. As for instance, when a person is affected with a lively idea, suddenly excited in his mind, of some shape or very beautiful pleasant form of countenance, or some shining light, or other glorious outward appearance; here is something apprehended or conceived by the mind; but there is nothing of the nature of instruction in it; persons become never the wiser by such things, or more knowing about God, or a Mediator between God and man, or the way of salvation by Christ, or anything contained in any of the doctrines of the gospel. Persons by these external ideas have no further acquaintance with God, as to any of the attributes or perfections of his nature; nor have they any further understanding of his word, or any of his ways or works.

Truly spiritual and gracious affections are not raised after this manner; these arise from the enlightening of the understanding to understand the things that are taught of God and Christ, in a new manner, the coming to a new understanding of the excellent nature of God, and his wonderful perfections, some new view of Christ in his spiritual excellencies and fullness, or things opened to him in a new manner, that appertain to the way of salvation by Christ, whereby he now sees how it is, and understands those divine and spiritual doctrines which once were foolishness to him. Such enlightenings of the understanding as these, are things entirely different in their nature from strong ideas of shapes and colors, and outward brightness and glory, or sounds and voices. That all gracious affections do arise from some instruction or enlightening of the understanding, is therefore a further proof, that affections which arise from such impression on the imagination, are not gracious affections. ^[50]

Edwards also had done his historical research and added:

Such sort of experiences and discoveries as these, commonly raise the affections of such as are deluded by them, to a great height, and make a mighty uproar in both soul and body. And a very great part of the false religion that has been in the world, from one age to another, consists in such discoveries as these, and in the affections that flow from them.

In such things consisted the experiences of the ancient Pythagoreans among the heathen, and many others among them, who had strange ecstasies and raptures, and pretended to a divine afflatus, and immediate revelations from heaven.

In such things as these seem to have consisted the experiences of the Essenes, an ancient sect among the Jews, at and after the time of the Apostles. In such things as these consisted the experiences of many of the ancient Gnostics, and the Montanists, and many other sects of ancient heretics, in the primitive ages of the Christian church. And in such things as these consisted the pretended immediate converse with God and Christ, and saints and angels of heaven, of the Monks, Anchorites, and Recluses, that formerly abounded in the Church of Rome.

In such things consisted the pretended high experiences and great spirituality of many sects of enthusiasts, that swarmed in the world after the Reformation; such as the Anabaptists, Antinomians, and Familists, the followers of N. Stork, Th. Muncer, Jo. Becold, Henry Pfeiser, David George, Casper Swenckfield, Henry Nicolas Johannes, Agricola Eislebius; and the many wild enthusiasts that were in England in the days of Oliver Cromwell; and the followers of Mrs. Hutchison in New England; as appears by the particular and large accounts given of all these sects by that eminently holy man, Mr. Samuel Rutherford, in his “Display of the Spiritual Antichrist.” And in such things as these consisted the experiences of the late French prophets, and their followers. And in these things seems to lie the religion of the many kinds of enthusiasts of the present day. ^[51]

There is no doubt then that Jonathan Edwards, the theologian of the First Great Awakening, disdained merely emotional spirituality, considered it deceptive and potentially demonic, and emphasized the critical place that human reason plays in any sincere, Holy Spirit-empowered worship.

Accordingly, the Pentecostal scholar Barry Chant is concerned about how emotionalists have misrepresented Edwards. He writes:

Edwards makes it very plain that, for him, consistent, godly lifestyle is the best argument for a true revival. . . . Some ‘true friends of the work of God’s Spirit’ have done it discredit by yielding more to impressions and impulses than to the revelation of Scripture. . . . In all his writings, Edwards argued strongly for the need for the affections to be stirred. By the affections, he meant both the emotions and the will. . . . Yet, this does not mean that Edwards gave blanket approval to any and all kinds of manifestations. In fact, he strongly disapproved of extremist behavior.

One of his favorite phrases in The Religious Affections is ‘stony ground hearers,’ by which he means people who demonstrate great emotional fervor, but who quickly fade away through lack of depth. Furthermore, Edwards was not even comfortable with the Quakers who relied on the experience of ‘inner light’ for guidance and direction. He was uneasy about dependency on feelings. . . .

Over recent years and in various places, falling, shaking, ‘drunkenness’, crying, laughter, jerking, animal noises, ‘roaring’, catalepsy, writhing, being thrown across the floor, trances and the like have all been reported during revival meetings. Edwards would have rejected most of this.

Many years later, when a group of Presbyterians in Virginia entreated Edwards to accept a pastorate there, Samuel Davies, the first permanent evangelical pastor in that colony, wrote this about him: “Fiery superficial ministers will never do in these parts: they might do good; but they would do much more harm. We need the deep judgment and calm temper of Mr. Edwards among us.”

