Sunday Sermon: Is This Revival? (John 1:1-5)

You're listening to the preaching ministry of Gabriel Hughes, pastor of Providence Reformed Baptist Church in Casa Grande, Arizona. Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday on this podcast, we feature teaching through a New Testament book, an Old Testament book on Thursday, and our Q &A on Friday.

Each Sunday we are pleased to present our sermon series. Here is Pastor Gabe.

John 1:1-13 and the Question of Revival

Let's start in John 1, 1 -5, and then I'm going to skip down to verses 8 -13. So this is John 1, 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Skip to verse 9. The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. I want to talk to you tonight about revival, especially in light of things that have been going on in our culture.

As mentioned in prayer tonight, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which was, I mean, it's hard to believe how recent that was with everything that's happened in the last few weeks. But it was only two and a half weeks ago that he was assassinated.

And then just last week that there was that major revival just up the road from us in.

Phoenix.

At least we're calling it a revival. That's what everybody's referring to it as. But that memorial service that was at State Farm Stadium up there, where we saw something like 100 ,000 people that were in attendance, not even within that stadium, but even across the street in the other stadium, in the arena.

That was kind of their overflow. I think some had even estimated there were something like 200 ,000 plus that were in attendance.

At this thing.

And as I had mentioned during prayer this evening, there are pastor friends of mine up in Phoenix who have seen growth, seen new people come into their churches as a result of these things that are happening in our culture.

And they're asking questions and seeking for answers and praise God, looking for those answers in Jesus Christ. With this kind of movement that we've seen, and a lot of the videos, because of the algorithm right now, if you're on social media and you're pulling up some of those short videos, you're probably seeing a lot of Charlie Kirk videos.

And a lot of those videos are him sharing the gospel. And he's sharing the gospel on college campuses. And there are people that, as a result of what happened with Kirk, want to follow in those steps.

And there are young college men that are putting together evangelistic outreaches on their campuses and doing things like Kirk did with setting up tables out on those campuses and answering questions and sharing the gospel with those who ever would come and argue about whatever issue, but they're using those issues, those political discussions to share the gospel.

With others.

And as far as an evangelistic outreach goes, what a great opportunity. But is this really what people are saying that it is? Is this really revival? Charlie Kirk's widow stood at the platform last week and said that as a result of her husband's death, you did not see the conservative movement burning down cities as you did with George Floyd's death five years ago.

Instead, she said, what you're seeing is revival. But is that what we properly call this? And how can we view this in a right context of seeing it as revival or otherwise or some other movement by some other name?

And so it was asked of me, as we've kind of been doing this series looking at different false beliefs and false religions that have come about, I mean, even as far back as before Christianity to some of those false religions that have come about as a result of the second great awakening that occurred in the 1800s.

It was asked of me, could you do a contrast between the first and second great awakenings and show what was it about that second great awakening that led to so much false belief? So I'm not only going to do that this evening, but in contrasting those two movements of the first and second great awakening, also being able to look at what's presently going on in our cultural context and be able to make some assessments.

So what I'm going to do tonight is, first of all, contrast the first and second great awakening. Secondly, I want to consider Jonathan Edwards' five marks of revival. I'm going to narrow them down to four, actually, but that's what he wrote was the five marks.

Of revival.

And then thirdly, compare that with any modern notions of revival. So first of all, as we contrast the first and second great awakenings in American history, I want to look at the historical context and the timing of those two awakenings.

Secondly, the theological and doctrinal differences between those two movements. And then thirdly, the methods and the social impact of the first and second great awakenings. Now you will probably hear me over the course of this refer to the first great awakening as revival, because I believe that's what it was.

You'll hear me refer to the second great awakening as a movement. I won't necessarily refer to that as revival. And as we go, you will probably see why. So first of all, let's consider the historical context and the timing of those two movements.

So first of all, the first great awakening emerged in the 1730s and 40s within the American colonies, responding primarily to a perceived decline in religious fervor amid the rationalism of the Enlightenment era.

During this period, colonial society was still largely tied to European traditions, with established churches like the Congregationalists and the Anglicans dominating religious life in America. The movement was a revitalization of faith among existing church members who had grown complacent, emphasizing a return to fervent and genuine faithfulness in the face of these secular influences that had come about as a result of the Enlightenment era.

