At our respective seminaries, my friend Ryan and I have been immersed in American Church History. This post is the fruit of a conversation we had earlier this week during which Ryan mentioned how a revivalist spirit is natural to us as humans. The question I would like to pose is: To what degree are we, as American Christians, influenced, consciously or not, by a revivalist spirit?
Now, I realize that it is virtually impossible for one to weigh-in about the way in which something affects them that they are not conscious of. So, clearly, my question is a loaded one. But, nevertheless, one that needs to be addressed. My hope, as we address this issue and others in the future, is that we will further understand the way in which our situatedness in various Christian contexts (Churches, small groups, seminaries, schools, families, etc...) has influenced, to lesser and greater degrees, our Christian theology, piety, and practice for better or worse. It is my hope that this blog will allow both those who engage, as well as those who simply wish to observe, a further understanding of God, His Church, and themselves through the various conversations taking place herein.
In Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice R. Scott Clark contrasts Reformed piety with the piety of both revivalism and pietism:
"Judged by confessional Reformed piety, religious subjectivism (e.g. revivalism or pietism) is illegitimate because it seeks what is by definition an extraordinary providence of God, which is not promised in Scripture. This desire for the extraordinary tends not only to devalue the ordinary providence of God but also the expressed promises of God. He is most free to work all manner of wonderful things; there are, for example, instances of an intense sense of the divine presence, a surprising understanding of the application of Scripture to a given situation, or some other blessing; but they cannot define the Christian life, and they are no proper standard by which to measure sanctification or Christian maturity. It is a significant mistake to make the religious experience envisioned by revivalists the organizing principal for Reformed piety" (107).
I appreciate how Clark, while acknowledging God's freedom to work as He pleases, rightfully argues against the expectation of an "extraordinary providence of God" as normative for the Christian life and maturity.
Is it fair to say that pietist and revivalist pieties are based upon a theology of glory while Reformed piety is based upon a theology of the cross? It seems to me most American Christians, myself included, have been raised and weaned on what Martin Luther would call "a theology of glory" rather than "a theology of the cross"?
Comments and questions are encouraged :)
Now, I realize that it is virtually impossible for one to weigh-in about the way in which something affects them that they are not conscious of. So, clearly, my question is a loaded one. But, nevertheless, one that needs to be addressed. My hope, as we address this issue and others in the future, is that we will further understand the way in which our situatedness in various Christian contexts (Churches, small groups, seminaries, schools, families, etc...) has influenced, to lesser and greater degrees, our Christian theology, piety, and practice for better or worse. It is my hope that this blog will allow both those who engage, as well as those who simply wish to observe, a further understanding of God, His Church, and themselves through the various conversations taking place herein.
In Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice R. Scott Clark contrasts Reformed piety with the piety of both revivalism and pietism:
"Judged by confessional Reformed piety, religious subjectivism (e.g. revivalism or pietism) is illegitimate because it seeks what is by definition an extraordinary providence of God, which is not promised in Scripture. This desire for the extraordinary tends not only to devalue the ordinary providence of God but also the expressed promises of God. He is most free to work all manner of wonderful things; there are, for example, instances of an intense sense of the divine presence, a surprising understanding of the application of Scripture to a given situation, or some other blessing; but they cannot define the Christian life, and they are no proper standard by which to measure sanctification or Christian maturity. It is a significant mistake to make the religious experience envisioned by revivalists the organizing principal for Reformed piety" (107).
I appreciate how Clark, while acknowledging God's freedom to work as He pleases, rightfully argues against the expectation of an "extraordinary providence of God" as normative for the Christian life and maturity.
Is it fair to say that pietist and revivalist pieties are based upon a theology of glory while Reformed piety is based upon a theology of the cross? It seems to me most American Christians, myself included, have been raised and weaned on what Martin Luther would call "a theology of glory" rather than "a theology of the cross"?
Comments and questions are encouraged :)
To the first question, on whether American Christians are influenced by a revivalist spirit, I would tag on another question- What is it about Americans that makes us vulnerable to such influences?
ReplyDeleteI had to remind myself of what Luther meant by theology of glory/cross. It seems the primary difference is how God most clearly reveals himself, and therefore how we are to seek and experience him. A theologian of glory would say "to seek God, seek blessings in your life, seek to feel his 'presence' seek wisdom". It seems clear that this is how a 'name it and claim it' view of seeking God can develop. If its not going good, keep trying and try harder, so it will get better.