Edwards had the remarkable capacity both to welcome genuine expressions of emotional and volitional response to the gospel and yet to reject spurious extravagances. ^[52]

We would wish modern Church leaders possessed and exercised the same capacity for discernment and courage.

Dr. Chant also helpfully clears the record on the wife of Jonathan Edwards, Sarah, and rightly distinguishes her well-known spiritual experiences from mindless worship:

On occasions, Edwards’ wife Sarah showed signs of what was then called ‘enthusiasm.’ For example, on Wednesday 27 January, 1742, after a lecture by the young Samuel Buell, she and others remained for a further three hours and during most of this time, she recalled, her ‘bodily strength was overcome’ and she was so full of joy and thankfulness that she conversed with those who were with her ‘in a very earnest manner.’

The next morning, she was still so excited she found it difficult to complete her daily tasks. When Buell was speaking she felt so grieved at the apparent lack of gratitude among God’s people she sank to the floor. People eased her into a chair and earnest­ly she shared with them her sense of God’s wonderful grace to­wards her in redeeming her from hell.

During the next hymn, she was so impressed by heavenly truth that she leaped spontaneously from her chair, feeling as if she were ascending to heaven. After the reading of two more hymns, again, she collapsed and was taken and laid on a bed, where she continued to ‘contemplate the glories of the heavenly world.’

During this time, she felt ‘wholly indifferent’ to the affairs of the world and to earthly glory and ambition. Her heart was filled with love and she felt so exhausted by emotions of joy that she could not rise or sit up for about four hours. That Thursday night she described as ‘the sweetest night I ever had in my life.’

In recounting his version of Sarah’s story, Edwards claims that two things in particular were evident– ‘a peculiar aversion to judging other professing Christians’ and a ‘very great sense of the importance of moral social duties.’ Sarah’s strength failed her, he says, because of her great mourning for sin and ‘a sight of the fullness and glorious sufficiency of Christ.’ Furthermore, her ‘sense of the glory of the Holy Spirit’ was such as to overwhelm her in both soul and body. ^[53]

Edwards concludes — “Now if such things are enthusiasm, and the fruits of a dis­tempered brain, let my brain be evermore possessed of that happy distemper! If this be distraction, I pray God that the world of mankind may be all seized with this benign, meek, beneficent, beatifical, glorious distraction!” ^[54] One can only say ‘Amen’ to this prayer. Would that more people were so overwhelmed by the wonder of Christ’s sacrifice and love.

On the other hand, some popular authors seem to have misread Sarah’s experience. Chevreau, for example, claims that she was ‘out’ for four hours, implying that she was in a comatose state. ^[55] However, she makes it plain that although during this time she was too exhausted to rise or even to sit up, she spent ‘most of the time’ talking with friends about the things of God. Clearly, she was in full possession of her faculties.

Others have described her experience as being “slain in the Spirit.” However, when she felt weak at the knees, it was the conscious result of her own insight into the glories of God, not an involuntary reaction to someone else’s ministry or mediation or the laying on of hands. In the past, evangelical writers have attributed too little to Sarah Edwards’ testimony; it is important not to go to the other extreme of attributing too much. ^[56]

The Great Awakening teaches us that satan can infiltrate and derail a genuine work of God through emotionalism. Indeed, satan will allow the supernatural and seductive to occur in order to turn men’s minds from Christ. And this is what Whitefield and Edwards believed had happened in the revivals they witnessed. And it would seem that we should take notice if we are privileged to witness such a move of God in our own generation. Will we let the one who “masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14) distract us from the real work of the Holy Spirit because we are not discerning about emotionalism? Perhaps we already have. ^[57]

Nonetheless, some leaders of the Great Awakening such as John Wesley (1703-1791) in Britain and James Davenport (1716–1757) in America, were fooled into thinking that such things were the work of God. Dallimore writes:

Though in its beginnings, the phenomenon undoubtedly resulted from the convicting work of the Spirit of God, it soon suffered the addition of a human element. The original experience began to be imitated, for certain of Wesley’s hearers learned to make a practice of effecting a self-induced paroxysm during his services. The responsibility for this addition lay partly with Wesley himself, for, believing the emotional experiences to signify the special approval of God, he desired these demonstrations and encouraged them among the people. ^[58]

About this time, Whitefield, who had initially given Wesley the opportunity to preach, wrote his friend in an attempt to correct his error:

I cannot think it right in you to give so much encouragement to those convulsions which people have been thrown into under your ministry. Were I to do so, how many would cry out every night! I think it is tempting God to require such signs . . . the devil, I believe, does interpose. I think it will encourage the French Prophets, take people from the written word, and make them depend of visions [and] convulsions, more than on the promises and precepts of the Gospel. ^[59]