All things considered, the first great awakening did not span a very long period of time. It was short and intense, unfolding over about a decade, concentrated in regions like New England and the Middle Colonies.

This awakening was partly a reaction to the formalism of state-supported religions, where ministers observed dwindling attendance and moral laxity. There wasn't much excitement in what were considered to be state churches.

Now keep in mind, the United States, strictly speaking, did not even exist during the first great awakening. It would not formally become a nation until 1776, nearly a generation after what we refer to as the first great awakening had ended.

The two most prominent voices in this movement were Jonathan Edwards, born in Connecticut, and George Whitefield, born in England, and came to America with his friends John and Charles Wesley in 1738, when Whitefield was about 24 years old.

Now I'll come back to Edwards and Whitefield again. The second great awakening, so now by contrast, that's kind of a brief summary of the historical context and timing of the first great awakening. The second great awakening began around 1800 and lasted about a half century.

When the United States was still fairly new and experiencing rapid expansion, industrialization, and westward migration. So if you're kind of putting this in a historical context, this is after the United States became a nation, but before the Civil War would split the nation in two.

The young republic was grappling with the aftermath of the American Revolution, including democratic ideals, urban growth, and social upheaval like the Market Revolution. This is when the nation was moving away from subsistence-based economy, in which they produced only what people needed and consumed, and now it was moving toward commercial consumption and production.

So there was this desire for abundance, let's have a lot. And this was the kind of environment in which the second great awakening thrived. The most prominent voice during this movement was Charles Granderson Finney.

The first great awakening targeted the church, and it was more insular, whereas the second targeted the unchurched and was more inclusive, reaching those outside of formal denominations and religious institutions.

It spread widely from New England through the South and into the frontier territories, appealing even to immigrants as it adapted to the nation's growing diversity and mobility. The second awakening adapted to the changes that were taking place, which is part of the reason it was able to last so long.

So it continued through half of that century because it was adapting to all of the changes that were happening in the United States. It fostered a sense of individual agency in a liberated democratic society.

But in being inclusive and adaptable, it also shunned many of the characteristics that marked the first great awakening. The first was committed to the teaching of the word and sound doctrine. This meant that there were very fine boundary lines marked by confessions.

The second movement of the 1800s eschewed confession. And I'll expand upon that further as we look at the doctrinal differences between the two awakenings. Despite the differences in doctrinal commitment, there's still reason to argue how the timing of these two movements influenced their scope.

The first great awakening predated American independence, while the second aligned with the newly formed republic's optimism and zeal, setting the stage for broader cultural transformation. So now with that in mind, having looked at the historical context in which these two movements occurred, let's look next at the theological and the doctrinal emphases.

As mentioned, the first great awakening was more deeply rooted in sound doctrine and Bible teaching with parameters that were maintained by historic confessions. With such a high emphasis on scripture, the confessions that were in subjection to scripture were largely reformed.

The majority of the preaching during the first great awakening was, for lack of a better term, Calvinist. With teaching that stressed predestination, human depravity, and the sovereignty of God in salvation.

These characteristics were found in the famed New England preacher, Jonathan Edwards, who articulated such doctrines through sermons like Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, perhaps the most famous sermon ever preached on American soil.

The sermon evoked fear of damnation, provoking heartfelt conversions. If you've ever read any of the history of Edwards preaching Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, he actually was not a very loud spoken individual.

I might think of myself as being louder in tone than Edwards was. Edwards was actually very soft spoken. So soft spoken that the whole congregation had to be dead quiet in order to hear him. But that probably forced the people to listen in on him more intently.

And as he's preaching Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God from a manuscript, there were people in the congregation who would throw themselves up in the air and they would begin weeping and saying, woe is me, I am damned, Lord, save me.

And it would throw Jonathan Edwards totally off his script. He would have to stop and he's looking around at whatever this commotion is going on. And then once the person was able to be quiet and sit back down, then he would peer down and try to find the spot in his manuscript where he last left off and then resume again.

So this was the kind of preaching that was going on during the First Great Awakening. The revival also emphasized the necessity of a profound, often sudden personal experience of grace, but within a framework where salvation was ultimately God's choice and not ours.

This led to divisions between who were called the old lights, who favored a more rational or enlightened theology, and the new lights who wanted a more genuine faith, born not of the will of man, but of God, as we've read in John 1 .13.