A theologian of the cross says that God reveals himself most clearly through the cross of Christ. Believers are to seek God by first surveying the cross and second by identifying with Christ as we share in his sufferings, take up our cross, and follow after him.
I think that reformed piety is based on a theology of the cross without question.
A piety is a virtue describing religious devotion/ spirituality/ reverence for God/etc. Revivalist pieties are banking on the fact that a revival is going to happen (or that an imaginary revival is happening right now)- "seeking the extraordinary to the devaluing of the ordinary providence of God." So if there's not a revival, claim that there will be one. Or if there's not a revival, name that there is one even though there's not.
Revivalists put their hope in the revival: obvious, outward, extraordinary workings of God as the basis of his revelation and their experience of him. I think its fair to say that this has theology of glory written all over it.
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/suffering.php
My hope, as we address this issue and others in the future, is that we will further understand the way in which our situatedness in various Christian contexts (Churches, small groups, seminaries, schools, families, etc...) has influenced, to lesser and greater degrees, our Christian theology, piety, and practice for better or worse.
ReplyDeletethis is what i copy/pasted from your initial post. and so i'll answer this first: unfortunatley a majority of our theology comes from these groups. i'll be the first to admit that i still find myself learning new things and fighting to get past old ideas from either, being raised in an SDA environment, and also what i was taught as a new believer from the pulpit and other small groups.
our focus is to have our minds and hearts (theology, and piety) formed by the Word; thats it. Now has God gifted men to teach the Word correctly: absolutely, and those who we feel convicted of as being "right" teachers of the Word are those we put ourselves under the teaching of. But we need to consider this: no ones theology is perfect, excpet for Christs. Not Macarthurs, Owens, Luthers, Calvins, etc... so i'm not tagging myself as a follower of any, but a follower of Christ ie..christian. Our job as leaders, or just as believers, is to point people to the Cross and the Word. God will teach them and allow them to learn new things "if He permits".
as far as the revivalist spirit thing goes i gotta think a bit more about that. it would help to know what your and ryans convo was about as well, are we talking charismatic revival, or george whitefield revival? or just revival in general?
"To what degree are we, as American Christians, influenced, consciously or not, by a revivalist spirit?"
ReplyDeleteI think it has greatly affected us. In a negative sense and positive. In terms of how it starts i would say we are affected basically two ways: one is where man must conjour up an atmosphere and arena in which revivals can begin and sustain and the other is where men preach the word and allow God to save the souls.
That, to me, seems to be the only dichotomy of revivalism.
Having said that, i would also say the word itself, revivalism, has a heavy charismatic feel. Whether it be the fact that charismatics push for revivals, true ones or not, they seem linked to the term of revivalism.
Along with that come a feeling-based, emotion-based, will-based sense of conversions. Since i said a prayer or feel different or am moved emotionally i have obvisiously come into the presense of a holy God so i must be at peace with Him.
This is for you travis: one of Jonathan Edwards main thrusts in RA, though it was not spelled out, was to question satan's role in revivals. Is not Satan so capable and aware enough to press upon the thoughts and hearts of people that if they mimic what true saints act like and feel like they would be fooled to thinking they are saved all the while they are still bound with him in hell? This is why Edwards' reasons for showing truly gracious affections are nearly identical to true saints as they are to false saints.
We know those decisions are not the new-births. I have run off track from my original answer so maybe next post i'll get back to and stay on track.
Let us be clear as to what he said about this. We must know what revival means. We must know the difference between an evangelistic campaign and revival. They are not to be compared. We must realize the difference between experiencing the power of the Spirit in revival and the calling of people to make a decision. Some years ago a certain well-known and prominent Evangelical leader at the time was urging me to attend a certain evangelistic campaign, and full of enthusiasm said, 'You must go. It's marvelous. Wonderful! People go streaming forward. No emotion. No emotion!' He kept on repeating 'No emotion'. He had not read Jonathan Edwards! We should be seriously concerned if there is no emotion. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:
ReplyDeleteKyle, I am hoping you would chime in. I know your book religious affections was the response the anger and enjoyment of the revivals that swept america. I am going to have to side with Edwards, haha, how can you not! I believe, according to what I researched, is that during the great awakening He saw that the Spirit of God moved mightily like He had never seen before, and there were people making decisions that were false at the same time. Like Lloyd-Jones said, we must know the difference between an evangelistic campaign and revival. It seems clark is in the middle also on this. (great article from Jones on revival and edwards http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=27%7C28%7C718
I am not sure about your answer on the Luther theology of glory vs. theology of the cross.Before I answer that one, I need you to use that in a sentence! (another words, I am not fully understanding the question, and before I start burning like Rome, I would like to make sure I understand the question. You all will have to forgive me, I am not a true theologian, I go to a Semi-Pelagian University!)