Those who truly understand Whitefield’s ministry and approach to it will readily recognize the error of the Evangelical Free pastor, Doug Bannister, who while firmly in the emotionalist camp himself, has recently written of Whitefield, “Drawing on his training as an actor, he stirred crowds into a frenzy with his dramatic oratory.” ^[60] It is quite ironic that Mr. Bannister accuses Whitefield of the very emotionalism that Bannister himself is guilty of promoting. On the contrary, Mr. Bannister greatly exaggerates Whitefield’s “training as an actor,” and he purposely avoided the “frenzy” that Bannister charges him with. More accurately, Dallimore concludes, “Whitefield was not in the least convinced that these paroxysms were pleasing to the Lord and his dislike of them continued.” ^[61]

Not only is Mr. Bannister wrong about Whitfield, his bias for the emotionalist Wesley is perhaps seen as well in his claim that Wesley “was the first to take the gospel to the masses.” ^[62] On the contrary, Whitfield was, and had been doing it for several months, and rather reluctantly asked Wesley to take his place in England so he could go to America, and only after two others had refused Whitfield’s invitation.

In the end, the lack of courage, sound doctrine, and discernment on the part of too many leaders in the Great Awakening, essentially ruined it, in Edward’s opinion. Writing in reference to the year 1742 he wrote:

The work continued more pure till we were infected from abroad; our people hearing of, and some of them seeing, the work in other places, where there was a greater visible commotion than here, and the outward appearances were more extraordinary, were ready to think that the work in those places far excelled what was amongst us, and their eyes were dazzled with the high profession and great show that some made, who came hither from other places. ^[63]

Along these lines, John Gerstner notes:

In [Edwards’] Religious Affections spiritual knowledge is contrasted with “enthusiasm,” a form of spurious knowledge. “Enthusiasm,” Edwards insists, really is a delusion of Satan. Never does a revival occur without the devil planting his enthusiastic bastard children among the true disciples to confuse the work of God.

Accordingly, Edwards wrote:

It is a hard thing to be a hearty zealous friend of what has been good and glorious, in the late extraordinary appearances, and to rejoice much in it; and at the same time to see the evil and pernicious tendency of what has been bad, and earnestly to oppose that. But yet, I am humbly but fully persuaded, we shall never be in the way of truth, nor go on in a way acceptable to God, and tending to the advancement of Christ’s kingdom till we do so. There is indeed something very mysterious in it, that so much good, and so much bad, should be mixed together in the church of God. . . .

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, all along hitherto. It is by this means, principally, that he has prevailed against all revivings of religion, that ever have been since the first founding of the Christian church. . . .

So the same cunning serpent, that beguiled Eve through his subtlety, by perverting us from the simplicity that is in Christ, hath suddenly prevailed to deprive us of that fair prospect, we had a little while ago, of a kind of paradisaic state of the church of God in New England. . . . And so it is ever likely to be in the church, whenever religion revives remarkably, till we have learned well to distinguish between true and false religion, between saving affections and experiences, and those manifold fair shows, and glistering appearances, by which they are counterfeited; the consequences of which, when they are not distinguished, are often inexpressibly dreadful.

By this means, the devil gratifies himself, by bringing it to pass, that that should be offered to God, by multitudes, under a notion of a pleasing acceptable service to him, that is indeed above all things abominable to him. By this means he deceives great multitudes about the state of their souls; making them think they are something, when they are nothing; and so eternally undoes them; and not only so, but establishes many in a strong confidence of their eminent holiness, who are in God’s sight some of the vilest of hypocrites. . . .

It is by such sort of religion as this, chiefly, that Satan transforms himself into an angel of light; and it is that which he has ever most successfully made use of to confound hopeful and happy revivals of religion, from the beginning of the Christian church to this day. When the Spirit of God is poured out, to begin a glorious work, then the old serpent, as fast as possible, and by all means, introduces this bastard religion, and mingles it with the true; which has from time to time soon brought all things into confusion.

The pernicious consequence of it is not easily imagined or conceived of, until we see and are amazed with the awful effects of it, and the dismal desolation it has made. If the revival of true religion be very great in its beginning, yet if this bastard comes in, there is danger of its doing as Gideon’s bastard Abimelech did, who never left until he had slain all his threescore and ten true-born sons, excepting one, that was forced to fly.

Great and strict therefore should be the watch and guard that ministers maintain against such things, especially at a time of great awakening: for men, especially the common people, are easily bewitched with such things; they having such a glaring and glistering show of high religion; and the devil biding his own shape, and appearing as an angel of light, that men may not be afraid of him, but may adore him. ^[64]

Along these lines, Hanegraaff writes:

In the end the “peculiarities of wild enthusiasts” spelled the demise of the Great Awakening. The powerful expositional preaching of men like Edwards, with its emphasis on esteem for Christ, an eternal perspective, essential Christian doctrine, and ego-effacing love, was replaced by excesses, errors, and extremes. The turning point, in Edward’s estimation, came when enthusiastic endorsers of the revival began to entertain and encourage such lying wonders.