While the First Great Awakening was more Calvinist, the Second Great Awakening was more Arminian. In fact, I would say it was even more semi-Pelagian or Pelagian. As R .C. Sproul has pointed out in his lectures on Charles Finney's influence, Finney was a full-blown Pelagian, meaning that he believed and taught there was something inherently good in man who was merely corrupted by sin, yet capable of doing moral good and saving himself.

So the movement placed a great emphasis on free will, universal atonement, and the potential for anyone to achieve salvation through personal effort and making good choices. Influenced by Methodist and Baptist growth, this doctrinal pivot made religion more accessible and optimistic, rejecting the doctrine of God's sovereign election in favor of human moral agency.

Anyone could repent and be saved without waiting for divine intervention. While the First Great Awakening aimed to awaken dormant faith in established believers, or those who at least confessed to have faith, and attended church on a regular basis, the Second encouraged proactive fellowship even outside the church, even with unbelievers, and moral reform even in an unregenerate society as paths to redemption.

These differences reflected broader intellectual shifts. The First countered Enlightenment skepticism with orthodoxy, whereas the Second integrated individualism with the era's emphasis on self-improvement and democracy.

This theological evolution democratized Christianity, making it less elitist and more participatory, which broadened its appeal in a pluralistic society. The First Great Awakening with such a high emphasis on God's Word and effective guardrails in place, there was very little way of any growing heresies that could have thrived in any of these churches.

Again, this was true revival in the church, where any teaching and growth could be properly overseen within the parameters that are set by Scripture. Think of what Paul instructed to Timothy and Titus, don't let anyone teach any different doctrine, 1 Timothy 1 .3.

Preach the word in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, and exhort, 2 Timothy 4 .2. Or to Titus, teach what accords with sound doctrine, Titus 2 .1. This was not the kind of environment where heresy could thrive in the First Great Awakening.

But in the second movement, with more emphasis on inclusivism and emotionalism, this was a much broader environment where the teaching could not be regulated. Now you would still find a high regard for Scripture, but only by way of lip service.

For example, Ellen G. White, who we've talked about, the prophetess behind Seventh-day Adventism, she said, Scripture is the Word of God and therefore our highest authority. It's even written in their 28 Articles of Faith.

But even though she said that, and the Seventh-day Adventists believe that, the visions that she had are still regarded as from God and the primary revelation that shapes their religion. Mormonism also placed a high value on Scripture.

It's also in their Statement of Faith. Joseph Smith just wrote his own Scripture. The Jehovah's Witnesses placed a high value on Scripture, but Charles Taze Russell interpreted the Bible his own way, even writing his own translation of the Bible.

You also had the Stone-Campbell Movement, from which the Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ, and Christian churches come. You go to any of their websites and you're likely to find, under their Statement of Faith, no creed but Christ, or no confession but the Bible.

That's a creed, and it is a confession, but it is one that is not rooted in orthodoxy. So these were the things, these were the big differences in the doctrine that you would see coming out of the First Great Awakening versus the Second Great Awakening.

First Great Awakening, high emphasis on Scripture. Second Great Awakening, it's our own personal interpretations that really govern over the Scripture. And then third, we look at the methods and the social impact of these two movements.

In terms of the leadership, the First Great Awakening was known for its itinerant preachers who traveled extensively, delivering impassioned outdoor sermons to large crowds. The most prominent of these preachers was the aforementioned George Whitefield, an Anglican evangelist, but Jonathan Edwards was no slouch when it came to evangelism either.

Edwards would go out to Native Americans, and he would hope by the power of the Holy Spirit, even if he did not understand their language or they didn't understand his, that he could just go out there and preach and somebody would understand it.

Now what's funny about the evangelism of the First Great Awakening is that it was more spontaneous, whereas the evangelism in the Second Great Awakening was more planned and contrived. They took the open-air preaching of Edwards and Whitefield and morphed it into organized camp meetings, planned revivals, and what Finney termed the new measures, such as the anxious bench where sinners publicly confessed.

This was the precursor to the altar call and the sinner's prayer. Finney and Lyman Beecher emphasize systematic evangelism, viewing revivals as plannable events rather than mysterious outpourings of the Spirit.