Keep this going, I need the challenge!
Travis
Kyle, thanks, I need the RA from Edwards. You are the one that gives me so many sermon illustrations! Your great! We must be very careful not to discredit Edwards, Whitefield, even Nic's favorite Wesley in how they were used in revival. I do believe revival swept this land in the 70's with the Jesus movement. I do believe that a semi-revival is happening right now in Iraq and China (east china, I say semi, because its not nation wide, but the numbers are amazing). Thousands are coming to Christ this year! Thats exciting!
ReplyDeleteI continue to say that there must be a difference between what God brings, and what man mimics. Billy Graham does these great crusades, you can't fault the man. I would preach the gospel to all these people any chance I could get. Is this revival? I don't think so. Is it of God, who's to say. Paul Washer is quoted saying, "Billy Graham said that he would be happy if 5% of the people that came down for salvation in his crusade would actually get saved." Paul Washer then says in anger, "Why doesn't Billy Graham tell these people this?" I think this is true. People need to know this. People need to know that the preacher things only 5% will actually be saved. The Spirit can bring revival, and honestly, I am thinking this is something that we should all hope would happen. I do not think we should bring false revivals, or call just anything revivals, and continue to be faithful to the preaching of the cross, knowing God can do what He wants. Revival is good, Americans mocking revival is not good.
Yeah, great topic Jason!! Great distinction between revivals and revivlalism. Our conversation entailed specifically the Second Great Awakening under C. Finney, which is the awakening that has predominately impacted the evangelicalism of today. My take is this: With the Enlightenments empirical assualt upon anything supernatural, practically paving the way for liberal theology, American revivalism responded just the way the minds of modernity wanted, towards what R. Scott Clark calls "religious subjectivism." You see, for American Christianity led by Finney and the like to respond to the modern mind (that is 19th and 18th German minds),
ReplyDeletewith "religious subjectivism, or revivalism" is adding to the problem. For revivalism to insist on the extraordinaryness within us, devaules and mitigates the extraorinary in and from God. Revivalism placed the extraordinary in the wrong person. Thinking about it now, I'm not so sure revivalism was even a response to liberal theology, rather revivalism (of the Second Great Awakening) seems to be the outcome of liberal thought. So to answer your question, yes! "Revivalism" in this sense is a theology of glory because it seeks the extraordinaryness in the wrong person, but I would also affirm that orthodoxy can become dead orthodoxy and a theology of glory if it "does not account its life of any value, nor precious to itself (Act. 20:24). In other words, to push immanance (revivalism) or push transcendence (orthodoxy) to far one way, we don't have the bibical God. What is extraordinary is what God has done through His Son, revealed in the scriptures, that must guide and discern every revival that springs about. It is without a doubt after looking upon Finney's beliefs that he fell into a theology of glory. The autonomy of man was endless in his eyes and therefore pushed the extraordinary to happen in men rather than God. The evangelicalism we find ourselves in today is a parasite of Finney's so called Christianity. Should we all get uptight and be fearful of evangelicalism? No. The last time I checked Jesus Christ said He WILL build His church. We need biblical prayer and bibilcal preaching, aligned with the Triune God. What was the Enlightenment to God? Only something He laughed at and purposed for true biblical Christianity to slay! What are false revivals that focus on man other than God? Only things God has designed to spur on God centered theology! All the lapses in American Christianity are like drops in a bucket, Jesus Christ WILL build His church in spite and most of all because of heresy.
