Revival is...

[Dr. Bob]

Why have the Old Testament today? I Cor 10:11 answers, "Now, these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down FOR OUT INSTRUCTION". So, I learn from the Old what God meant by "revival" of heart, spirit, work.

Ps 69:32 When the humble see it [child of God praising Hm] they will be glad; you who seek God, let your hearts revive.

Ps 71:20 You [Lord] Who has made me see many troubles and calamities will revive me again; from the depths of the earth, You will bring me up again.

Ps 85:6 Will You not revive us again, that Your people may rejoice in you?

Is 57:15 For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: “I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite."

Lam 1:16 “For these things I weep; my eyes flow with tears; for a comforter is far from me, one to revive my spirit; my children are desolate, for the enemy has prevailed.”

Hab 3:2 O LORD, I have heard the report of You, and Your work, O LORD, do I fear. In the midst of the years revive your work; in the midst of the years make it known; in wrath remember mercy.

 

[John of Japan]

"Reviving somebody does not mean giving him extraordinary physical powers. It does not mean invigorating him beyond the normal. It just means bringing him back to the way he should be. This is also what 'revival' means in the Scriptures when applied to the spiritual life of God's people."
Rick Flanders, Back to Normal (Menomonee Falls, WI: Preach the Word Ministries, Inc. 2003), p. 8.

 

[John of Japan]

“Dr. Hyman Appelman, Jewish evangelist, tells how in San Angelo, Texas, in a hotel room he, as a state evangelist under the employ of the Baptist State Convention, discussed revivals with his superior. That godly man tried to comfort Dr. Appelman, saying that he must not expect such great revivals as had occurred in other ages since now people were distracted by radio, by automobiles and other luxuries, by a pleasure-madness, by leisure time and by widespread wickedness. Dr. Appelman should go on and do the best he could but not hope for a return of the revivals of D. L. Moody, said the good man.

“Dr. Appelman tells how he bowed his head upon the bed and wept uncontrollably. Then he told his distressed superior that if the Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit were not adequate for this wicked age and well as all other ages, then the gospel was truly out-of-date and Christ was not all He had claimed to be.”
John R. Rice, We Can Have Revival Now (Wheaton: Sword of the Lord, 1950), 117.

 

[Tenchi]

What you are missing is that Rice a linguistic product of his time. He wrote the book I quoted from in 1950, 75 years ago. It was a compilation of his lectures on revival at Bob Jones University at the time. I don't know how old you are, but 75 years ago nobody would have taken his statement to be advocating what you are taking it as. Everyone knew back then that "pay the price" meant sacrifice, usually in a negative way, but not always.

Even 75 years ago, "paying" and "price" would have had a transactional flavor. Folks back then knew what it was to pay money for something they wanted. Very likely, as you say, some Christians would have immediately understood Rice's language to refer to sacrifice. But you quoted his words in this thread in a time that has become profoundly consumerist. Is it advisable, then, to speak of revival in the way John Rice did in the quotation you offered?

In another book, he clearly tied "pay the price" to the power of God, writing, and I quoted that already, but here it is again: "When the D. L. Moody revival came to America and England, the moral and spiritual conditions were tremendously bad, even in many ways worse than conditions today. Conditions did not deter the power of God then and cannot prevent His blessing now, if His people pay the price for revival. God must feel it as an insult to His power an grace that people think revivals can only be had in propitious circumstances" (John R. Rice, Revival Can Happen Now, p. 26).

This quotation, it seems to me, strengthens the idea that revival is a transaction between God and those who need His reviving rather than the restoration of good relations between God and His wayward children. And Rice seems to contradict himself: He writes that "conditions did not deter the power of God then and cannot prevent His blessing now" but then indicates that God's reviving power is conditioned upon whether or not "His people pay the price for revival." So, then, God's reviving power can be deterred by at least one condition: His people won't "pay the price" for revival.

I don't know why you immediately assumed a non-spiritual meaning for Rice's statement. He certainly meant it in a spiritual way. I take from that, that you do not know who he was. He was a noted evangelist of 1937-1980, writing over 200 books and pamphlets about revival, soul-winning, Christian standards, commentaries, etc. He never attributed revival solely to human sources, but only preached that we need to get things right to be able to pray for revival.

I haven't "assumed a non-spiritual meaning for Rice's statement;" I've only observed that his words have a very transactional quality that seems to locate God's revival of His children in their effort. Perhaps, though, as you suggest, were I to read Rice's writing in a broader degree, his "paying the price" remark wouldn't seem quite as it does to me.