So the interesting thing here is that in church, in the First Great Awakening, that was very structured according to the Word of God, which was the authority over every person. In the Second Great Awakening, in churches, it was a lot more open and free and according to them led by the Spirit, or if we didn't like what was in our churches, we'll just start our own churches and we'll believe our own things.

So there is where there was a lot more subjectivity. But when it came to revival in the First Great Awakening, or evangelism rather, in the First Great Awakening, evangelism was spontaneous. You would just pick a spot in public and go out there and preach.

And whoever came to hear would hear and whoever would be so moved by the Spirit would be moved by the Spirit. In the Second Great Awakening, evangelism was rigid and structured and it was planned and it was going to be this way and we're going to use these kinds of tactics to convince the people to join our movement.

So you can see kind of the flip-flop, the reverse that happens there between the First and Second Great Awakening regarding church and regarding evangelism. This approach in the Second Great Awakening was more methodical and inclusive, incorporating women in roles like preaching and exhortation, which expanded participation beyond the First Great Awakening's more patriarchal or male-dominated model, led by the biblically learned and more educated.

Socially, the First Great Awakening fostered great religious diversity by weakening state churches and actually encouraging denominational competition. This contributed to Thomas Jefferson's writing on the separation of church and state, but that's a for another time.

It promoted education through institutions like Princeton University, once the most prominent seminary in the nation, but not a seminary you should ever send your children today. In stark contrast, the Second Great Awakening ignited widespread social reforms, including abolitionism, temperance, women's suffrage, and prison reform, as converts channeled their zeal into benevolent societies and missionary work.

Now, on the surface of that, there's nothing wrong with that. We should be out there loving our neighbor and using those as opportunities to share the gospel. But this is where the Second Great Awakening put the emphasis.

The emphasis was on social reform over doctrinal soundness. The whole idea of the prison existing as a penitentiary was born out of the Second Great Awakening, where prison is the place where a criminal can be reformed and then be inserted back into society a changed man.

The schools that resulted from the Second Great Awakening were colleges and seminaries, emphasizing moral perfection as a societal goal. The First Great Awakening focused more on inward personal conviction and salvation, or as we've sometimes said, one's personal relationship with Jesus.

There was emphasis on personal growth and holiness, and the outward effect would be improved churches, improved families, improved communities and societies, as Jesus Christ works in and through that person as a citizen of his kingdom, loving others and shining his lights in the world.

The Second Great Awakening, extended outward rather, focused less on a person's individual salvation and growth and holiness, but linking faith to progressive activism, shaping America's moral landscape, ultimately influencing movements like the Civil War era abolition.

And while it's true that the abolition was achieved, it was not without great individual and social costs through the American Civil War. So these are the main contrasts between the First and Second Great Awakening.

Again, we've looked at historical context and timing, secondly, the theological and doctrinal emphasis, and thirdly, methods and social impact. Now let's consider Edwards' five marks of revival. And as I said, I'm going to whittle these down into four.

So praise God, I'm going to shorten your time a little bit this evening. But here were Edwards' marks of a true revival. Now Edwards saw a real revival happen in his day. And again, it happened in a short period of time that was only in the span of about a decade.

So he was able to witness it happen and then be able to write on it afterward, all within his lifetime. And so Edwards said that the marks of a true revival must meet these five criteria. Number one, Edwards argued that a clear sign that something is from the Spirit of God is that the work raises people esteem of the true Jesus and establishes the truth about Him in their minds.

So there is going to be an exaltation of Christ that will happen in a true revival. That is the first and I would say highest mark of any genuine revival that takes place. And by the way, I'm reading this as summarized by Rob Brenanski, who's a pastor friend of mine up at Desert Hills Church in Glendale.

He's already done this work for me, so that cuts down on my time a little bit. But using Edwards' marks of true revival and then the questions that we ask as a result of this. So the second mark of true revival, Edwards asserted that the work of the Spirit opposes the interests of Satan's kingdom.

If the Spirit of God so works to promote the Son of God, He must of necessity move to destroy the works of the devil, since that is the very thing that Jesus came to do. 1 John 3, 8, the reason that the Son of God came was to destroy the works of the devil.

And so we will see not only this exaltation of Christ, but you will see this active push against the work that Satan would be doing. And this would happen first in a church. Like are our Satan's doctrines advancing in a particular church?

