Thread: The First Great Awakening: True or False Revival?

Let Edwards speak on the Great Awakening, acknowlegding the divine work of God, and mixed in it, the work of the devil:

"There being a great many errors and sinful irregularites mixed with the this work of God, arising from our weakness, darkness, and corruption, does not hinder this work of God's power and grace from being very glorious...How unreasonable is it that we should be backward to acknowledge the glory of what God has done, because the devil, and we in hearkening to him, have done a great deal of mischief......

If we look back into the history of the church of God in past ages, we may observe that it has been a common device of the devil to overset a revival of religion; when he finds he can keep men quiet and secure no longer, then he drives them to excesses and extravagances. He holds them back as long as he can; but when he can do it no longer, then he will push them on , and if possible, run them upon their heads....." {Some Thoughts concerning the Present Revival, p. 397-398}

Let Ian Murray's excellent biography of Edwards lay to rest any facile attempt to tie modern "pentecostalism' to Edwards:

"There were some orthodox Christians in New England who believed that a glorious revival in the latter days 'would partly consist in restoring those extraordinary gifts of the Spirit'. For Edwards, that belief was erroneous and dangerous, and its existence, in his view, was partly responsible for the readiness of some to treat 'impulses' as God-given. He saw it as dangerous because a wish for the restoration extraordinary gifts suggested a wrong view of what are indeed the great and abiding influences of the Spirit in the Church. The extraordinary gifts had no necessary connection with the power of godliness; indeed, he asserts, a man might have them and 'go to hell'. The glorious work of the Spirit is that in which he imparts regenerating and sanctifying grace to the soul". {Murray, p. 242, 243}.

Originally Posted by D. Paul

Originally Posted by raekwon

Originally Posted by Southern Presbyterian

I don't think so, but the Holy Spirit is!

Yeah, I was about to say "no, and neither can Calvinism".

Amen and Amen (respectively).

Now, the historical fact is that the Roman Catholic Church has never experienced (or "produced") revival. Why is that? If there have been false revivals in the past (although they have been touted as Holy Spirit produced) and also genuine, what was the difference? Was it not a matter of the pure Gospel being taught and changing men's hearts and minds? If God the Spirit can produce revival regardless of doctrine, why not in the RC church?

So, in other words, how can we call it revival when men continue believing just as they had before?

OK, I should have read this thread first bc it address my Q of Arminian Revival better. The reason for my thread was that our church is wanting to have all the men respond to THE ALTAR CALL in hopes of starting a revival by reclaiming spiritual leadership in our homes, business, church etc.

Just recently I personally distributed J. Merle D'Aubigne's essay on Family Worship (along with a sermon by Joel Beeke on the same) to many men in hopes that they would be introduced to the best material and then establish the practice. Response? ZILCH, to my immediate knowledge. But I guarantee this requested display will get attention.

I hear myself. Am I wanting credit for something for my personal glory? Will I be upset if many men respond in genuine repentance? An emphatic "NO" to both. I simply see this as an attempt to mimic "Fresh Fire" and Revivalism rather than understanding what true Revival means.

Am I all wet?

Originally Posted by D. Paul

Originally Posted by D. Paul

Originally Posted by raekwon

Yeah, I was about to say "no, and neither can Calvinism".

Amen and Amen (respectively).

Now, the historical fact is that the Roman Catholic Church has never experienced (or "produced") revival. Why is that? If there have been false revivals in the past (although they have been touted as Holy Spirit produced) and also genuine, what was the difference? Was it not a matter of the pure Gospel being taught and changing men's hearts and minds? If God the Spirit can produce revival regardless of doctrine, why not in the RC church?

So, in other words, how can we call it revival when men continue believing just as they had before?

OK, I should have read this thread first bc it address my Q of Arminian Revival better. The reason for my thread was that our church is wanting to have all the men respond to THE ALTAR CALL in hopes of starting a revival by reclaiming spiritual leadership in our homes, business, church etc.

Just recently I personally distributed J. Merle D'Aubigne's essay on Family Worship (along with a sermon by Joel Beeke on the same) to many men in hopes that they would be introduced to the best material and then establish the practice. Response? ZILCH, to my immediate knowledge. But I guarantee this requested display will get attention.

I hear myself. Am I wanting credit for something for my personal glory? Will I be upset if many men respond in genuine repentance? An emphatic "NO" to both. I simply see this as an attempt to mimic "Fresh Fire" and Revivalism rather than understanding what true Revival means.

Am I all wet?

