# Thoughts on "Thoughts on Religious Experience"?



## arapahoepark (Dec 27, 2020)

Having been thinking about "religious experience" and the Great Awakenings, I am curious as to your thoughts on Archibald Alexander's Thoughts on Religious Experience. I tended to notice among Edwards and his followers, like Piper, they tend to place a high view on the emotions and experience that at times it (if not always) becomes the defining mark of true conversion and piety. I am suspicious of such views and think, more often than not, that its pervasive influence on evangelicalism is destructive, especially among the charismatics. What are Dr. Alexander's views? Is he more restrained?


----------



## Taylor (Dec 27, 2020)

I have not read it, but my pastor told me recently that it’s one of the greatest books he’s ever read. I know that’s not helpful to you in terms of content, but my pastor’s recommendation means something, in my opinion.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 27, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> Having been thinking about "religious experience" and the Great Awakenings, I am curious as to your thoughts on Archibald Alexander's Thoughts on Religious Experience. I tended to notice among Edwards and his followers, like Piper, they tend to place a high view on the emotions and experience that at times it (if not always) becomes the defining mark of true conversion and piety. I am suspicious of such views and think, more often than not, that its pervasive influence on evangelicalism is destructive, especially among the charismatics. What are Dr. Alexander's views? Is he more restrained?


Low cost way to find out: https://www.monergism.com/thethresh...on_Religious_Experienc_-_Archibald_Alexan.pdf

I just saved it for my reading list.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 27, 2020)

Funny, I've been in discussions here locally on the topic. Dr. Alexander's work might be valuable reading. 

Am I correct in assuming you've read Jonathan Edward's work on religious affections? Also, George Marsden does a good job at considering the awakenings in their historical context.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Brett (Dec 28, 2020)

A friend gifted this book to me recently. I've only read the first six chapters so far. However, I already feel like I need to reread what I've read so far to better understand it. As much as experiences like repentance, hope in Christ, joy in worship, etc. are foundational to the Christian faith, I think it's hard to understand or explain what exactly is the new heart the Holy Spirit gives us.
Each chapter of the book is organized by topic like spiritual effects in children, spiritual experiences of the depressed, how does witnessing others worship effect emotions, etc. Basically, Alexander usually explains some foundational principles, tells a story or a few, and then spends time psycho-analyzing the people of the story.
So far at least, Alexander hasn't gone into a dogmatic, systematic theological argument on how exactly emotions play into conversion or how his beliefs differ from Edwards. Alexander seems sympathetic to revivals as far as I have read so far. I would say he is restrained though, arguing that a lot of experiences people think to be holy are instead just inventions of the mind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 28, 2020)

It's an excellent book. Read and digest it.

Truth and emotions are to be close friends. In the Christian life, there should not be one without the other, as truth is meant to teach our emotions as well. It is right that we feel certain ways about certain things, and respond emotionally a certain way to certain things.

The chapter on depression was a great help to me years ago.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## CathH (Jan 5, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> Having been thinking about "religious experience" and the Great Awakenings, I am curious as to your thoughts on Archibald Alexander's Thoughts on Religious Experience. I tended to notice among Edwards and his followers, like Piper, they tend to place a high view on the emotions and experience that at times it (if not always) becomes the defining mark of true conversion and piety. I am suspicious of such views and think, more often than not, that its pervasive influence on evangelicalism is destructive, especially among the charismatics. What are Dr. Alexander's views? Is he more restrained?


In _Recovering Mother Kirk_, DG Hart presents Archibald Alexander as someone whose 'roots were in the revivals of eighteenth-century Virginia' (p192) and who himself 'led' a revival in winter 1814-15 (p191). (I knew I'd re-read this recently when I was looking in this book for something different, it's only taken me this long to hunt it down again to reply to this thread!)

This makes Alexander suspect in Hart's presentation because (as far as I understand Hart's position) he refuses to recognise a distinction between 'good revivals' and 'bad revivals' because for him 'revival' per se prioritises the unusual and dramatic over the ordinary, and puts emotions and experience in the driving seat. Hart pitches 'conversion' against 'catechism' and presents it as misguided to demand that before children who have been baptised and catechised can make a credible profession of faith, they must demonstrate that they have been through 'the crisis of conversion.' (p192)

However, in _Thoughts on Religious Experience_, Alexander comes across as balanced and thoughtful, and he speaks to many of the things that Hart is so concerned about. 
* He warns that experience often degenerates into enthusiasm, and that the ardour/intensity of feelings is immaterial (pxviii, BOT 1967)
* He says it does not matter whether someone is brought into a state of grace gradually or suddenly (p15)
* He spends several paragraphs on the pitfalls of 'giving a testimony' (everyone within a denomination gives strikingly similar testimonies, people generally don't have either the discretion or the humility to give an accurate account of how God has worked in their souls, it remains impossible for anyone to judge on the basis of a testimony whether someone is genuinely converted, it tends to foster spiritual pride...) (p29-30)
* He has a chapter on 'sympathy,' or what we might call 'social contagion' - extravagant ecstatic or hysterical responses affecting whole congregations under emotional preaching - which he deplores (Chapter 5)
* He demonstrates that it is not necessary to go through a crisis conversion (p99) and instead places more value on things like resting on God's way of salvation by Jesus Christ and being attracted to God's ordinances (p102-105)

I have found a lot of value in DG Hart's critique of revivalism and the excessive emphasis on emotions and experience in Edwards and his putative followers like Piper. On the other hand, I have sometimes thought that Hart's polemics work best as a corrective, rather than something programmatic that you could implement to live by. 