According to biographer Ian H. Murray:

He came to believe that there was one principle cause of the reversal, namely, the unwatchfulness of the friends of the Awakening who allowed genuine and pure religion to become so mixed with “wildfire,” and carnal “enthusiasm,” that the Spirit of God was grieved and advantage given to Satan.

As lying signs and wonders took center stage in the Great Awakening, division arose between those who resisted “imprudences and irregularities” and those who promoted them. . . . By 1743 America’s clergy were evenly split over whether the revivals were a work of God or a work of the devil. . . . By the beginning of the American Revolution (1776) . . . Christianity was once again on the decline. The emotional excitement and spiritual effects of the Great Awakening had deteriorated into apathy and indifference. . . .

While the First Great Awakening had emphasized the rational understanding of essential Christian doctrine, it remained for the Second Awakening [e.g. Charles Finney], the next great wave of American revivalism, to advance almost purely emotional Christianity to a central position in popular American religion. In the First Great Awakening excesses had been the byproduct of revival; in the Second they would be the bottom line. ^[65]

Unfortunately, we would suggest that the American Church has allowed precisely what Edwards warned against. Just as he saw the true spiritual revival in his day be swallowed up with emotionalism so we have experienced the same great tragedy today. It seems apparent that mindless, emotional manifestations had a significant part in satan’s desires to distract, dilute and eventually destroy the greatest revival in American history, and the same thing has and will no doubt have the same effect on any subsequent revivals.

Pastoral Practices

• Do we have the discernment to distinguish the real from the fake when it comes to spiritual manifestations? Would we have the wisdom and courage to protect a revival in our church from satanic counterfeits? Both of these would come from biblical convictions on the matter. Edward’s treatise, Religious Affections would be a good place to start, and perhaps N. R. Needham’s abridged and updated English version would be better (The Experience That Counts! [Grace Publications Trust, 1997]). Also, see relevant sections of KOG including: the rest of this chapter, the next chapter, and chapters 13-16 in book 10: God’s Miracle’s: Words & Works.

E) Half-hearted Spirituality Among 17^th to 19^th Century Heretics

E.1) Jansenists

Our belief that emotionalism has historically been denounced by Christians is demonstrated as well in other heretical movements. For example, a French group called the Jansenists, after their leader, Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638), exhibited many of the modern “charismatic” phenomena. However, the Jansenists were probably not Christians, as they, “rejected justification by faith as the Protestants understood it and held that the full Christian life was possible only through the Roman Catholic Church.” ^[66] Convulsive fits, trances, prophetic utterances, miraculous cures, gravesite worship of dead saints, and “speaking in tongues” were all characteristics of this group that were eventually rejected by both Protestants and Roman Catholics as heretics. ^[67]

E.2) French Prophets

Likewise, the warning concerning the French Prophets by both Edwards and Whitefield above deserves further comment. They were a heretical sect of the French Reformation in the early eighteenth century which spread to England and then to America. They were known for their claims to the gifts of prophecy and tongues and were universally rejected as heretics by both the Protestant and Roman Catholic branches of Christianity. Whitefield’s disdain for them is illustrative of this. ^[68]

Dallimore explains that:

[The French Prophets] carried their occult practices to their new homes in England. [There] they attracted wide attention by exhibitions which included bodily contortions and unintelligible sounds, all of which they claimed were miraculous spiritual gifts. . . . Following Whitefield’s ministry, the Prophets, aware of the new enthusiasm in [Whitefield’s converts] decided that here was a people among whom they might easily make proselytes. . . .

Some leading men [including John Wesley] were led to believe that the convulsive fits and unintelligible sounds of the prophets—since they knew not how to explain them otherwise—must be supernatural. . . . Several [early Methodists] were strongly influenced by the French Prophets . . . and in their lack of Biblical understanding were beginning to copy the Prophets’ emotional practices and prophetic speculations. . . .

The Prophets interjected the element of fanaticism and posed the threat which pseudo-supernaturalism always constitutes for earnest but unthinking Christian people. ^[69]

Dr. Chant writes concerning the French Prophets:

According to [John] Knox [founder of Presbyterianism], when their preacher [a “French prophet”] shouted, people often fell on their backs while he ‘conducted them’ with his hand movements as if they were some kind of orchestra. It was ‘a mark of reprobation if you did not fall when you were told to.’ Some drove knives into themselves; others spoke in tongues; most were unconscious of what they did or said while under inspi­ration. ‘Violent agitations,’ foaming at the mouth and bodily swelling were common.

A speaker might lie as dead for an extended time and then begin to tremble violently until his limbs all shook. In at least one case, one person ‘gobbled like a turkey cock.’