In any case, it's very strange to me to hear Rice, who has been the undeserving object of God's mercy and grace, to whom God reached out when he was "without strength," "dead in trespasses and sins," and "foolish, disobedient, deceived" (Romans 5:6; Eph. 2:1; Tit. 3:1) suggest that if Christians don't do what their spiritual compromise prevents them from doing (humble themselves, pray, repent), they will never be spiritually revived by God. This isn't how God acted in His redemption of John Rice (or any other born-again person). Without God first acting through Christ to "pay the price" of John's sin, and then convict, illuminate and draw John Rice to Himself (Jn. 6:44; 16:8; 2 Ti. 2:25), John Rice would never have come to Him, right? But when it comes to revival, Rice seems to think this dynamic is reversed, that the Christian must do all the "price paying" in order to move God to revive His own children.

Your last remark in the quotation above highlights the peculiarity of Rice's thinking: "We need to get things right to be able to pray for revival." Well, if we've got things right, why do we need revival? If the Christian in need of revival has humbled himself, and gone to prayer and repented of his condition, in what way does he yet need to be revived?

 

[John of Japan]

Even 75 years ago, "paying" and "price" would have had a transactional flavor. Folks back then knew what it was to pay money for something they wanted. Very likely, as you say, some Christians would have immediately understood Rice's language to refer to sacrifice. But you quoted his words in this thread in a time that has become profoundly consumerist. Is it advisable, then, to speak of revival in the way John Rice did in the quotation you offered?



This quotation, it seems to me, strengthens the idea that revival is a transaction between God and those who need His reviving rather than the restoration of good relations between God and His wayward children. And Rice seems to contradict himself: He writes that "conditions did not deter the power of God then and cannot prevent His blessing now" but then indicates that God's reviving power is conditioned upon whether or not "His people pay the price for revival." So, then, God's reviving power can be deterred by at least one condition: His people won't "pay the price" for revival.



I haven't "assumed a non-spiritual meaning for Rice's statement;" I've only observed that his words have a very transactional quality that seems to locate God's revival of His children in their effort. Perhaps, though, as you suggest, were I to read Rice's writing in a broader degree, his "paying the price" remark wouldn't seem quite as it does to me.

In any case, it's very strange to me to hear Rice, who has been the undeserving object of God's mercy and grace, to whom God reached out when he was "without strength," "dead in trespasses and sins," and "foolish, disobedient, deceived" (Romans 5:6; Eph. 2:1; Tit. 3:1) suggest that if Christians don't do what their spiritual compromise prevents them from doing (humble themselves, pray, repent), they will never be spiritually revived by God. This isn't how God acted in His redemption of John Rice (or any other born-again person). Without God first acting through Christ to "pay the price" of John's sin, and then convict, illuminate and draw John Rice to Himself (Jn. 6:44; 16:8; 2 Ti. 2:25), John Rice would never have come to Him, right? But when it comes to revival, Rice seems to think this dynamic is reversed, that the Christian must do all the "price paying" in order to move God to revive His own children.

Your last remark in the quotation above highlights the peculiarity of Rice's thinking: "We need to get things right to be able to pray for revival." Well, if we've got things right, why do we need revival? If the Christian in need of revival has humbled himself, and gone to prayer and repented of his condition, in what way does he yet need to be revived?

So, then, are you a Calvinist? That's what this sounds like. I am not, and Rice was not, so our views of revival are going to be very different.

 

[JesusFan]

So, then, are you a Calvinist? That's what this sounds like. I am not, and Rice was not, so our views of revival are going to be very different.

The saying though is that all of us actually do pray to God as Calvinists, as will be appealing to the Lord for Him to do His revival and saving work among us now

 

[Tenchi]

So, then, are you a Calvinist? That's what this sounds like. I am not, and Rice was not, so our views of revival are going to be very different.

No, no. I'm definitely NOT a Calvinist. I hold a soteriological view that is a combination of Molinism and Provisionism. But not being Calvinist does not mean I deny that God takes the initiative in saving people, as His word plainly says He does. I just don't think His initiative in this regard is coercive, as the Calvinist would, but it is necessary.

 

[John of Japan]

Your last remark in the quotation above highlights the peculiarity of Rice's thinking: "We need to get things right to be able to pray for revival." Well, if we've got things right, why do we need revival? If the Christian in need of revival has humbled himself, and gone to prayer and repented of his condition, in what way does he yet need to be revived?

I'll just answer this one point, since the rest of what you wrote is simply belaboring that one point about a transaction. I've answered that point sufficiently, I believe.

Apparently we have a different view of revival here. I believe that revival occurs when Christians get right with God through repentance, getting the bitterness out of their hearts, going to others and getting things right, surrendering to God in every way. Then God sends His Holy Spirit's power as at Pentecost. Then what? Other Christians get right with God, and sinners are saved. I have been saying this throughout the whole thread. I got this from my own study of revival from the Word of God, not just from my grandfather, John R. Rice.