So If we do like Alexander, and anchor the treatment of experience to truth, this is a big safeguard against giving emotions/experience too high a prominence. We are in fact emotional creatures, we do have psychological experiences, and it would be unrealistic and irresponsible to airbrush this out of religion altogether. But it's the _truth _that matters, and the impact of the truth on our whole persons (including but not restricted to our emotions).

Alexander, pxviii: "... genuine religious experience is nothing but the impression of divine truth on the mind, by the energy of the Holy Spirit ..."
p105: "... holy affections thus produced by the contemplation of truth are the very opposite of enthusiasm, which always substitutes human fancies or impulses for the truths of God, which it uniformly undervalues."

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 3


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 5, 2021)

CathH said:


> I have found a lot of value in DG Hart's critique of revivalism and the excessive emphasis on emotions and experience in Edwards and his putative followers like Piper. On the other hand, I have sometimes thought that Hart's polemics work best as a corrective, rather than something programmatic that you could implement to live by.


I really appreciate your analysis! It sounds very balanced.

I also like Hart et al as a corrective at times but, I also wonder if he might steer and veer the other way with 'pietism' as a frequent pejorative. Though, I am beginning to understand how culturally we, the church at large, are infected with revivalist tendancies.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 5, 2021)

jwithnell said:


> Funny, I've been in discussions here locally on the topic. Dr. Alexander's work might be valuable reading.
> 
> Am I correct in assuming you've read Jonathan Edward's work on religious affections? Also, George Marsden does a good job at considering the awakenings in their historical context.


I had forgotten to reply to you. I have been perusing through it, yes. Now, I know Mardsens work on the liberal fundamentalist controversy and his bio on Edwards, that I have not yet gone through, but is his work on the Awakening in the latter?


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 5, 2021)

I most re


arapahoepark said:


> I had forgotten to reply to you. I have been perusing through it, yes. Now, I know Mardsens work on the liberal fundamentalist controversy and his bio on Edwards, that I have not yet gone through, but is his work on the Awakening in the latter?


I most recently went through "A Short Life" again and he gives insight into the awakening. A good deal of thought is given to the influences of the enlightenment on Jonathan Edwards and Benjamin Franklin which I found somewhat contrived because the men never met. For a quick read or a younger audience this small book works. I'd have to look again at the large volume (it's been a few years) but I can't imagine Prof. Marsden skipping over the topic.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 5, 2021)

I agree with Jonathan Edwards: there is a difference in understanding that honey is sweet and actually tasting it. Taste and see that the Lord is good. Our religion must be experiential.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 5


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 5, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Our religion must be experiential.


And the question that I have been basically asking is how much of it is emotional? Is lack of emotion a hallmark of 'dead orthodoxy.?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 5, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> And the question that I have been basically asking is how much of it is emotional.


A great deal. Not only the mind but the heart must be moved.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 5, 2021)

1 Peter 1:8 - Whom having not seen, ye *love*; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye *rejoice* with *joy* *unspeakable* and *full* of glory: 

If anything, we often feel far too little.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 5, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> And the question that I have been basically asking is how much of it is emotional? Is lack of emotion a hallmark of 'dead orthodoxy.?


It is hard to judge the amount of emotion in another person. Or to even quantify it at all. I might be quiet, but I am clapping on the inside. But we know that believers delight and rejoice in the Lord, however that looks for them.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 5, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> I agree with Jonathan Edwards: there is a difference in understanding that honey is sweet and actually tasting it. Taste and see that the Lord is good. Our religion must be experiential.



For those who might not accept this because it comes from Edwards, it bears pointing out that Hugh Binning used the same illustration and made the same point before Edwards did.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 5, 2021)

I always have a laugh to myself when I read people complaining about experimentalism. Reading or listening to their comments is itself an experience, albeit not always a good one. Granted, the emphasis on experience may be taken too far but you cannot read the Bible - and especially the book of Psalms - and seriously believe that it does not advocate religious experience.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## kodos (Jan 6, 2021)

Have more heart and read less Hart. The psalms have already been mentioned, but the love of the disciples for Christ is palpable when you read the Word.