Lets continue this chat
Ryan
The Enlightenment of the Scriptures:
ReplyDeleteThe reason I bring up the the Enlightenment is because it drasticly affected the American Christianity, and the way The First Great Awakening responded and the way the Second Awakening responed were different. The "subjective revivalism" of both (as all revivals will have) but severly more in the Second did not respond with the teaching of Scripture, while the First did under Edwards, Whitefield, and John Wesley. In Finney's Systematic Theology it is clear that he did not understand the Christian Gospel. My point is this: When the Apsotle Paul encounters the "Enlightenment" of his day in Acts 17, debating philosophers and the like, Paul did not resort to "subjective revivalism," nor did he "find a common ground." He was preaching "foreign divinties v. 18, a new teachinig, and strange things." Now from here does Paul concede to the "liberal" and foolish thoughts of the philosophers, like many Christians did when the Enlightenment arose? No, he simply stated the objective truth of the Creator, Saving, Judging God of the scriptures. Iain Murray gets it right (like everything he writes) when he quotes Dr. Oliver Barclay saying, "Evanglicals working in this century(2000-1900, our century) have followed the tradition and argued for a conservative position on exclusively rational grounds (context meaning: only resorting to what philosophers say is rational knowledge, without resorting to scripture). They have been pushed into his policy by the THE DESRIE TO DEFEND BIBLICAL TEACHING IN THE ONLY WAY THAT OTHERS WILL ACCEPT." Can I get an amen?! He continues, "We cannot continue to teach theology through a rationalist methodology (again, refering to only what the philosophers say is rational) and expect to produce anything other than liberal evangelicals." WOW! Can I get another amen!? The Apostle Paul shows us how to encounter the "wise, intelligent, and philosphers" and that is to proclaim the extraordinary in God, not in man. I'm not necessarily against subjective responses (Paul does it several times), but where does the subjective point, to God or to man. "Subjective revivalism," defined by Clark points to man, making it a theology of glory.
Ryan
Travis, share those illustration with me please. I read the book but i hardly illustrate like you can. But i still stand by my first claim regarding that book: Anyone going into ministry MUST read that book.
ReplyDeleteOne other quick thing, just as i was reading the first paragraph of Jason's first post i saw Ryan said that the "revivalist spirit is natural to us." I think the reason why the revivalist spirit is so captivating to us is because it is of the world and it appeals to our dead inner man. You take an appeal to our dead old man plus a good intention to save souls and there is good reason why we fall in love with it, because we fall in love with our old nature.
Edwards' writing on satan's role in revivals is so on point. From his perspective, what better place to have a soul, than make them think they are a believer when they are still doomed? On top of that, now he has a tool inside the church which he uses to bewilder the true saints.
ReplyDeleteIf as you guys have said, the revivalist spirit is natural to us, that is, to our indwelling sin principle, then would it not be extremely appealing to a unbeliever-who-thinks-they're-a-believer? If a person has no faith yet desires to experience the extraordinary there's only one place to look- inward, to themselves.
All of these posts have really made me think. I was thinking today if I should even pray for revival? I know God saves when He wants, and how He wants in His own time. Is this conviction that the revivalist spirit can be of the flesh damaged the praying for true revival? I have to ask, what if we pray for revival, brought by preaching of the cross? I am sometimes worried that solid people forget that God can actually bring revival. Is this something that is wrong to pray for and wrong to hope for?
ReplyDeleteHow amazing would it be if God, not man, brought a revival to America that His name was so famous here in America that our churches were used to bring God's Gospel to all of the world and see lives and countries changed! If you were a Postmillennialist like Erin, this prayer for revival is even more exciting!
I am seriously torn now as I think about revivalism. I want the cross of Christ proclaimed, and people to understand that the power is in the preaching of the cross, not a man made mythological revival that puts man in the center. I also want "God's Spirit, His Gospel, and His Fame" to sweep across this nation that people will go out and die for Christ. I am not so concerned about if you call this a revival or not. I have much to think about, thanks for the posts.
well let me say first, thankyou travis for bringing up my name and then slamming me as a wesley fan, definatley uneeded, but your travis so i can't expect anything less. now let me try to address two things very quickly:
ReplyDelete1.) " While the gospel calls us to look outside ourselves for salvation, Pelagianism, and Gnosticism combine to keep us looking to ourselves and within ourselves." -horton; christless christianity. i mention this because Finney is thought to be more Pelagian than Arminian. What finney saw to attempt to do on his own via tricks, words, and methods (himself), edwards, and whitfield sought to do outside of themselves (cross, word, prayer).