A contemporary writer refers to people shaking their heads, crawling on the floor, quaking and trembling, drumming, trumpeting, thundering, snuffling, blowing as with a horn, panting, sighing, groaning, hissing, laughing, pointing, shaking, threshing, using childish repetition, howling like a dog and generally acting in a disorderly fashion. While these descriptions all come from their critics, there seems to be sufficient evidence to suggest they are not widely inaccu­rate. ^[70]

Many phenomena popular in modern day charismaticism were characteristic of the French Prophets, but none of it would seem to be Christian. They spoke of human perfectionism in prophetic utterances and believed such prophesying to be from God. They spoke and prayed in incoherent syllables, claiming it to be Huegenot French and a demonstration of the gift of speaking in tongues. Yet, there is no doubt that the leaders of the Great Awakening in England viewed the French Prophets as heretics and threats to the progress of the revival. ^[71]

E.3) Shakers

The next group to exhibit “charismatic” phenomena was the Shakers. They were called such because of their convulsive style of worship including “the shakes” while worshipping, “working miracles,” “calling forth signs and wonders,” prophesying, “insight into the thoughts of others,” animal sounds, drunken behavior in worship, and “speaking in their unknown tongues.” ^[72] In the mid 1700’s they were led by Mother Ann Lee (1736-1784) who taught many heretical things which concerned not only the Person of Christ, but that “the sin of our first parents [Adam and Eve] was in sexual intercourse.” ^[73] Donald Bloesch writes:

In the early years of the Shaker communities spiritual gifts abounded, including prophecies, visions, tongues and healings. One of their distinctive beliefs linking them to Gnosticism was that God is both male and female. The female principle was manifested in Mother Ann Lee, who was seen as the second appearance of Christ. In their view the millennium began with the founding of the Shaker church. In the 1840s twice-yearly love feasts were held during which believers were visited by American Indian spirits and the spirit of Mother Ann. ^[74]

Although the Shakers obviously exhibited many emotionalists phenomena, there was one practice no Christian group would hopefully claim and that was “the practice of men and women dancing together naked while they spoke in tongues.” ^[75]

E.4) Irvingites

Another group at this time that manifested “charismatic” phenomena was the Irvingites. Their meetings were marked, as well, by “swoons, bedlam, laughing, and groaning.” ^[76] They encouraged tongues speaking and established both prophets and apostles in their churches. Although many of those involved in the movement might have been Christians, it becomes obvious that the group was heavily infiltrated by the evil one. “The prophets contradicted their own statements [and Scripture as well]. . . . One of the leading prophets admitted that he was deluded and had spoken by an evil spirit.” ^[77]

Their founder, Edward Irving (1792-1834), “adopted a strange Christology, an extraordinarily subjective understanding of the leading of the Lord . . . [had] false views on healing,” ^[78] and “was ejected from the Presbyterian Church for heresy.” ^[79] Once again, the Irvingites obviously did exhibit many contemporary practices and beliefs in modern charismaticism, however, they were just as obviously another one of those “fringe heretical” groups. ^[80]

NT scholar Thomas Edgar, Professor of NT at Capital Seminary, would seem to sum up the remainder of historical evidence concerning emotionalism when he writes:

[H. B.] Sweet refers to frontier revivals in America where “sinners” or unbelievers jerked and became involved in convulsive movements and where there were sobs, shrieks, shouts, and spasms, dashing scores to the ground. However, we have no evidence that these were spiritual gifts or that tongues speaking occurred or that believers were involved in such actions.

In his study of the Holiness-Pentecostal movement, [Vinson] Synan refers to falling, jerking, barking, trances, holy laughs, and wild dances . . . [some would] crawl on all fours and bark like dogs. Even unbelieving students at the University of Georgia fell, jerked, shouted, and talked in tongues. These manifestations were not restricted to believers and therefore were not spiritual gifts. Some were so ridiculous that it is blasphemous to associate them with the Spirit of God. ^[81]

So while it would seem emotionalist phenomena certainly occurred in the past, it is consistently attached to unbelievers or groups that were heavily influenced by heretical doctrines and considered outside the Christian faith as a whole.

F) Half-hearted Spirituality in Early Mormonism

The reports of “charismatic” practices in early Mormonism demonstrates that such manifestations need have nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. Alexander Mackie, a historian of early American spirituality, writes of the beginnings of the Mormon revivals:

During the fall and winter of 1830 and 1831, Kirtland was continually crowded with visitors, who came from all quarters to inquire after the ‘New Religion.’ About this time, as we are informed by credible historians and eyewitnesses, ‘many in the church became very visionary and had divers [various] operations of the Spirit.’ They saw wonderful lights in the air and on the ground and had many miraculous visions and experiences. . . . Others fell into a trance, and continued apparently lifeless for a long time, and woke only to relate the wonders they had seen touching the future glory of the saints, and the destruction of the unbelieving. Sometimes their faces, bodies, and limbs were violently distorted and convulsed, until they fell prostrate on the ground.