I hope every Child of God feels the following:

Song of Solomon 5:16: His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely.
This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 6, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> Having been thinking about "religious experience" and the Great Awakenings, I am curious as to your thoughts on Archibald Alexander's Thoughts on Religious Experience. I tended to notice among Edwards and his followers, like Piper, they tend to place a high view on the emotions and experience that at times it (if not always) becomes the defining mark of true conversion and piety. I am suspicious of such views and think, more often than not, that its pervasive influence on evangelicalism is destructive, especially among the charismatics. What are Dr. Alexander's views? Is he more restrained?


Obviously affections are involved. But religious experience must be measured against scripture. As long as the portions and applications are direct or at least common to holy writ and not some type of psychoanalytical stretch of the imagination or formulaic prototype of what it periodically or extensively ’feels’ to be Christian. I think we need to be careful not to incorporate and thusly manufacture subjective experience. These types of things can start with us and end with us. I think our obedience is passive as much as it is active. It’s often the active part where we are easily tripped up. Good men should speak on these things as long as they don’t universalize it. Expounding is good when scripture speaks to it. But our sin backgrounds and experiences are so varied that our faith lives can vary and fluctuate to some extent on account of our cultural realities, personal histories and the shape of our dispositions. When this plays a role we must be careful not to place a universal stamp on it.


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 6, 2021)

_“Hart pitches 'conversion' against 'catechism' and presents it as misguided to demand that before children who have been baptised and catechised can make a credible profession of faith, they must demonstrate that they have been through 'the crisis of conversion.'” (p192)_

Im torn, yet very sympathetic to Hart on this point. Our youth are too often poorly served in these areas. From pressure to covert to pressure to legitimize conversion readiness - our kids are under a great deal of..... pressure.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 6, 2021)

While we shouldn't pit a catechetical piety vs. so-called "heart religion," catechetical piety will do far more for the training of youth than getting them to focus on a good experience. Of course, no one should reduce heart religion to a good experience, but that's often where it goes. Then a youth realizes that they aren't "feeling" hard enough, or their experience doesn't line up to the bar of evidence. This is similar to what gutted New England Puritanism.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 6, 2021)

I'm not against good feeling. I've even prayed some of Augustine's confessions (a few lines in Latin, even). But it is spiritual death to take whatever you "feel" as a result and read a theology into it. I'm not saying Hodge did that. But I know many YRR types who do.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 6, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm not saying Hodge did that.


Confusing AA Hodge with AA?


BayouHuguenot said:


> This is similar to what gutted New England Puritanism.


Basically what I am wondering. Resources on it, other than Mardsen?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 6, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> Basically what I am wondering. Resources on it, other than Mardsen?



Just read up on the halfway covenant. It killed New England religion.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## CathH (Jan 6, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> I also like Hart et al as a corrective at times but, I also wonder if he might steer and veer the other way with 'pietism' as a frequent pejorative. Though, I am beginning to understand how culturally we, the church at large, are infected with revivalist tendancies.



Well, pietism is a real danger, but Hart does distinguish between pietism and piety, and this is very valuable. Reformed piety is (i) a whole-souled response to the truth, not a merely emotional response to either self-generated 'fancies and impulses' or emotive manipulation, and (ii) expressed in and shaped by the corporate means of grace primarily, and only secondarily in private, personal devotions. I would agree with your assessment about church culture - both these facets of piety tend to be thoroughly unfamiliar in the church at large. Even people who place a high premium on correct doctrine tend in practice to undervalue the public means of grace and have higher expectations of their quiet times than of, say, the sacraments. Still, as Alexander says, genuine experience is the impression of divine _truth _- our emotions must be produced by contemplation of _truth_. Once you have doctrine and liturgy securely in place, I can't help thinking it must be ok to go and emote boldly. 

Revivalism... I haven't quite followed why in Hart's thinking a parallel distinction (to pietism (bad) and piety (good)) is unacceptable between revivalism (bad) and revival-full-stop (good, no?). I'll happily blame revivalism for undermining our confidence in the week-in-week-out steady recurrence of Lord's day worship and making us fear there's something wrong if we're not constantly getting a new and bigger buzz. It lifts a huge legalistic burden to realise that you don't always have to be _feeling_. But just as we credit the Spirit for the miracles of regeneration in the individual and sanctification through the due use of the ordinary means, while attributing to something else the tragedies of impenitence and apostasy, surely it must be at least theoretically possible to distinguish between revival-per-se and revivalism. Where there comes to be unusual levels of devotedness to the Lord in a wider than usual circle of people in the context of Scriptural doctrine, the most convenient term for this would seem to be _revival_, even while we repudiate the manipulative techniques and mass hysteria characteristic of revival_ism_.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jan 6, 2021)

I recently read this article on the subject. I agree with Clark on this one.









