“大觉醒”（Great Awakening）是始于十八世纪中叶的新英格兰州（New England）。这是一阵翻天覆地的复兴浪潮，卷席了美国各处的殖民地，直到最终销声匿迹。千万人都在“大觉醒”的复兴中归信了主，及至美国殖民地的属灵氛围都彻底改变了，甚至世俗历史的记载中“大觉醒”被视为美国早期历史的最重要事件之一。
当然，根据德阿泰加的说法，加尔文神学是“大复兴”的衰退的主因  （并最大的杀手）但这一断言全然无视历史的事实。
A Look at the GreatAwakening
by John MacArthur
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
The Great Awakening was a dramatic revival that began inNew England in the mid-eighteenth century and swept the colonies before itfinally subsided. Multitudes were converted in the Awakening, and the spiritualclimate of colonial America was transformed. Even in secular history books, theGreat Awakening is treated as one of the most significant events in earlyAmerican history.
Signs of revival first appeared in New Jersey among DutchReformed congregations as early as 1726. A few years later a young but alreadywell-known Massachusetts pastor named Jonathan Edwards began to see aremarkable increase in the number of conversions among his flock. In 1736Edwards published his first work on the revival, A Narrative of SurprisingConversions. He could not have known then that the conversions he was witnessingin his own parish were the first stirrings of the greatest revival in Americanhistory. Moreover, Edwards himself, along with English evangelist and open-airpreacher George Whitefield, would be the chief human instruments God used tobring the movement to full fruition in the 1740s. By the time it was over,virtually every community in the colonies had been touched by the revival.Everywhere the Awakening went, it was marked by strong preaching, a resurgenceof sound doctrine, a distinct emphasis on justification by faith, powerfulconviction of sin, immediate conversions, and dramatically changed lives.
But another significant mark of the revival was thepotent emotional response it generated. Some people responded to the preachingwith intense physical reactions—fainting, trembling, crying out, and shock.Those phenomena occasionally gave way to even more extraordinarymanifestations—jumping, twitching, dancing, ecstasies, trances, visions, andeven uncontrolled laughter.
Obviously there are some rather remarkable parallelsbetween the phenomena that occurred in the Great Awakening and what hashappened in the last few decades. And thisfact did not escape advocates of the laughing revivalbirthed in Toronto in 1994. Gerald Coates, a British charismatic leader, wrote,
Those who have studied Whitefield and Wesley, JonathanEdwards and other revivalists will know that it is precisely this phenomena[“laughter and tears and people’s strength failing them” as seen in the Torontomovement] which took place [during the Great Awakening] in worship, throughtestimonies and the preaching of the gospel. These things are not new andmarked very many (though not every) [sic] revivals. 
Since Jonathan Edwards was the most outspoken defender ofthe Great Awakening, many modern charismatics hope to enlist Edwards as anapologist for their cause. WilliamDeArteaga, for example, is convinced that“Edwards would have relished [the faith-cure] movement,”  and that “Edwards would rejoice in the way Jesusis unabashedly praised and worshiped within the charismatic community.” 
Edwards, who is arguably the greatest theologian and mostprofound thinker America has ever produced, would certainly serve as aformidable ally for the movement.
But would Edwards defend laughing revivals and moderncharismatic manifestations as true works of God? He left several volumes thatmake his opinions on these matters quite clear. The historical facts actuallysuggest he would be appalled by the movement. He would almost certainly labelit fanaticism. Why do so many promoters of mystical phenomena believe he wouldbe sympathetic to their cause?
First of all, Edwards wrote to defend the Great Awakeningas a true revival. And he wrote in response to a wave of severe attacks thatfocused largely on the movement’s emotional excesses. Edwards’s nemesis in thedays of the Great Awakening was Charles Chauncy, pastor of Boston’s FirstChurch. Chauncy became the most outspoken opponent of the Awakening, whileEdwards was its most articulate defender.
DeArteaga’s thesis is that opposition killed the GreatAwakening. He claims that “consensus orthodoxy”—the prevailing doctrinalopinions in New England—grieved the Holy Spirit because men like Chauncy couldnot tolerate the displays of emotion that went with the revival.
And, oddly, the chief theological villain of DeArteaga’saccount is Calvinism—the belief that God is sovereign in the salvation ofsinners. Arminianism—the teaching that the human will ultimately determineswhether a person is saved or lost—is portrayed by DeArteaga as a benign butoften misunderstood refinement of evangelical theology. In DeArteaga’sassessment, “pure Calvinist theology could not interpret the spiritualexperiences that were to accompany the Great Awakening.”  And so, DeArteaga summarizes, “using theassumptions of Calvinist theology,” Charles Chauncy “ensured the defeat of theAwakening.” 
One or two rather significant historical details renderthat thesis altogether untenable. The facts are that Chauncy leaned towardArminianism and ultimately helped found Unitarianism —while Jonathan Edwardsremained a staunch Calvinist all his life. Moreover, the other towering figurein the Great Awakening, George Whitefield, was also a committed Calvinist.
The “consensus theology” of that day was, in fact,Arminian. In the thirty years before the Awakening, Calvinism was in seriousdecline. Edwards and Whitefield were perceived as theological dinosaurs by mostof their contemporaries because they held to the old theology.  They brilliantly defended Calvinism againstattacks from men like Chauncy. Their preaching of the Calvinist doctrines ofhuman depravity and divine sovereignty were the very thing that sparked theAwakening. Edwards recorded this:
In some, even the view of the glory of God’s sovereignty,in the exercises of his grace, has surprised the soul with such sweetness, asto produce [weeping, joy, and crying out.] I remember an instance of one, who,reading something concerning God’s sovereign way of saving sinners, as beingself-moved—having no regard to men’s own righteousness as the motive of hisgrace, but as magnifying himself and abasing man, or to that purpose—felt sucha sudden rapture of joy and delight in the consideration of it. 
Far from posing a threat to the Great Awakening,Calvinist doctrine was at the heart of the movement.
None of that matters to DeArteaga. Nowhere in his bookdoes he even acknowledge that Edwards was a Calvinist or that the Awakening wasprompted by the preaching of doctrines precious to Calvinists. He simplyrecounts the Great Awakening with his own revisionist slant. Throughout thebook, Calvinist theology remains DeArteaga’s favorite bogeyman, the epitome oflatter-day pharisaism. But the Calvinism he attacks is a caricature,exaggerated to make an easy target. He suggests, for example, that Calvin’s viewof God “is closer to the concept of God depicted in the Koran, all sovereignyet ruling the universe capriciously” —analtogether untrue and unfair way to represent the Calvinist conception of God’ssovereignty. Citing Catholic historian Haire Belloc as his authority, DeArteagaeven blames Calvinism for Europe’s spiritual decline —aview impartial historians would roundly reject.
And, of course, according to DeArteaga, Calvinisttheology was responsible for the demise of the Great Awakening —an assertion that utterly disregards the factsof history.
But if we want to get the real facts concerning the GreatAwakening and what led to its eventual demise, our best source will always bean eyewitness account. And as we’ll see next week, Jonathan Edwards has alreadyprovided us with plenty of in-depth analysis.
(Adapted from Reckless Faith)