2.) regarding travis' question about praying for revival: 1 John 5:14,15 has changed the way that i pray!! in a nutshell it's this: if we ask according to His will He hears us, if He hears us, we have what we have asked Him for. So if He hears; we have. very simple. the trouble is what we ask for. if we ask something not according to His will He does not hear, and so we dont have. (of course God is omni- so we know he does hear them all, but hearing in a sense of acknowledging, listening, considering; example: highschool student wants to go to a certain college, but Gods plan is for them to go somewhere else, can all his praying about getting into college X change Gods mind, or make him consider the change of course for his life? absolutely not).
what this has forced me to do is to look inside scripture and pray things that are certainly Gods will: sanctification, lifting up Christ, devoted prayer, and time in the Word, etc.... because these are prayers i know He WILL answer!! now to revival, are we called to pray for revival? probably not, but we have a glorious scene in Revelation 5 where all the nations are proclaiming Christ and worshipping Him, lets pray for this. lets pray that God will draw all peoples and nations to Himself, by the working of the Spirit for His names sake....that is a prayer that WILL be answered as YES!!!!
Travis, really? As Nick said we could expect nothing less from you. I just read an article by your boy Greg Bahnsen, it was so obnoxious that I mistook him for a dispy.
ReplyDeleteNice posts Nic, Travis,and Erin! Erin, Greg Bahnsen is the biggest OG there is (in regards to presupp. apologetics)!! There is no other man that I have heard of that understands apologetics like that dude. Yes, lets pray for revival!! Revival is great, but not the kind R. Scott Clark is talking about where we forget the ordinary means of grace. Just because there aren't massive amounts of "conversions" in America per se, doesn't mean that revival isn't in America. Right?
ReplyDeletei guess i'll have to check this thing more often so i don't have to read 5 posts at a time.
ReplyDeleteto answer ryans question: depends on your definition of revival. revival as we think does mean conversion. but i see a revival of reformed thinkers arising as well, but i think your talking about the former rather than the latter. the point of revival is conversion, if there is no conversion how can we say there is revival? this is my thoughts on revival: God has selected men to use to do it, and will use those men and those times to do it. but the means will ALWAYS be the same: spirit, cross, word, and prayer. the prayer part though is not asking for it, for it will come when God wants, but in prayer asking for us to see what God is doing at that point in time and being led to be apart of that; revival or not.
p.s. i read an article by bahnsen as well so i can be on the same page, and quite honestly his articles are too long and talk about the same thing over and over again, for the most part, but then again, don't ask me for my opinion on apologetics; i'm not to high on it.
Nic: Great Horton quote.
ReplyDeleteThe Westminster Confession of Faith (hereafter WCF) states: “The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ORDINARILY wrought by the ministry of the Word: by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened” (Chapter 14, emphasis added).
ReplyDeleteIn the opening paragraph of my original post by referring to “American Christians” I was more concerned with the way a revivalist spirit influences believers (i.e. the way in which what the WCF refers to as “the grace of faith” is “increased and strengthened” in believers). However, the conversation quickly shifted to the nature of revivals and conversions. Which made clear to me two things: 1) I didn’t draw a clear enough distinction between revivalism and revivals in my first post (Nic actually called me on it early on); or 2) the nature of the relationship between revivalism and most “revivals” is somewhat interrelated, rather difficult to distinguish, and thus they seem to mutually influence or, especially in America’s case (Great Awakenings), condition one another.
