爱德华兹（Edwards）写了这些话后不久，到了 1741年的夏天，第一次记录的扑倒、颤抖、狂吼随即爆发了。 当人们开始把这些怪异的现象和圣灵的工作挂上钩时，这些表现就变得更加明显、越发猖獗。默里（IainMurray）写道：一些观察者开始提倡一种观点：即越是惊天动地、鬼哭狼嚎，就越发显明神的荣耀、证明神的能力。一旦这样的观念普及开了，就为各种离谱的事儿敞开了大门……。人们非但不操练节制，反倒放任自己、宣泄情感。
Jonathan Edwards Warns Modern Mystics
by John MacArthur
Monday, November 12, 2018
No one was in a better position to evaluate the GreatAwakening than Jonathan Edwards. He watched it firsthand from beginning to end.He personally witnessed the remarkable emotional and physical responses incongregations where he preached. He defended the Awakening when criticsdenounced it as pure hysteria. And when it was over, he carefully analyzed thereasons it died out.
Edwards concluded that it was, in fact, the friends ofthe revival, not its enemies, who were responsible for its death. Onebiographer of Edwards has written,
He came to believe that there was one principal cause ofthe reversal, namely, the unwatchfulness of the friends of the Awakening whoallowed genuine and pure religion to become so mixed with “wildfire” and carnal“enthusiasm,” that the Spirit of God was grieved and advantage given to Satan.
Edwards, even while defending the Awakening against itscritics, had long acknowledged that a strain of fanaticism was undermining thetrue work of God in the revival. In The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of theSpirit of God, written in 1741 at the height of the revival, Edwardsacknowledged that “imprudences, irregularities, and [a] mixture of delusion”had attached themselves to the movement. He attributed these things to “chieflyyoung persons . . . who have less steadiness and experience, [who] being in theheat of youth are much more ready to run to extremes.”  He saw runawaypassions as the work of the devil, who tries to keep people apathetic as longas possible—then when he is no longer able to accomplish that, “endeavours todrive them to extremes, and so to dishonour God.” 
In the summer of 1741, soon after Edwards wrote thosewords, the first recorded outbreaks of faintings, shakings, and outcries began. The manifestations grew more pronounced as people began to associate theSpirit’s work with these bizarre sensations. Iain Murray writes that someobservers
began to encourage the idea that the greater the outcriesand commotion, the more glorious was the evidence of God’s power, and once thisidea was accepted the door was open to all manner of excess. . . . Far fromattempting to restrain themselves, people sometimes willfully gave way to sheeremotion. 
At this point division crept into the revival. Many whowere swept up in the emotion and excitement of the phenomena began to distrustany voice of caution. Pastors who warned that mere noise and excitement were noproof of the Spirit’s working often found themselves the targets of backlash.Wise words of friendly caution were discarded as if they were hostilecriticism. Godly pastors who raised concerns were even labeled unconverted. Afaction of fanatics began to commandeer the Awakening. One author noted “therapid progress of a spurious religion, under the guidance of pride, ignorance,and spiritual quackery.” 
Iain Murray concludes,
Without question, the rise of the fanatical elementcoincided with the decline of the spiritual power of the Awakening. Those whospoke most loudly of being led by the Spirit were the very persons responsiblefor quenching the Spirit’s work. . . . For Edwards the turning point in therevival came when men . . . failed to guard against excesses. 
In his biography of David Brainerd, Edwards gave his ownassessment of the revival’s failure:
An intemperate imprudent zeal, and a degree of [fleshly]enthusiasm soon crept in, and mingled itself with that revival of religion; andso great and general an awakening being quite a new thing in the land, at leastas to all the living inhabitants of it; neither people nor ministers hadlearned thoroughly to distinguish between solid religion and its delusivecounterfeits; even many ministers of the Gospel, of long standing and the bestreputation, were for a time overpowered with the glaring appearances of thelatter. 