Criticizing Edwards On Religious Affections Does Not Lead To Dead Orthodoxy: There Is Another Way


In the wake of my latest essay, which cautions readers regarding Jonathan Edwards, has come questions about the role of affections and emotion in the Christian life. These questions signal how deep…




heidelblog.net


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 6, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I recently read this article on the subject. I agree with Clark on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right. And for what it's worth, I get a bigger spiritual buzz reading the Heidelberg and Book of Common Prayer than I do trying to muscle up a good religious experience.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 12, 2021)

I am bringing this up again because it has been on my mind lately.
I have yet to dive into Alexander's work. Not being a really emotional person, though I'd like to think I am rather empathetic, I am wondering how should emotions, or lack thereof, be balanced.
For instance, many times I wonder, if I am a new creation, where's the new; the new affections, the new hatred of sin, the zeal to do anything and everything for church, progress against besetting sins? Where are the pure motives for repentance or good works in my heart? It's but a small and dismal spark among my more cerebral interests in theology or other areas.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 12, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> I am bringing this up again because it has been on my mind lately.
> I have yet to dive into Alexander's work. Not being a really emotional person, though I'd like to think I am rather empathetic, I am wondering how
> For instance, many times I wonder, if I am a new creation, where's the new; the new affections, the new hatred of sin, the zeal to do anything and everything for church, progress against besetting sins? Where are the pure motives for repentance or good works in my heart? It's but a small and dismal spark among my more cerebral interests in theology or other areas.



I think the danger is to try to define these terms by "depth of intensity." In that case, I focus more on my depth of intensity than on what Jesus did for me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## FivePointSpurgeonist (Jan 12, 2021)

I find it interesting to read the experiences of some of the Puritans, for example...


There are times when I almost fear to speak of these things, but there are some here, surely, who will comprehend me, some here who have passed through the same state and will not think that I am dreaming. There are times when the soul has long contemplated Christ, and there are some who know not only to contemplate, but to enjoy. Even on earth faith sometimes gives place to a present and conscious enjoyment. There are times with the believer when whether he is in the body or out of the body he can scarce tell; God knoweth; and though not caught up to the third heaven he is brought to the very gates, and if not permitted to see Christ on his throne, he does so see him on his cross, that if an infidel should say to him, “There is no Christ,” he could say, “I have seen him; my eyes have looked upon him, and my hands have touched him after a spiritual sort.” There are many such rapturous seasons as this on record in the biographies of good men. I shall quote but one or two, and I hope there are some here who have known them in their own experience. In the life of Mr. Flavel, who was one of the most temperate of the Puritans, and one not at all given to anything like fanaticism, there is an event mentioned which once occurred to him. He said that being once on a journey alone on horseback, the thought of the love of Christ came upon him with great power, and as he rode gently along the road, the thought seemed to increase in force and strength, till at last he forgot all about earth and even where he was. Somehow or other his horse stood still, but he did not notice it; and when he came to himself, through some passer-by observing him, he found that he had bled very copiously during the time, and getting off his horse he washed his face at the brook, and he said, “I did verily think as I stood there, that if I was not in heaven I could hardly hope to be more blessed in heaven than I was then.” He mounted his horse and rode on to a place of entertainment where he was to pass the night. Supper was brought in, but left untasted on the table. He sat all night long without sleep, enjoying the presence of Christ, and he says, “I was more rested that night than with any sleep I ever had, and I heard and saw in my soul, by faith, such things as I had never known before.”

Spurgeon, C. H. (1862). “The Love of Jesus, What It Is—None but His Loved Ones Know.” In The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons (Vol. 8, p. 346). London: Passmore & Alabaster.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 13, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> I am bringing this up again because it has been on my mind lately.
> I have yet to dive into Alexander's work. Not being a really emotional person, though I'd like to think I am rather empathetic, I am wondering how should emotions, or lack thereof, be balanced.
> For instance, many times I wonder, if I am a new creation, where's the new; the new affections, the new hatred of sin, the zeal to do anything and everything for church, progress against besetting sins? Where are the pure motives for repentance or good works in my heart? It's but a small and dismal spark among my more cerebral interests in theology or other areas.



I wish one could give a bright-line test for balance. No such thing. But, a few thoughts to validate that it is good and right to want to feel more, provided done rightly. I feel my thoughts may be incomplete, but maybe this'll help.

Follow the narrative of men of the Bible, and you will see how they felt about things emotionally was no small part of their effectiveness. Didn't the fury of Moses cause the people to take seriously their idolatry in making the calf? Would Moses have been so prompted to go if the Lord's anger wasn't visibly kindled (Exod 3 or 4)? It was from bowels of compassion that Christ fed the 5000, from heart agony that He cried, "O Jerusalem! Jerusalem!". He looked perhaps like a madman in His fury in cleansing out the temple. Paul was effective in His ministry because of his own heart's disposition as well. Galatians 4, he _travails_ like a woman delivering a child for Christ to be formed in the people. He has unceasing anguish in his heart and would nearly rather be damned than have his brothers and sisters in the flesh damned. He is stirred to anger at the idolatry of Ephesus(?), tears his clothes when they want to sacrifice to him. He sheds tears that some are enemies of the cross. Would a man with any less feeling been so effective a minister?

