Does Jonathan Edwards lend credence to the traditional view?

[Guest]

Jonathan Edwards certainly subscribed to the traditional view of hell:

It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite.

This sermon in particular sparked a revival that no Christian can honestly deny was a powerful work of God.
Does that indicate Edwards' views were correct?

[Guest]

I don't think a revival necessarily puts a stamp of approval on everything someone says.

Here's something that I find intriguing. William Miller was preaching, based on his understanding of Daniel 8, that the world would come to and end in 1843. This obviously did not happen. The interesting part is that thousands of people became Christians as a result of being convinced of his message.

Maybe even more puzzling is I knew a couple that became Christians, in large part, through the influence of the Left Behind movie. How did that happen? I couldn't even stomach my way through it

[Guest]

This sermon in particular sparked a revival that no Christian can honestly deny was a powerful work of God.
Does that indicate Edwards' views were correct?




Using the same measuring rod would suggest the "Word of Faith" view is correct to today's Christians.

[Guest]

Using the same measuring rod would suggest the "Word of Faith" view is correct to today's Christians.

I think this is 180 degrees different. The great awakening was undoubtedly a real revival, the word of faith movement is a movement away from truth.

[Guest]

be no end to this exquisite horrible misery

I think this is 180 degrees different. The great awakening was undoubtedly a real revival, the word of faith movement is a movement away from truth.



Yes it's different by 180 degrees because one is based on greed the other is based on fear.
Not fear of God per se but fear of unending torture that had people writhing on the floor.
If this is truly what God wants then your right.

[Guest]

I have heard Calvary Chapel people argue that the pre-trib rapture view must be true, because it was at the core of the preaching that sparked the Jesus Movement revival of the seventies (which was, in my opinion, a great and genuine revival). Interestingly, Calvary Chapel teaches premillennialism, whereas Jonathan Edwards taught postmillennialism—but both were used by God to bring genuine revivals. Which one had the correct theology? Interestingly, another great revivalist, the Apostle Paul, was neither premil nor postmil, but was actually an amillennialist (I couldn't resist!).

We can't decide based upon their respective revival influences. Going a step further, Jonathan Edwards was an uncompromising Calvinist—which is not true of the Calvary Chapel Movement. And yet another very successful revivalist, Charles Finney, was not only not a Calvinist, but he was more like a Pelagian. Go figure!

[Guest]

Yes it's different by 180 degrees because one is based on greed the other is based on fear.
...
If this is truly what God wants then your right.

You're not understanding me. They're 180 degrees different not because of what they used as motivation, but by what they motivated people towards.