One of my fellow alumni from TMS, Rob Wilkerson, has been tracking the recent cessationism/continuationalism blogfeud like nobody’s business, dubbing the debate a theological pillow fight.
He included my post on the sanctifying communication of the Spirit in his update from 11/29 and offers his own extended quotation from Edwards:
“What the church has been used to, is not a rule by which we are to judge; because there may be new and extraordinary works of God, and he has heretofore evidently wrought in an extraordinary manner. He has brought to pass new things, strange works; and has wrought in such a manner as to surprise both men and angels. And as God has done thus in times past, so we have no reason to think but that he will do so still. The prophecies of Scripture give us reason to think that God has things to accomplish, which have never yet been seen. No deviation from what has hitherto been usual, let it be never so great, is an argument that a work is not from the Spirit of God, if it be no deviation from his prescribed rule. The Holy Spirit is sovereign in his operation; and we know that he uses a great variety; and we cannot tell how great a variety he may use, within the compass of the rules he himself has fixed. We ought not to limit God where he has not limited himself” (The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God, Banner of Truth, p. 89).
To be sure this quote is “worthy of thought,” and I assume that Rob presents it as Edwards’ rebuttal to Edwards himself. But before reproducing more by Edwards from The Religious Affections I want to say that I do not think we must take the above quote from Edwards to mean that the “new and extraordinary works of God” are special, subjective suggestions of the Spirit. Nowhere in the “prophecies of Scripture” are we promised spiritual hunches. And while it is arrogant and dangerous to “limit God where He has not limited himself” it is equally presumptuous to ascribe additional works to God when He has limited Himself, or at least has expressly communicated what He is and is not doing.
The real task is not exegeting Edwards but Scripture. But part of the problem with that is everyone claims their position is biblical. We apparently need the help of others (and of course the illumination of the Spirit — which is different than inspiration) to understand the “point of the passage.”
Speaking of the help of others, I know we are all anxiously awaiting more from the PyroManiac. He is responsible for the start of the “pillow” fight — though he also continues to articulate that he was not primarily concerned with cessationism per se. Apparently he is too busy dulling us with references to his own blog, but he does at least promise more in his series on “hearing the voice of God.” I do too, but not at the expense of lunch.
Sean! Good thoughts here. I wasn’t using Edwards to rebut himself as much as I was to round him out on the overall subject. To be sure, the quote I included had to do with the obvious context of the book, namely the revivals of the great awakening. In general, Edwards is responding to those who didn’t think the responses and reactions of those affected by the revival were really of God. His point was clear enough: just because we can’t explain it doesn’t mean it wasn’t from God.
My equation was simply to take the same concept and apply it to the prophetic. Most of the things experienced by hundreds, if not thousands, during the Great Awakening are not found in Scripture - the physiological, emotional, mental responses, that is. If we apply the same reasoning that God has limited himself to what we see in Scripture, then these experiences by many in these revivals are not biblical legit. But Edwards’ main point, I believe, is that the absence of a particular encounter or experience in Scripture does not illegitimize its presence in someone’s life today. The Bible is not and cannot be a book of experiences or encounters used to legitimize whatever people experience or encounter.
Much of the responses and reactions we find in the Great Awakening are not found in the text, but they were undoubtedly of God. And much of the prophetic as I have personally experienced it, as well as what I have personally encountered, at least in Sovereign Grace Ministires, is not found in the text, but is undoubtedly biblical. In both instances, the experiences and encounters are rooted in the Scripture, are fertilized by them, and bear fruit in accordance with them.
Thanks for the awesome interaction bro!