And where to begin with the Psalms? "My eyes shed streams of tears because my enemies do not keep your law." Who ever attains that? Everywhere you go is a line of emotion that shames us with its depth.

And what is this ambition of Peter that we would know "joy unspeakable and full of glory?" Or Paul, that we are to know the love of Christ which surpasses height, depth, width, breadth? Or to rejoice in the Lord always? Wasn't it vengeance and irreconcilableness that made Corinth effective against their sins (2 Cor 7)?

And what about Song of Solomon? There is a book which it is only good and right that you respond with feeling! No small part is how much feeling there is in communion with Christ. What else would be expected in a marriage relationship?

Training your emotions is indeed part of your sanctification. To borrow light from Aristotle (not exact quote), part of education is training the heart to feel the right way about things--to delight in the delightful, to grieve about the grievous, to detest the detestable.

Get deep into the cross. Study God, study sin, study the atonement, the Gospel. Simple faith is enough to save a man apart from the works of the law. "The just shall live by faith". Which means not only initial justification, but all sanctified course of life inward or outward will be attained the same way- faith. 1 Cor 1:30, Christ is our "righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, redemption." Believe on Him that He will guide your affections rightly, and study the Word to better understand what and how you ought (or ought not) to feel. Ask for the Spirit to open it to you.

Is there room to make mistakes? Plenty. But the Word by the Spirit will open the middle path where doctrine births proper practice in heart and action, to keep you from Spockism on one ditch and fanaticism on the other,

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2021)

Emotions are good but don't make them the litmus test of your spirituality.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 13, 2021)

@arapahoepark 

Speaking of Song of Solomon, something to warm your heart:

My Beloved King - Craig Scott

Song of Solomon 1:12–14
While the king sitteth at his table,
My spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.
13 A bundle of myrrh is my wellbeloved unto me;
He shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.
14 My beloved is unto me as a cluster of camphire
In the vineyards of En-gedi.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 15, 2021)

This is a topic that has been much on my heart for decades. Here's an excerpt from a brief paper I wrote for my church, "God's Presence Our Portion" :

I suppose a lot depends on how one understands the term “experiential” with regard to the Christian’s life with God. Of course we will not have a “flat” affect – that is, no inward experience in and of it – and then again we will not be guided by sensations as a marker of the Christian life. Yet one may say, “A _sense_ of God’s presence on the heart” – for the heart may sense apart from the physical or emotional senses. I hope this will be made clear as we continue.​​I am fond of saying that – with regard to our faith – we have a profound assurance in the depths of our being that God’s words are the reality of our lives. Whatever we may feel, His words are true, and _they_ are what is real. So when the Scripture quotes the Lord as saying, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” and “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Matthew 28:20; Hebrews 13:5), does this necessarily mean we have a “felt presence” of the Lord? No, although _upon occasion_ we _may_ be very aware of the glory of His Person, as He draws near to us. I remember R.C. Sproul, in one of his video series, talking about this unusual manifestation of the Lord’s presence, and that it does not happen often, rather, quite rarely, in his case.​​But I am _not_ talking of this sort of “visitation” Sproul speaks of when I say “a profound assurance in the depths of our being”. There are feelings in the heart – whether you call it one’s spirit, or one’s depths – that are not of the emotions. Perhaps one could call it an essential *knowing*. From His word, I *know *that the Lord is with me (Matt 28:20; Ps 23:4; Heb 13:5; Deut 31:8) and is kindly disposed toward me (Rom 8:35-39; Jer 31:3; Prov 15:8). Now this *knowing* is not a mere cerebral assent or activity, but a dynamic force in my heart, such that it causes me to rejoice and sing, or to venture into danger with calm courage; this *knowing* (perhaps you can come up with another word) is the apprehending of God’s reality (via His word) by and in my heart, and His word is full of power and glory – and many promises – and His word moves my heart, deeper than emotions, although it may give rise to emotions.​​So when I talk of “profound assurance in the depths” it is of such I am referring to. This, to me, is an experiential walk with God. I am experiencing His presence, not sensations of it, but a profound knowing of it, such that by it I could face death, fear having been overcome by His presence – His presence *known* but not necessarily “felt” as in sensations. It is important we become familiar with this idea of inner awareness that is deeper than emotional feelings. As I mentioned above, this awareness may well give rise to emotions, but it is not the emotions. One’s emotions may feel fear (from some threat), yet one’s awareness – one’s deep inner knowing – that God is with one _right now_, replaces the fear with confidence, trust, and joy. Such as David felt when he said, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me” (Psalm 23:4).​
Here's the full paper (4 pages) :

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 16, 2021)



Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 17, 2021)

I’m not familiar with this author but some strong sentiments nonetheless...