Well, you're not going to see revival there. So it would be something that would occur and push that wickedness outward because it does not belong in a body of Christ. A third mark of true revival, oh and by the way, going along with that second mark is repentance.

There is no revival without repentance. So if sin is not being repented of and therefore even pushed out of the body of Christ, that's not a place where you see revival. A third mark of revival, Edwards highlights the biblical truth that a genuine work of the Spirit of God raises people's esteem for the Word of God.

Since the Spirit of God is the Spirit of truth, John 16, 13, and the Word of God is the truth, John 17, 17, the Spirit of God necessarily increases people's trust in and regard for the Bible whenever and wherever he is at work.

You will see a love for God's Word and a preaching of that Word where there is revival. And then number four, and this is to combine Edwards' fourth and fifth marks, a work of the Spirit of God convinces men of the truth resulting in love for God, that's Edwards' fourth mark, and man, which is Edwards' fifth mark.

As the apostle John wrote in 1 John 4, 7, Beloved, let us love one another for love is from God. Or again in verse 12, if we love one another, God abides in us. Love is a non-negotiable mark of those under the influence of the Spirit for anyone who does not love does not know God, 1 John 4, 7.

So in light of these four marks, Edwards' marks of a true revival, Rob Bernanski asked these four questions. Number one, does this movement raise people's esteem of and faith in Jesus Christ? So as we're evaluating a movement that people are terming revival, and by the way, we love that word.

I've heard that word thrown around my entire life. I've heard it in individual churches. We're going to have a revival meeting. It's scheduled for this and such and such a time. Wow, so the Holy Spirit has marked it on your calendar that this is when we're doing revival.

So you see it happen in individual churches. You see it happen in communities. We're going to have a community-wide revival. I saw that happen in a town where I was a pastor, and we're going to get all the churches together at City Park, and we're going to have a good old fashion revival, they said.

It was not. It was rather ecumenical, but it was not a revival. Or you'll hear it happen with such things as what's going on in our culture right now. You'll see this passionate zeal and love for Christ, and people will start saying, this is revival.

So what sort of questions should we be asking to see if it's truly a revival? Well, first of all, is it raising people's esteem of and faith in Jesus Christ? Secondly, does this movement oppose the interests of Satan's kingdom by turning people away from their sinful desires and worldly lusts?

Are we seeing a repentance as a result of whatever movement is taking place? Number three, has this movement resulted in people having a higher view of Scripture and a greater submission to its authority?

Is God's Word revered and being preached? And number four, has this movement convinced people of the truth so that they have become ardent lovers of both God and their fellow image bearers? Now, in light of Edward's marks of a true revival and these four questions that Rob Bernanski presents, is what we're witnessing in the culture right now a revival?

I have my personal opinions about that, but I'm going to answer very simply this way. God only knows. It's really too early to tell. But as I said in a sermon, I believe this was two weeks ago, we have an opportunity right now.

It is a real opportunity in which people are truly seeking for something outside of what is, I can't make heads or tails of what's going on in this culture. Or they may even be mourning over the fact that one of the greatest voices in our culture has been taken away from us.

And I mean, it may not just be Charlie Kirk. It may be because John MacArthur passed away or Vodie Bauckham died so early at the age of 56 this past Thursday. It could be things like this. And you see it all happening at once, all kind of at one time in one year.

And it causes people to ask, what is God doing? Or what is even happening? And as they're asking those questions and they're kind of getting outside themselves, you know how complacent Americans can be.

As they're kind of opening themselves up out of their shell, we have an opportunity and an open tilled heart to be able to sow the seeds of the gospel and hope that the gospel that gets in there is genuine faith and grows and produces a harvest.

So let's not miss the opportunity, regardless of whether or not we would look at the present movement. It's certainly a movement, but is that movement a revival? We'll wait and see. But in the meantime, may God work in the hearts of His people and especially in His church, that God's word would be revered, that Christ would be exalted, that Satan's kingdom would be opposed, and that love for God and man would increase.

Amen?

You've been listening to the preaching of Pastor Gabriel Hughes,.

A presentation of Providence Reformed Baptist Church in Casa Grande, Arizona. For more information about our church, visit our website at providencecasagrande .com. On behalf of our church family, my name is Becky, thanking you for listening.

Join us again Monday for more Bible study, when we understand the text.