I apologize for #1; and I appreciate all I have learned from your comments concerning #2
One more thing somewhat related to revivals and revivalism, I wanted to comment on the deadly consequences of something Travis touched upon in his Paul Washer reference. I am pretty sure that close to 100% of those who go forward during an alter call, claim a “born again” EXPERIENCE, or even “accept” Jesus, THINK they are saved or “right with God”. I hope that many are. However, Travis noted that Billy Graham—via Paul Washer—seemed to think that in reality the percentages are closer to 5%, at least at his revivals. Whatever the percentage may actually be, we can all agree that Jesus refers to this “percentage” as “MANY” in Matthew 7:22.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about the Matthew passage is what happens when these self-proclaimed believers stand before the Lamb. Revelation tells us that Christ eternally appears as though [He] has been slain—marks and all (cf. Rev. 5). So these people are seeing the glory of God in the face of Christ (cf. Isa. 52:14)…okay these people, as we will someday too, are kneeling and probably bowing (Phil. 2:10) so maybe they aren’t seeing the glory of God in the face of Christ, but they are nonetheless in His presence with what I envision as an extended hand and a pointing finger. According to Matthew it appears as though these sincere yet self-deceived people, when in the presence of Christ, are pointing NOT to the sufficiency and worth of Christ (His person and work on their behalf); but rather, they all point to the sufficiency of their own works (insufficient) and the worth of their experience (“in your name” (v.22)) as the grounds for their acceptance before God—TALK ABOUT A SUBJECTIVE THEOLOGY PIETY AND PRACTICE. “Didn’t I walk down the aisle and make a decision”, “didn’t I pray”, “didn’t I read my Bible and go to church…and go on that missionary trip to Mexico”, “didn’t I ‘connect’ with and ‘feel’ really close to You at that retreat”. "I NEVER KNEW YOU" He will say to them (7:23, emphasis mine). Holy smokes!!! What a sobering reminder that some who we minister to, minister with, and love ever so dearly will be deceived on that frightful and glorious day. Nic is right to quote Horton who says, “The Gospel calls us outside ourselves for salvation.”
In my next post I am leaning toward unpacking what Ryan alluded to in his comment about “the ordinary means of grace”. I believe basing church ministry around anything but the ordinary means of grace, amounts to a wood, hay, and straw ministry that is unfaithful to the Chief Cornerstone and those He has entrusted to our care. We will look at these God instantiated means and their purposes within the context of the church drawing from both Scripture and the WCF. I will try and get that up by Thursday evening. In the meantime God bless you all this week (2 Thes. 2:16-17).
Ryan, with regards to Bahnsen: rebuke accepted. He was just the only postmillennialist I could think of off the top of my head!
ReplyDeleteJason and I were talking and it seems that we’ve in part muddled the distinction between revivalism (the original subject) and revivals.
Revivals happen. Before and during true revival, God stirs (as he always does) outward-looking (to the cross, word, Spirit, not self) people to prayer (the forerunner of mercy). So are we supposed to pray for revival? It depends on what that means. Are we looking outward, reading Rev. 5, and praying that all nations would proclaim Christ and worship him (as nick reminded us)? Or do we look inward, and pray based on what we find there, what seems best to ourselves (for example pray that the Giants stadium should come down from their seats to the altar)? You guys have made some great points about revival.
Revivalism we believe is linked to a theology of glory. Revivalism could be associated with the spirit of those who seek the extraordinary (for example, instances of an intense sense of the divine presence, a surprising understanding of the application of Scripture to a given situation, or some other blessing- Clark) to define their experience of God and his self-revelation. Imitation of true revival with its false counterpart that lacks proper moorings to scripture, the cross, etc. and glorifies “the decision” or the “sinner’s prayer” his merely one symptom of people whose pieties are polluted by revivalism.
Leaders who make religious experience as envisioned by the revivalists the organizing principle for their pieties inevitably are leaders of small numbers of true believers dwarfed by a multitude of the self-deceived whose understanding of justification extends no further than a decision they made during an event, or ‘revival’. Billy Graham has admitted that he believes this ratio is 5:95. Graham also said this: “I’ve preached too much, and studied too little.” I don’t think any of you guys would want to say either of those things about your ministries in your old age.
So, it seems that there are serious consequences in ministry when pieties are defined by revivalism. Let the comments continue.
yea dangerous to use the word revival with a bunch of calvinists, its like throwing chum into a shark tank!! we are bound to chew it apart and leave little left. but let me then comment on jp's original question, now knowing better what he was getting at.
ReplyDeleteif we are talking about the revivalist spirit in believers via faith, as the WFC is defining for us, it is then immediately limited to the faith of that particular individual believer and not the granting of faith for the non believer. for how can the sacraments increase the faith of a non believer? we know that faith may differ in degrees for individual believers, outside of saving faith of course, and so when a believer in Christ takes the sacraments (meditating on Christs work), reads the Word, and spends time in prayer, that individual believer is strengthened and grown in faith, to walk a life more pleasing to God, or as we know it "to put off the deeds of the flesh".
i think that is how faith is "increased in strength". the revival refering to the reviving of ones own heart, not the heart of others.
Great post, I love you all, even Nic! I have much to learn and think about.
ReplyDelete