_Sola Scriptura for Charismatics_​
_“The presence and ministry of the Holy Spirit is central to living Christianity. Charismatics have emphasized the working of the Holy Spirit in their lives and see His power as what separates them from "dead religion." It is true that he Holy Spirit must be present and active in the life of a believer, this is the very claim that the Reformers made, especially Luther. The reformers and Charismatics agree on this. However, they disagree on something just as crucial their understanding of how the Holy Spirit comes and how He is active in the lives of believers. Luther believed the Holy Spirit only comes through the external Word, written and preached. This understanding of how the Holy Spirit exercises His authority in both individuals and the church is where Charismatics have wandered from the foundations of the Reformation. The Reformation was built upon sola scriptura which means "the authority of scripture alone." More completely, this is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is:
· self-authenticating,
· clear to the rational reader,
· its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"),
· sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine, teaching and guidance.
This concept was the bedrock of the Reformation and the source of the other four solas; sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone). While most Charismatics consider they believe in sola scriptura and have words to that effect in their church statement of faith, in practice they deny it. How? Precisely because of their beliefs describing how the Holy Spirit interacts with their lives and churches. Let us be clear, both the reformers and Charismatics agree that an intellectual understanding of the gospel and simply agreeing that it is true does not make saving faith. In other words, people merely acknowledging the authority of scriptures and the truth of gospel are not necessarily born again nor do they necessarily have the Holy Spirit. Both Luther and Charismatics complain of "dead churches" that are devoid of the Holy Spirit and "anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him" (Rom. 8:9). But how does what is dead become alive and active in the Holy Spirit? What are the means of the Holy Spirit's activity and power? Sola scriptura claims that the means is the scripture, the external Word written and preached. In contrast, Charismatics believe that the means include internal feelings, impressions, and subjective experiences. The pursuit of the Holy Spirit through these Charismatic means is a rejection of sola sciptura and a return to the Catholic paradigm that new internal revelations of men are from the Holy Spirit and have authority. The goal of this article is to show that this conflict is not "new" nor is the Charismatic paradigm the result of some new "outpouring" of the Holy Spirit unique in our time this error was not even "new" in Luther's time five hundred years ago. This error was destructive then and the repeat edition continues to harm people today and the remedy is still the same, sola sciptura.

The Means
The way or mechanism through which we interact with the Holy Spirit is crucial, a key element in understanding sola scriptura. According to John 16:13 when the Holy Spirit comes, "He will guide you into all the truth." John 14:26 tells us the Holy Spirit will teach us all things. Galatians 5:18, 25 addresses this same concept," if you are led by the SpiritIf we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit." This mechanism of "being guided by," "being taught by," being led by," living by," and "walking by" the Holy Spirit is the means or way the Holy Spirit carries Christians and rules in their lives it is how He exerts his authority. Christians who submit to His means exhibit the fruit of His rule in their lives. For Charismatics, the means the Holy Spirit operates in their lives is through internal impressions, feelings, thoughts and "anointings." The presence of the Holy Spirit is "felt" or perceived internally and His leading sensed subjectively by those seeking to be led by Him. This is seen in a worship service whose goal is to "feel the presence of God" God being the Holy Spirit (as Jesus is bodily in Heaven with his Father). The Charismatic means are seen in the pursuit of internal "words" or revelations people feel are from the Holy Spirit. It is seen in where someone gives a "personal meaning" to scripture that is pulled from context and the meaning of the original author. It is also seen in prayers inviting the Holy Spirit to come and manifest his presence as an internal feeling or sensation. I am not implying that the goal of this pursuit of the Holy Spirit is bad. In fact, the goal of the Charismatics' pursuit of the Holy Spirit is a clearer understanding of God's guidance, will and direction for individuals and the congregation people seeking God's answers to their questions and afflictions. They want to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit in their lives and act as the Holy Spirit leads them to accomplish God's will in their lives and on this earth. But their means are flawed; this pursuit of the Holy Spirit leads to error instead of their goal and delusion instead of truth.