Indeed, it is reported by an eye-witness, that at first the laying hands on the heads of their converts to confer the gift of the Holy Spirit, generally produced an instantaneous prostration of both the body and mind, often followed by a wonderful gift of tongues, as was supposed, in Indian dialects; which, indeed, none could understand except by direct inspiration. . . .

Scenes like this were numerous. The preachers were fervent, the people “eager for the supernatural,” and the message definite and dogmatic. . . . The expectations of the Latter Day Saints ran at this time very high. . . .

A description of one of the Kirtland meetings [by E. D. Howe] will convey some idea of the manner in which Mormon worship in the inner circle was conducted. There were some fifteen or twenty Elders and High Priests present. The meeting was held in a small room.

“After sundry exhortations by the priests, the Prophet [Joseph Smith] himself arose and with much seeming earnestness, warned his followers to be zealous, faithful in their duties, saying, ‘It is our privilege to see God face to face-yes, (says he) I will prophesy unto you in the name of the Lord, that the day will come when no man will be permitted to preach unless he has seen the Lord. . . . They then concluded to spend the day in fasting and prayer. . . .

Joseph next passed round the room, and laid his hand upon each one, and spoke as follows, as near as the narrator can recollect: [gibberish in an obscure tongue]. . . . After administering the sacrament several of the brethren were called upon to arise and speak in tongues. . . . This gibberish for several months was practiced almost daily.” ^[82]

satan even tried to use the mindless practices of early Mormonism to hinder genuine Christian revival. Accordingly, the Methodist preacher Peter Cartwright (1785-1872) wrote:

The camp meeting was numerously attended, and we had a good and gracious work of religion going on among the people. On Saturday there came some twenty or thirty Mormons to the meeting. . . . At length, an old lady Mormon began to shout, and after shouting a while she swooned away and fell into the arms of her husband. The old man proclaimed that his wife had gone into a trance, and that when she came to she would speak in an unknown tongue, and that he would interpret.

This proclamation produced considerable excitement, and the multitude crowded thick around. Presently the old lady arose and began to speak in an unknown tongue, sure enough. Just then my attention was called to the matter. I saw in one moment that the whole maneuvre was intended to bring the Mormons into notice, and break up the good of our meeting. I advanced instantly toward the crowd, and asked the people to give way and let me in to this old lady, who was then being held in the arms of her husband.

I came right up to them, and took hold of her arm, and ordered her peremptorily to hush that gibberish; that I would have no more of it; that it was presumptuous and blasphemous nonsense. I stopped very suddenly her unknown tongue. She opened her eyes, took me by the hand, and said: ‘My dear friend, I have a message directly from God to you.’ I stopped her short and said, ‘I will have none of your messages. If God can speak through no better medium than an old, hypocritical, lying woman, I will hear nothing of it.” ^[83]

We would wish the modern Church would respond with the same discernment as Cartwright did in the midst of the revival he was leading.

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our Father in Heaven, we thank You that You have made it clear in Scripture that virtue, not emotion, is the true fruit of the Holy Spirit. Help us to avoid the merely fleshly spirituality of modern emotionalism. And we pray that whoever may be true Christians and are involved in pagan worship practices may come to their senses and escape the trap of the devil.

Gauging Your Grasp

1. How do we define emotionalism? Why do we refer to it as “half-hearted” spirituality?
2. What were some elements in first century pagan worship that would reflect emotionalism?
3. What do we claim are some biblical references to pagan emotionalism in 1 Corinthians? Do you agree or disagree and why?

 

1. Why do we claim that the Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians their mindless emotionalism was not only harmful, but evil. Do you agree or disagree and why?
2. Why do we claim that modern emotionalists claim such people as Jonathan Edwards as support for their practices? Are they wrong or right to do so?
3. Why do we claim that the Great Awakening teaches us that satan can infiltrate and derail a genuine work of God through emotionalism.

 

1. Obviously, we are arguing here that many of the worship and spiritual practices denounced in the history of the Church as unbiblical and even demonic are being popularized and practiced by the modern “charismatic” movement today. Do you agree or disagree? What are the ramifications of this?

