The river whose streams make glad the city of God

Acknowledging that Isaac Watts is unpopular among some on this forum, I wish only to ask whether his interpretation of Psalm 46, as found in his paraphrase of the hymn, holds water.
The hymn states that the river whose streams make glad the city of God is God's word. I have not seen this interpretation anywhere else, and am wondering if it is unique and limited to this place, or a generally accepted notion.

There is a stream whose gentle flow
Supplies the city of our God;
Life, love and joy, still gliding through,
And wat'ring (Watt'ring? ) our divine abode.

That sacred stream, thy holy Word,
Our grief allays, our fear controls;
Sweet peace thy promises afford,
And give new strength to fainting souls.

It's found in the Trinity Hymnal, #292

I think if you list the benefits of Christ himself and his word, the list will be very similar. So in my opinion we can say that his word streams from him, yet he is the stream. He is the word incarnate.

Water in Scripture often represents the Spirit (e.g, John 7:37-39). Of course, Scripture is produced by the Spirit, but I tend to think that the prevailing symbolic current of Scripture would lead us to think of the Spirit himself first, and his gifts only in connection with himself. In other words, even John Newton zooms in too quickly.

See, the streams of living waters,
springing from eternal love,
well supply thy sons and daughters
and all fear of want remove.
Who can faint while such a river
ever flows their thirst to assuage?
Grace, which like the Lord, the giver,
never fails from age to age.

Why is Issac Watts unpopular here?

OPC'n said:

Why is Issac Watts unpopular here?

Click to expand...

Well, he was a Unitarian for one (or, if not actually one himself since that point has been debated, certainly kept close company with them and excused their heresy). Furthermore and probably more to the point here particularly, he thought the Psalms unfit for singing in the church and indeed saw most of the Old Testament as Jewish and inappropriate for Christians. Knowing the people's love for them, he intentionally deceived many Christians and tricked them into singing his own compositions by presenting them as faithful paraphrases of the Psalms because he couldn't get churches of the time to sing his works otherwise.

TheOldCourse said:

Well, he was a Unitarian for one (or, if not actually one himself since that point has been debated, certainly kept close company with them and excused their heresy). Furthermore and probably more to the point here particularly, he thought the Psalms unfit for singing in the church. Knowing the people's love for them, he intentionally deceived many Christians and tricked them into singing his own compositions by presenting them as faithful paraphrases of the Psalms because he couldn't get churches of the time to sing his works otherwise.

Click to expand...

Is there any evidence that he was a Unitarian? Any links that you know of to his writings which lead ppl to think he was a Unitarian? Seems super odd. I did a quick search on Ligonier and they call him "The Calvinist" and "The Poetic Wonder of Isaac Watts" etc.

OPC'n said:

I have some books by him one being "A Guide to Prayer". So far it seems very Biblical. I'm wondering if anyone here has read it and if they thought it was a good book.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it contains good material, but I wouldn't read anything by Watts. There are enough excellent books on prayer out there by orthodox men that we ought not have to resort to trying to glean what truth there is from one written by a heretic. It would be like reading Peter Enns because he wrote nice poetry, although even he hasn't publicly questioned the Trinity to my knowledge.

OPC'n said:

Is there any evidence that he was a Unitarian? Any links that you know of to his writings which lead ppl to think he was a Unitarian? Seems super odd. I did a quick search on Ligonier and they call him "The Calvinist" and "The Poetic Wonder of Isaac Watts" etc.

Click to expand...

Here's an old thread on the subject:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/issac-watts-possibly-unitarian.18804/

A quick google will turn up plenty of sources. He wrote an essay publicly defending the orthodoxy of those who we would regard as having heretical views on the Trinity, though in it he did not admit to holding the position himself.

py3ak said:

Water in Scripture often represents the Spirit (e.g, John 7:37-39). Of course, Scripture is produced by the Spirit, but I tend to think that the prevailing symbolic current of Scripture would lead us to think of the Spirit himself first, and his gifts only in connection with himself. In other words, even John Newton zooms in too quickly.

See, the streams of living waters,
springing from eternal love,
well supply thy sons and daughters
and all fear of want remove.
Who can faint while such a river
ever flows their thirst to assuage?
Grace, which like the Lord, the giver,
never fails from age to age.

Click to expand...

In light of the two replies, it seems it might be irresponsible to sing it--too bad; I really like that selection, but like to strive for accuracy in psalmnody.

TheOldCourse said:

Here's an old thread on the subject:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/issac-watts-possibly-unitarian.18804/

A quick google will turn up plenty of sources. He wrote an essay publicly defending the orthodoxy of those who we would regard as having heretical views on the Trinity, though in it he did not admit to holding the position himself.

Click to expand...

That thread didn't really prove anything to me. I would need a statement from Watts detailing how he doesn't believe in the Trinity. Anyone can misquote or misunderstand what other ppl are saying. People do it to Calvin all the time. I'm not trying to be contrary, I just don't like to take first glance as fact. I did that when I asked about the books I have of his (you were Johnny on the spot and quoted it lol), but then I was like, "Sarah, you don't normally jump at accusations so quickly find out more info.".

OPC'n said:

That thread didn't really prove anything to me. I would need a statement from Watts detailing how he doesn't believe in the Trinity. Anyone can misquote or misunderstand what other ppl are saying. People do it to Calvin all the time. I'm not trying to be contrary, I just don't like to take first glance as fact. I did that when I asked about the books I have of his (you were Johnny on the spot and quoted it lol), but then I was like, "Sarah, you don't normally jump at accusations so quickly find out more info.".

Click to expand...