Perhaps it would help if you yourself defined "revival" for me, because I'm not getting a clear sense about what you think it is.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Are you accusing me of being lost here?

No... Where do you get that from?

That's not the sense I was using the word "you"...

I was saying revival is for the Church, not for the unsaved. to revive is to make alive AGAIN.

To give life to something that never had life is not the meaning of revival.

You can't share the Gospel with the lost unless you yourself are alive - hence revival.

 

[37818]

No... Where do you get that from?

You can't win the lost when you're lost and wandering yourself. Jesus called it blind guides I believe.

 

[Hazelelponi]

@37818

Did you catch my edit to explain better?

That's not the sense I was using the word "you"...

I was saying revival is for the Church, not for the unsaved. to revive is to make alive AGAIN.

To give life to something that never had life is not the meaning of revival.

You (the Church) can't share the Gospel with the lost unless you yourself (the Church) are alive - hence revival.

 

[37818]

@37818

Did you catch my edit to explain better?

That's not the sense I was using the word "you"...

I was saying revival is for the Church, not for the unsaved. to revive is to make alive AGAIN.

To give life to something that never had life is not the meaning of revival.

You (the Church) can't share the Gospel with the lost unless you yourself (the Church) are alive - hence revival.

A genuine church is only made up of those who are alive in Christ.

 

[Hazelelponi]

A genuine church is only made up of those who are alive in Christ.

Revelation seems to indicate an ability to backslide... In such cases repentance is necessary.

 

[JesusFan]

No, no. I'm definitely NOT a Calvinist. I hold a soteriological view that is a combination of Molinism and Provisionism. But not being Calvinist does not mean I deny that God takes the initiative in saving people, as His word plainly says He does. I just don't think His initiative in this regard is coercive, as the Calvinist would, but it is necessary.

Which means ?

 

[Piper 2]

Reminder - we do NOT use "heretic" when talking about true believers who happen to hold other doctrinal interpretations/views that you hold. IF they are real heretics, using the word is allowed.

Was Finney a heretic? Finney did not hold traditional theology we Baptists maintain. He denied the doctrine of man's depravity, teaching that humans can please God without the intervention of His grace. Salvation was up to man, so much of his "innovation" in evangelism was on the mental/emotional level.

I love this. Dr. Bob it is so good to have your voice. This is the kind of thing that was happening to me all the time a year ago. Because I believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement, I was called out as believing a false doctrine over and over by a certain prolific poster. He would not stop saying it and no one was moderating.

Thanks for being here, brother. I left you a message in another thread.

 

[37818]

Revelation seems to indicate an ability to backslide... In such cases repentance is necessary.

Not according to Hebrews 10:39, But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

 

[Tenchi]

Apparently we have a different view of revival here. I believe that revival occurs when Christians get right with God through repentance, getting the bitterness out of their hearts, going to others and getting things right, surrendering to God in every way. Then God sends His Holy Spirit's power as at Pentecost.

Interesting. I believe revival is a return of wayward, back-slidden Christians to joyful, holy, life-changing fellowship with their heavenly Father. It's a work of the Holy Spirit who convicts, illuminates, strengthens and changes the cold, compromised believer (Jn. 16:8; 14:26; Eph. 3:16; Phil. 2:13; 2 Cor. 3:18; Ga. 5:22-23). At times, the Spirit works in tandem with a man like your grandfather, or mine, who preaches holiness, repentance and the crucified life to an entire congregation, and at others, he works to revive individuals who've reached bottom and, battered and exhausted by having their own way, are finally willing to pursue God's way.

In the many stories of revival my grandfather told me, I don't recall him ever speaking of Pentecost-like moments, though there were confrontations with the demonic that had, in some cases, hidden in plain sight in churches, fouling them profoundly (1 Cor. 5:6; Ga. 5:9).

 

[Tenchi]

Which means ?

Please be more specific.

 

[David Lamb]

No, no. I'm definitely NOT a Calvinist. I hold a soteriological view that is a combination of Molinism and Provisionism. But not being Calvinist does not mean I deny that God takes the initiative in saving people, as His word plainly says He does. I just don't think His initiative in this regard is coercive, as the Calvinist would, but it is necessary.

But Calvinists don't believe God's initiative in salvation is coercive. He doesn't say, "I'm going to make you a Christian against your will." Rather, He grants the sinner new, spiritual life, without which that sinner cannot believe on the Lord Jesus Christ:

“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.” (Eph 2:1-3 NKJV)