Catholic Mysticism and Charismatic Means
The battle Luther fought was not against a "dead church" with no manifestations of the spiritual some dry hierarchy of church government denying the supernatural. Luther's battle was about spiritual revelations and the means the Holy Spirit ruled His church. It obviously had much to do with the papacy, as seen below. The reason the reformers fought the papacy was that this system looked to their own revelations as having authority along with scriptures. They claimed the Holy Spirit directly inspired their leader and his claims. Luther states:
The papacy, too, is nothing but enthusiasm, for the pope boasts that "all laws are in the shrine of his heart,"8 and he claims that whatever he decides and commands in his churches is spirit and law, even when it is above and contrary to the Scriptures or spoken Word.[1]
Beyond the pope himself, the Catholics also taught that special or elite Christians could also interact with the Holy Spirit directly through various practices called spiritual disciplines. Luther strongly opposed Catholic mysticism that taught people to seek God's presence inside themselves. Sola scriptura invalidated the Catholic traditions of mysticism that had been embraced by the church for hundreds of years including:
· Direct revelations to popes and other "holy people."
· "Contemplative prayer" which used eastern style meditation to empty the mind.
· "Lectio divina" which used repetitive reading of the words of scriptures to empty one's mind.
However, this battle went much further than just revelations within the papacy. In fact, some of Luther's main battles for sola scriptura were against freestyle spirituality and revelations claimed by the new "Charismatics" emerging within the Protestants that embraced these mystical traditions. The Charismatics Luther battled were broadly called "enthusiasts" because of their excessive emotional zeal and "subjective" means to approach the Holy Spirit. These enthusiasts included Anabaptists and the followers of various leaders people perceived as having some special "anointing." Luther opposed both Catholic mysticism and protestant enthusiasts because they both rebelled against the authority of scripture. For Luther and the reformers, the Holy Spirit came to them and interacted with them through the scriptures alone not through internal feelings. Here is what Luther says concerning their freestyle spirituality.
It is good to extol the ministry of the Word with every possible kind of praise in opposition to the fanatics who dream that the Holy Spirit does not come through the Word but because of their own preparations. They sit in a dark corner doing and saying nothing, but only waiting for illumination, as the enthusiasts taught formerly and the Anabaptists teach now.[2]
Luther was not necessarily claiming that these people openly rejected or denied the scripture, but that they rebelled against its authority by rejecting the meaning originally intended by the author. The enthusiasts made scriptures say what they felt or wanted them to say through personal interpretations and allegory they claimed were revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. Luther observes:
In these matters, which concern the external, spoken Word, we must hold firmly to the conviction that God gives no one his Spirit or grace except through or with the external Word which comes before. Thus we shall be protected from the enthusiasts - that is, from the spiritualists who boast that they possess the Spirit without and before the Word and who therefore judge, interpret, and twist the Scriptures or spoken Word according to their pleasure. 1[3]
Once freed from the tyranny of the Catholic Church, these enthusiasts continued the Catholic paradigm and rejected the legitimate authority of the Holy Spirit speaking through the scripture. They practiced freestyle Christianity interacting with the Holy Spirit through whatever means they felt inspired. These enthusiasts demanded interactions with the Holy Spirit outside of scriptures - revelations felt and perceived internally by individuals as the "voice of the Holy Spirit." Luther attacked these "revelations" because they had no authority and resulted in people following their own imaginations.
For the Holy Spirit does not-as the enthusiasts and the Anabaptists, truly fanatical teachers, dream-give His instruction through new revelations outside the ministry of the Word.[4]

Error Costs
Luther saw this appetite for new revelations as both dangerous and damaging. He physically witnessed these "revelations" cause the deaths of thousands and misery to tens of thousands who were deluded by their own internal feelings and those of their "spiritual leaders" like Thomas Munzer. Münzer, beheaded in 1525 after the Peasants' War, was one of the leaders of the radicals claiming spiritual revelations as the basis for his rebellion. Luther was opposed to mysticism because it was as damaging among the Protestants as it was within the Catholic Church. Luther fought this Charismatic paradigm with as much vigor as He did the abusive Catholic Church the mystical root was the same. Sola scriptura was the foundation that mysticism sought to undermine with internal revelations. Luther says:
Away with our schismatics, who spurn the Word while they sit in corners waiting for the Spirit's revelation, but apart from the voice of the Word! They say one must sit still in a corner and empty the mind of all speculations, and then the Holy Spirit will fill it. [5]

The modern Charismatic "paradigm" and their concept of the means to interact with the Holy Spirit is not new. The concepts Luther wrote against in the 1500s are the same issues Charismatics struggle with today when they dilute the authority of scriptures with mysticism, internal feelings, or allegorical and personal interpretations of the scripture as how the Spirit communicates. Again, the Reformation considered the work and power of the Holy Spirit essential and crucial in the life of the individual and the church. However, the means through which the Holy Spirit came to the church and exerted His rule how the Holy Spirit interacted with Christians this was Luther's battle.