Publications & Particulars

1. Encyclopedia Britannica, 14^th edition, (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968), Vol. 8, 75 (Underlining added for emphasis). ↑

2. H. Wayne House, “Tongues and the Mystery Religions at Corinth,” BSac 140:558 (Apr 83), 141. See also Mark Harding, “Church and Gentile Cults in Corinth” Grace Theological Journal 10:2 (Fall 1989), 216-19. ↑

3. House, Ibid. ↑

4. W. R. Inge, “Ecstasy,” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, (New Scribner’s & Sons, 1955-8), 5:158. ↑

5. Herodotus, 4.79, online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh4070.htm. ↑

6. Christopher Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity And Its Hellenistic Environment (J. C. B. Mohr, 1995), 133-5. ↑

7. Ibid., 132. ↑

8. Ibid., 136-8. ↑

9. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (Westminster Press, 1975), 304. ↑

10. Origen, Against Celsus, VII.4, online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

11. Glossolalia is the technical term for the spontaneous, obscure, and unintelligible utterances observed particularly in religious settings from ancient history, to the modern times, and throughout the world. It is derived from the Greek words glossa (tongue, language), and lalos (speak), and literally means “language speaking.” However, modern linguists agree that glossolalia is not a real human language. Accordingly, while glossolalia is an apt term for the unintelligible utterances occurring in the modern tongues movement, xenolalia (derived from the Greek zenos: “foreign”), is used to refer to the supernatural ability to speak in a foreign human language which you have not learned naturally, and is a better technical term for the biblical gift of tongues. ↑

12. Grant R. Osborne, “Tongues,” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT), Walter Elwell, ed., (Baker, 1984), 1100. ↑

13. Dunn, 304. Dunn is relating the thoughts of T. W. Gillespie, “A Pattern of Prophetic Speech in First Corinthians”, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 97, no. 1, 1978, pp. 74-95 p. 82. ↑

14. Anthony Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGNT (Eerdmans, 2000), 913. ↑

15. Martin P. Nilsson, A History of Greek Religion, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Norton, 1964), 205. ↑

16. Dr. Forbes has specifically questioned just how extensive speaking in obscure, unintelligible utterances was, in first century pagan religions, in his book Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity And Its Hellenistic Environment (J. C. B. Mohr, 1995). This is rather remarkable as we have quoted from his very own book, descriptions of pagan prophetesses chanting “dread enigmas . . . wrapping truth in darkness” and groaning as they “uttered loud inarticulate cries.” For a more detailed critique of Dr. Forbes’ theories, see footnote in section 12.7.A ↑

17. John MacArthur, First Corinthians (Moody Press, 1984), 196-197, 280. ↑

18. C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hendrickson, 2000), 278-279. Raymond F. Collins in his well regarded commentary agrees and says:

    More likely the phrase is one that had been spoken by non-Christians in Corinth . . . The Christian presumption is that such a curse was uttered under demonic influence (1 Corinthians [Sacra Pagina, 1999], 446). ↑

19. David Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Mediterranean World Prophecy, (Eerdmans, 1983), 257. ↑

20. Frederick Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans, 1970), 286-87. ↑

21. Thiselton, 1145. ↑

22. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Eerdmans, 1987), 632, and n. 30. ↑

23. House, 134. ↑

24. J. Schattenmann, “Ecstasy” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT), Colin Brown, ed., 4 vols., (Zondervan, 1986), 1:529.

    Some have claimed that the response of these hypothetical Corinthian unbelievers is best described as perplexity because they would never have been exposed to such a phenomenon, thus proving that tongues were not practiced in pagan temples at the time. This ignores a good deal of evidence to the contrary. Their accusation of “madness” refers directly to what these unbelievers would have witnessed in a pagan temple when tongues speaking was occurring. For further discussion of this see chapter 12.7. ↑

25. Thiselton, 1126. ↑

26. House, 141. ↑

27. For more concerning the proper interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12-14 see Book 12 chapters 12.6-11. ↑

28. Additional scholarly support for the fact that the Apostle is advocating prayer and singing that simultaneously engages the spirit and the mind is found in BAGD which interprets the Greek of the latter half of v. 15: “sing praise in spiritual ecstasy and in full possession of one’s mental faculties.” (Thiselton, 1111) ↑

29. House, 146. ↑

30. For further discussion of these important and controversial statements see section 12.5.A.4. ↑

31. D. D. Martin, EDT, “Mysticism” 744. ↑

32. John McClintock and James Strong, “Mystics,” Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (M&S), CD-ROM (Ages Software, 2000). ↑

33. Ibid. ↑

34. Martin, 746. ↑

35. Donald G. Bloesch, The Ground of Certainty (Eerdmans, 1971), 142-3. ↑

36. Regarding the God-intended progression of our experience with Him see chapter 14.5. ↑

37. Bob Dewaay, “Why Evangelicals Are Turning to Rome” Critical Issues Commentary, #105, 3. ↑

38. M&S, “Mysticism.” ↑

39. R. Vonderlack, “Francis of Assisi” in Who’s Who in Christian History (WWCH) J. D. Douglas and Philip Comfort eds. (Tyndale, n.d.) ↑