Perhaps it would be better to reclaim spiritual leadership by way of an oath instead of an altar call.

Originally Posted by KMK

Perhaps it would be better to reclaim spiritual leadership by way of an oath instead of an altar call.

Could you elaborate?

Originally Posted by SRoper

I believe R. Scott Clark has stated that church attendance actually declined during the so-called First Great Awakening.

If a church to be a church must be governed by an ordained man and under an established order in order to be a "church" and many backwoods folks come to true faith and gathering toether to worship in some form other than this, then "church" atendance would decline even as spiritual vigor increased ---but perhaps in a form not recognized by a high churchist or someone who defines church more strictly.

There were abuses associated with the "First Great Awakening", such as emotionalism substituting for spirituality, loose ordination standards for itinerant preachers who worked outside the order of the Churches, some members of the clergy calling their ordained brothers "unconverted" and encouraging members to leave those churches for the open air meetings, etc. That is not to say that there was no movement of the Spirit of God--as the Edwards quotation earlier cited states, there was a work of the Spirit of God, and a work of the devil as well.

I believe the way we discern the verity of any "awakening" or "large step toward reformation" is multifarious. There are many signs we ought to see: Orthodoxy from the Pulpit, a respect for Church Order and Authority as it relates to the means of grace, lives that are brought into conformity to Christ all SEVEN days of the week, or, as was put above, pure preaching, pure administration of the sacraments, Godly Church order and discipline. If a reformation or awakening is rightly judged, it is judged by Scripture--all of it. Another thread on the house church movement has many of the same echoes--I am all for Spirituality, but the Scriptures have an authoritative monopoly on how that word is defined. Biblical Christianity includes complexities of order, authority, doctrine, practice, and love--all of which must be in place in order for any "Christianity" to be Biblical. Many 'revivals' undervalue the less attractive paradigms of authority and order, and overemphasize individual piety as the trump card of spirituality. Of course, a Biblical view of piety will loathe individualism and independence--but this point is sadly lost on many revivalists.

Originally Posted by D. Paul

Originally Posted by KMK

Perhaps it would be better to reclaim spiritual leadership by way of an oath instead of an altar call.

Could you elaborate?

If the purpose of the altar call is for the men to 'reclaim spiritual leadership' in their lives, then you could use the Biblical practice of taking an oath.

WCF 22:1 A lawful oath is part of religious worship,[1] wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calls God to witness what he asserts, or promises, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he swears.

Here is what Mark Noll has to say on the subject

Yet evangelicalism was always constituted by the convictions that emerged in those revivals and drove its adherents in their lives as Christians. In this sense, evangelicalism designates a consistent pattern of convictions and attitutes that have been maintained over the centuries since the 1730s. Many efforts have been made to summarize those convictions and attiuttes. One of the most effective is offered by David Bebbington, who has identified four key ingredients of evangelicalism:

* Conversion, or 'The belief that lives need to be changed'
* the Bible, or the 'belief that all spiritual truth is to be found in its pages'
* Activism, or the dedication of all believers, including laypeople, to lives of service for God, especially as manifested in evangelism
* Crucicentrism, or the conviction that Christ's death was the crucial matter in providing atonement for sin.

Also, Noll on the Puritans and Evangelicalism

In England the Puritan movement featured many themes that eighteenth-century evangelicalism would later promote as well, especially intense preaching about the needs for a saving Christ and calculated opposition to the merely formal religion that the Puritans saw infecting the Church of England. In most general terms, the Puritan movement had represented a desire to finish the English Reformation, to completee the work of purifying church, society, and self... As the movement(Puritanism) gathered strength in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Puritans produced a spate of devotional writing that deal directly with the experiential work of God among the redeemed... in all of these expressions, Puritans anticipated the later preoccupations of many evangelicals

By the late 1730s, when modern evangelicalism emerged, the traditions of experiential Calvinism had weakened considerably throughout all parts of the British empire

It sounds like the day was ripe for an awakening, for a return to the Puritan emphasis on 'heart religion' over against 'head religion', something that Edwards saw to be at the heart of the debate between the New Lights and Old Light, prompting him to write Religious Affections. Did it do a blow to hierarchical institutionalized Christianity? Yes. And if we can look at the Christianity that was non-evangelical in Europe, we should want to distance ourselves as far as possible from that institutionalized, almost Romish Protestantism that killed Christianity in Europe.

I finally got my hands on the Marsden biography -- I'm in the midst of 500 pages of reading bliss!