Sola Scriptura or Popes (one, many or me)
If we reject Luther's concept of sola scriptura we reject the Reformation regardless of what is in a statement of faith. Rejecting sola sciptura is to return to serving popes and the foundations of Catholicism, namely God's will is still revealed to men by the Holy Spirit through freestyle internal revelation. The only question left to answer is which pope to serve; the Catholic one, a new "anointed" leader, or perhaps setting oneself up as a "personal pope" receiving revelations for oneself. Dr. Karlstadt was once such leader in Luther's day teaching people to be quiet and listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking inside them through "self abstraction." The means he emphasized was an "inner word" that was "felt" in contrast to an external word that was spoken or read. Karlstadt's means are the same ones embraced by Charismatics today. This is what Luther says:
But should you ask how one gains access to this same lofty spirit they do not refer you to the outward gospel but to some imaginary realm, saying: Remain in "self abstraction"101 where I now am and you will have the same experience. A heavenly voice will come, and God himself will speak to you. If you inquire further as to the nature of this "self abstraction," you will find that they know as much about it as Dr. Karlstadt knows of Greek and Hebrew. Do you not see here the devil, the enemy of God's order? With all his mouthing of the words, "Spirit, Spirit, Spirit," he tears down the bridge, the path, the way, the ladder, and all the means by which the Spirit might come to you. Instead of the outward order of God and the oral proclamation of the Word of God he wants to teach you, not how the Spirit comes to you but how you come to the Spirit. They would have you learn how to journey on the clouds and ride on the wind. They do not tell you how or when, whither or what, but you are to experience what they do.[6]

Luther rightly condemns this Charismatic teaching. Why? Because our internal feelings do not have the authority of God. God's Word has the authority of God and is the means through which the Holy Spirit speaks to us individually and as a congregation. The Holy Spirit speaks to us with an external voice found in the words of scripture, as we read it or hear it preached, and empowers these same words to change our hearts and actions. Here is Luther speaking on the role of the Holy Spirit described in John 16:1, "For He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak."

Here Christ makes the Holy Spirit a Preacher. He does so to prevent one from gaping toward heaven in search of Him, as the fluttering spirits28 and enthusiasts do, and from divorcing Him from the oral Word or the ministry. One should know and learn that He will be in and with the Word, that it will guide us into all truth, in order that we may believe it, use it as a weapon, be preserved by it against all the lies and deception of the devil, and prevail in all trials and temptations. For there is, after all, no other way and no other means of perceiving the Holy Spirit's consolation and power, as I have often demonstrated from Holy Writ and have often experienced myself. [7]

The Reformation view of the Holy Spirit's ruling the church and the authority the leaders themselves exercised was centered on the concept of sola scriptura. The activity of the Holy Spirit working through these leaders was viewed through the lens of sola scriptura, not mysticism with personal revelations or modern prophets. Scripture was the means that the Holy Spirit interacted with the individual and the congregation. This is where they heard the certain voice of God. The message and words of their songs of worship, taken from scripture, were the means through which the Holy Spirit was active in their worship an understanding of what they were singing about. While Luther may not have believed in a literal millennium, He did understand the rule of the King through the Holy Spirit at our present time through the scriptures and says:
the Holy Spirit establishes a wide difference among teachers and gives the right rule by which the spirits are to be tested. He wants to say that there are two kinds of teachers. There are some who speak on their own authority; that is, they evolve their message from their own reasoning or religious zeal and judgment. The Holy Spirit is not to be that kind of preacher; for He will not speak on His own authority In this way Christ sets bounds for the message of the Holy Spirit Himself. He is not to preach anything new or anything else than Christ and His Word. Thus we have a sure guide and touchstone for judging the false spirits.”_


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 17, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> I’m not familiar with this author but some strong sentiments nonetheless...
> 
> _Sola Scriptura for Charismatics_​
> _“The presence and ministry of the Holy Spirit is central to living Christianity. Charismatics have emphasized the working of the Holy Spirit in their lives and see His power as what separates them from "dead religion." It is true that he Holy Spirit must be present and active in the life of a believer, this is the very claim that the Reformers made, especially Luther. The reformers and Charismatics agree on this. However, they disagree on something just as crucial their understanding of how the Holy Spirit comes and how He is active in the lives of believers. Luther believed the Holy Spirit only comes through the external Word, written and preached. This understanding of how the Holy Spirit exercises His authority in both individuals and the church is where Charismatics have wandered from the foundations of the Reformation. The Reformation was built upon sola scriptura which means "the authority of scripture alone." More completely, this is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is:
> ...



Who is the author? That article looks vaguely familiar. That said, charismaticism or not aside, if you base your Christian walk on the intensity of your experiences or feelings, it's hard to avoid either the horrors of New England covenant theology on one hand, or extreme charismaticism on the other.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 17, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Who is the author? That article looks vaguely familiar. That said, charismaticism or not aside, if you base your Christian walk on the intensity of your experiences or feelings, it's hard to avoid either the horrors of New England covenant theology on one hand, or extreme charismaticism on the other.


_“While I believe that scriptures clearly promise a literal Messianic Kingdom for Israel that will come to pass with Jesus reigning in Jerusalem for a thousand years as the actual king over the entire world, now this kingdom is only spiritual and found with the Holy Spirit. ”_
_-By K. Jentoft, 16 May, 2008_





__





Sola Scriptura for Charismatics | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network


The presence and ministry of the Holy Spirit is central to living Christianity. Charismatics have emphasized the working of the Holy Spirit in their lives and see His power as what separates them from "dead religion."




admin.worldviewweekend.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------