40. P. M Bassett, “Teresa of Avila”, WWCH. ↑

41. R. D. Shuster, “Francis de Sales,” WWCH. ↑

42. “Mystics” M&S. ↑

43. Donald Bloesch, The Holy Spirit: Works and Gifts (Intervarsity, 2000), 85. ↑

44. Kenneth Latourette, A History of Christianity, 2 vols. (Hendricksen, 1975), 570. ↑

45. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival (Word, 1997), 81-83, 101. See his thorough discussion of this matter on pages 81-101. See also Dr. Nick Needham, Is Jonathan Edwards the Founding Father of the Toronto Blessing? (Nick Needham, 1995), and Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield, 2 vols. (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1970), II:184-93). ↑

46. John Wimber and Kevin Springer, Power Evangelism (Hodder Headline, 1997), 24-25. ↑

47. Tom Nettles, “A Better Way: Church Growth Through Revival and Reformation” in Power Religion: The Selling Out of the Evangelical Church, Michael S. Horton ed. (Moody, 1992), 179. ↑

48. Hanegraaff, 180. In addition to John Wesley’s comment here regarding his belief that what is called “holy laughter” today was demonic in his meetings, see Dallimore (I:174-176), for other examples of both John and Charles Wesley’s suspicion of such manifestations.

    Although John Wesley did misinterpret and even encourage such manifestations during his early preaching, he was later to regret such things. However, Wesley is, no doubt, difficult to understand at times. B. B. Warfield quotes William Warburton, who concluded after a careful study of John Wesley’s journals, “This extraordinary man, hath, in fact, laid claim to almost every Apostolic gift and grace-, and in as full and ample a measure as they were possessed of old” (Counterfeit Miracles [Banner of Truth Trust, 1972], 129).

    It becomes obvious that as one studies Wesley, you encounter a man sometimes struggling for self-esteem, power, and notoriety. Some of the things that happened in his ministry, marriage, and some of his doctrine, make one stand back in awe of God’s grace to use such a man as He did. For further study on the immaturity of John Wesley see Dallimore Vol. 1, pp. 67-, 148-9, 196-273. 307-19, 451-2, 556-,571-81, and Vol. 2, pp. 7, 9-21; 22, 23, 32; 38-40; 100. ↑

49. Jackson Thomas, The Life of the Rev. Charles Wesley (1841), vol. 1, 333-4. ↑

50. Jonathan Edwards, Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, III.4.1.; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

51. Ibid. ↑

52. Barry Chant, “Myths about Jonathan Edwards,” Renewal Journal; online at http://www.renewaljournal.com. Dr. Chant adds concerning Edward’s writings on revival:

    When discussing his [Edward’s] views on revival, most people quote mainly from his earlier writings. It is important to realize that he wrote four books on this subject and that his last work, not his first one, best reflects his position. As with most people, Edwards’ views matured over the years, and with the benefit of experience, he was able to interpret with greater wisdom the phenomena he had witnessed. So it is to his Treatise Concerning the Religious Affections, first published in 1746 that we must turn for his ‘final word,’ as it were. Iain Murray says that Edwards, “never gave closer and more careful thought to anything than he did to this.” To describe Edwards’ view of revival without turning to this great piece of writing is to do him an injustice. ↑

53. Jonathan Edwards in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Banner of Truth, 1984), I:376f. ↑

54. Ibid., I:378. ↑

55. G. Chevreau, Catch the Fire (Marshall Pickering, 1994), 79. ↑

56. Chant. ↑

57. For further discussion of what we see as the fake revival in charismaticism see section 10.15.A. ↑

58. Dallimore, I:325. ↑

59. Ibid. 328. ↑

60. Doug Bannister, The Word and Power Church (Zondervan, 1999), 127. ↑

61. Ibid. ↑

62. Ibid., 50. ↑

63. John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. (Berea, 1991), I.165. ↑

64. Edwards, Affections, III.4.4. ↑

65. Hanegraaff, 115-116. ↑

66. Latourette, 879. ↑

67. Thomas Edgar, “The Cessation of the Sign Gifts” Bsac 145 (1988), 211, 212. ↑

68. For further discussion of how the leaders of the Great Awakening viewed the French Prophets see Dallimore, vol. 1, pp. 177, 316 n. 1, 327, 348, 505. ↑

69. Ibid., vol. 1, 174-5. ↑

70. Chant. ↑

71. Dallimore, 316 n. 1, 177, 327, 348, 505. ↑

72. Alexander Mackie, The Gift of Tongues: A Study in the Pathological Aspects of Christianity (Doran, 1921), 83, 89, 90, 94, 95. ↑

73. Ibid., 105. ↑

74. Bloesch, 150. ↑

75. Smith, 17-18. ↑

76. Edgar, “Cessation,” 214. ↑

77. Ibid. ↑

78. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Baker, 1987), 167. ↑

79. Latourette, 1185. ↑

80. Carson, Spirit, 166. ↑

81. Edgar, “Cessation,” 217. ↑

82. Mackie, 9-10. ↑

83. Quoted in Mackie, 231. ↑