Note Andrew's last post there. Watts never wrote of his own personal beliefs on the Trinity so you won't find such a statement either to deny or affirm Trinitarian orthodoxy personally. However, to quote Andrew in that thread:

"But it is undeniable (affirmed by the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and the Dictionary of National Biography to name a few sources) that Watts 1) denied that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential to salvation and 2) believed that Arians should be reckoned as good Christians. He also denied the doctrine of reprobation."

The following is from the Dictionary of National Biography (note that the word ‘pathetic’ in this context means ‘affecting’ or ‘heartfelt’):

“The Arian controversy of his time left its mark on Watts. His hymns contain an entire book of doxologies modelled on the Gloria Patri. But at the conference about the ministers at Exeter held at Salters’ Hall (1719) he voted with the minority, who refused to impose acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity on the independent ministers. He did not believe it necessary to salvation; the creed of Constantinople had become to him only a human explication of the mystery of the divine Godhead; and he had himself adopted another explication, which he hoped might heal the breach between Arianism and the faith of the church. He broached this theory in ‘The Christian Doctrine of the Trinity’ (1722), and supported it in ‘Dissertations relating to the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity’ (1724-5). He returned to the subject in ‘The Glory of Christ as God-Man Unveiled’ (1746), and ‘Useful and Important Questions concerning Jesus, the Son of God’ (1746). His theory, held also by Henry More, Robert Fleming, and Burnet (DORNER, The Person of Christ, div. ii. ii. 329, transl. Clark), was that the human soul of Christ had been created anterior to the creation of the world, and united to the divine principle in the Godhead known as the Sophia or Logos (only a short step from Arianism, and with some affinity to Sabellianism); and that the personality of the Holy Ghost was figurative rather than proper or literal. None of the extant writings of Watts advances further than this; but a very pathetic piece, entitled ‘A Solemn Address to the Great and Ever Blessed God’ (published in a pamphlet called ‘A Faithful Inquiry after the Ancient and Original Doctrine of the Trinity’ in 1745, but suppressed by Watts at that time, and published in 1802), shows how deeply his mind was perplexed and troubled. He lays out all the perplexity before God, stating his belief in too very words of Scripture generally, with the plea ‘Forbid it, oh! My God, that I should ever be so unhappy as to unglorify my Father, my Saviour, or my Sanctifier. . . . Help me . . . for I am quite tired and weary of these human explainings, so various and uncertain.’ Lardner affirmed that in his last years (not more than two years at most, in failing health) Watts passed to the unitarian position, and wrote in defence of it; the papers were, as Lardner owned, unfit for publication, and as such were destroyed by Doddridge and Jennings, the literary trustees.”

Here is a site which cites a prayer written by Watts describing his own doubts with regard to the Trinity: http://lhim.org/blog/2007/06/26/a-solemn-address-to-the-deity-by-isaac-watts/

As above, it is noted that many copies of it were destroyed for fear that it would damage Watts' reputation.

I believe that the site itself defends Unitarianism and is quoting Watts approvingly on this matter, so reader beware.

Regardless of his own views, his tolerance for heresy on the Trinity, denial of reprobation, and attitute towards the Old Testament make it rather clear that he is anything but a "good Calvinist." I, along with many others I know, was extremely disappointed when Ligonier published their book on him in their long line of Godly men series.

Glory to God the Trinity,
Whose name has mysteries unknown;
In essence One, in persons Three,
A social nature, yet alone.

When all our noblest powers are joined
The honors of thy name to raise,
Thy glories overmatch our mind,
And angels faint beneath the praise. Isaac Watts

Sounds like he believes in the Trinity in this song.

To Him that chose us first,
Before the world began;
To Him that bore the curse
To save rebellious man;
To Him that form’d our hearts anew,
Is endless praise and glory due.



The Father’s love shall run
Through our immortal songs;
We bring to God the Son
Hosannas on our tongues;
Our lips address the Spirit’s name
With equal praise, and zeal the same.

Let every saint above,
and angel around the throne,
Forever bless and love
The sacred Three in One:
Thus heaven shall raise His honours high,
When earth and time grow old and die.

– Issac Watts, 1709.

OPC'n said:

Glory to God the Trinity,
Whose name has mysteries unknown;
In essence One, in persons Three,
A social nature, yet alone.

When all our noblest powers are joined
The honors of thy name to raise,
Thy glories overmatch our mind,
And angels faint beneath the praise. Isaac Watts

Sounds like he believes in the Trinity in this song.

Click to expand...

Hence one of the problems with man-made hymns. It's written for the audience. He couldn't be more clear in his prose that at the least he's extremely wary of the very formula he uses there.

TheOldCourse said:

Hence one of the problems with man-made hymns. It's written for the audience. He couldn't be more clear in his prose that at the least he's extremely wary of the very formula he uses there.

Click to expand...

I do not know what you mean, but i think I've led this post off course. I need to start my own about Isaac Watts.

OPC'n said:

I do not know what you mean, but i think I've led this post off course. I need to start my own about Isaac Watts.

Click to expand...

Sister, don't sweat it...my own question was answered, so this can continue here if you wish. I'm in your camp, thinking that several hundred year's distance makes it impossible to know for sure exactly what a man believed, blurs nuance, and can overlay tradition about a person over what the person actually said and thought. I'd rather rejoice and be blessed by the good that Mr Watts did, and delight in his poetry, than throw out all the good because of time-blurred allegations. Not a few of the fathers and reformers have perceived skeletons in their closets, some of which are unfairly exploited by their enemies ("but Calvin burned Servetus! how can you read anything by a murderer?" just for one example).