Clearly Jonathan Edwards believed the Great Awakening wasquenched not by concerns for “theological correctness” but by spiritualextremism that was tolerated and even encouraged by the revival’s mostenthusiastic supporters. The unbridled emotional excesses, far from being thesupreme spiritual achievement of the revival, were the very thing that killedit. It was fanaticism, not pharisaism, that ended the Great Awakening.
William DeArteaga is aware of but refuses to acceptEdwards’s conclusion. Against all the historical evidence, DeArteaga insiststhat “doctrinal correctness” led to the revival’s demise:
In spite of Edwards’s own theories, it seems that theGreat Awakening was not quenched because of its extremists. It was quenchedbecause of the condemnation of its opponents. This condemnation demoralized thesupporters and marred the faith of the public to the point where they no longerwelcomed the presence of the Spirit. 
Ironically enough, at this point in DeArteaga’s book hespeaks of the need for discernment. He concludes that “Edwards was at atremendous disadvantage [because] he had no readily available theology ofdiscernment.” In fact, according to DeArteaga, “the Reformers rejected the needfor discernment when they threw out the whole of Catholic mystical theology.”
This astonishing interpretation of church history mustnot be allowed to go unchallenged. In the first place, Edwards did have a veryclear-cut “theology of discernment.” This is evident in the clarity of his workThe Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God. DeArteaga would dowell to apply Edwards’s prescription for discernment to many of the ideas hedefends in his book, including Word Faith theology, visualization techniques,and Catholic mysticism.
In the second place, what DeArteaga means when he speaksof “a theology of discernment” is not altogether clear. Apparently he issuggesting that objective criteria of truth—Scripture and sound theology—shouldbe laid aside in favor of a purely mystical approach to discernment.“Discernment” in DeArteaga’s scheme seems to be nothing more than intuition—asanctified gut reaction.
He writes, “Although discernment is principally aspiritual [DeArteaga equates this with mystical] function, it is based oncertain biblical principles which must be taught publicly.”  Whatprinciples these are and how they differ from “theological correctness,”DeArteaga does not attempt to explain. He continues,
In its most basic form such a theology must accept thatthe Holy Spirit can operate in the current age and that the Holy Spirit’soperations can be discerned from the surrounding noise of psychic and demonicinterference. 
I certainly believe that the Holy Spirit operates todayand that His operations are distinguishable from psychic and demonic noise. Edwardsbelieved that too. But in DeArteaga’s assessment, neither Edwards nor I haveany “theology of discernment.”  So what does DeArteaga mean by thisstatement?
What he actually seems to be saying (indeed, it is themain message of his book) is that objective truth cannot be the standard bywhich we discern between what is true and what is false spiritually.Discernment in DeArteaga’s scheme is a mystical ability. It begins when we“accept that the Holy Spirit can operate in the current age” —and by thisDeArteaga seems to mean that we must accept mystical phenomena as the work ofthe Spirit. Then the Spirit-filled individual is supposed to be able to tellinstinctively whether unusual phenomena are truly the work of the Holy Spirit.Since “theological correctness” is a priori ruled out as a standard fordiscernment, we must assume that the criteria for discerning are predominatelysubjective. The front-to-back message of DeArteaga’s book affirms that this isin fact what he means.
But that isn’t a theology of discernment; it is a sureroad to spiritual confusion. As we have seen repeatedly, discernment is relatedto wisdom. It is a function of the biblically informed and Spirit-taughtintellect. It is not a feeling or a “sixth sense.” Discernment is utterlydependent on a right understanding of Scripture—“theological correctness” inWilliam DeArteaga’s terminology. But having attacked all that as pharisaism, hehas ruled out true discernment.
Ultimately, we ignore Edwards’s assessment of eighteenthcentury “emotional excesses” to our own modern peril today. DeArteaga’sconvenient historical revisionism has given an air of academic credibilitywherever emotion-based anarchy manifests itself in churches today. Any focus onthe emotional aspects of the Great Awakening at the expense of its powerfultheological preaching is a recipe for spiritual disaster. And we’ll considerthe present-day fruit of that next time.
(Adapted from Reckless Faith)