What do you think?
Rate this book
Forerunner of the Charismatic Movement: The Life of Edward Irving
Paperback. Red penned note on half title page. Wear on all edges of text. Else good
- GenresBiographyChurch History
Paperback
First published November 1, 1987
1 person is currently reading
53 people want to read
About the author
Arnold A. Dallimore
20 books29 followersArnold A. Dallimore (1911-1998) was born in Canada of British parents. He was pastor of the Baptist Church at Cottam, Ontario, for almost twenty-four years. During his studies at Central Baptist Seminary, Toronto, he was awakened to a life-long interest in the great evangelist George Whitefield, whose biography he was to write (2 volumes, published by the Trust). He also wrote biographies of Edward Irving, the forerunner of the charismatic movement, Susannah Wesley and C. H. Spurgeon, whose preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle was frequently attended by his maternal grandfather and his mother (as a small child).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
November 27, 2022
Dallimore, Arnold. Forerunner of the Charismatic Movement: The Life of Edward Irving. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.
Edward Irving’s more noticeable errors–e.g., speaking in tongues, lack of discernment–distract from the root problem. Irving’s problem was not simply that he sought to revive the apostolic gifts. Rather, he sought to meet Christ outside of where Christ promised to be found. Although Arnold Dallimore is a critic of Irving, he is quite fair. The book is well-written.
Irving’s early life includes the curious incident where he stopped attending the local Church of Scotland and visited a Seceder church, and he did so on principled grounds. What is strange is that it does not appear that Irving was actually converted. Moreover, unless I missed something, Irving, despite his problems with the Church of Scotland, stayed in the Church of Scotland.
Irving’s initial problem, one perhaps common to many talented young men, was his initial rise to fame. He got too famous too quickly. While it did go to his head, he quickly lost much (but not all) influence. The high and mighty of London were initially attracted to him as an orator. Once he started preaching about the end times, they went elsewhere. It seems he embraced something like premillennialism, though his system was by no means coherent. By itself this is not all that remarkable. What it did was point Irving to the idea that before the return of Christ, the apostolic gifts must once again manifest themselves.
Something else happened before that, however. Irving was accused of preaching “the sinful nature of Christ’s humanity.” Whatever else he might have meant by it, he was out of his depth as a thinker. Dallimore does a decent job outlining the position (95ff), although not all of the tenets are heretical:
When Christ came to earth, he took postlapsarian nature, not prelapsarian.
Christ was subject to the same sinful tendencies as we are.
Christ’s battle was a real one.
Christ was victorious by the power of the Holy Spirit, not because of his divine nature.
This same Holy Spirit is equally available to all of us.
Christ presented to the Father a perfect human nature.
The above terminology is mine, not Irving’s. Irving was quite inept at explaining his position. Several of these points are indeed problematic. Irving could have appealed to numerous Eastern fathers and at least blunted the charge of heresy. It is doubtful he knew of them, however. Let us work through these points.
1’ The reason he said postlapsarian is obvious. Does Jesus assume all of my human nature? Gregory of Nazianzus in his second letter to Cledonius said he did. Prelapsarian humanity did not need to be redeemed. The problem, however, in simply saying that Christ took postlapsarian humanity is that our fallen human nature has sinful tendencies that go far beyond that of mere temptation. In other words, concupiscence is sin.
2’ Tendencies is a stronger word than temptation. Had he said temptations, I doubt any would have been concerned.
3’ This seems true enough.
4’ This is mostly true. We are not Lutherans. We believe Jesus was gifted with the graces of the Holy Spirit above his companions. The synoptics often mention that Jesus did his miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. There is more to the story, however.
4* It would have behooved Irving to very clearly state that the Holy Spirit immediately sanctified Jesus’s human nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary. That would have allowed him to say Jesus took a real humanity while avoiding concupiscence.
5’ If Jesus was gifted with the graces of the Holy Spirit beyond his companions, then we cannot simply say, pace Irving, that we can do the same things by the power of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, Jesus is not stingy with the Holy Spirit.
6’ By itself that is a true proposition.
In any case, it is not surprising that Irving was eventually deposed for this teaching. I do not think that slowed him down, as his “charismatic” ministry was just beginning. That Irving was wrong on the charismatic gifts should go without saying. Let us take the position of a charismatic, however, and see if Irving’s practice holds up. It does not. Paul’s admonitions to the churches are clear: all things should be done decently and in good order. That means one or two prophesy (presumably at most!). If any speak in tongues, let them be interpreted. None of that happened. It was chaos.
In what is perhaps a different angle from today’s charismatics, the Irvingites said the tongues were actual foreign languages, not a “heavenly language.” In any case, the Irvingites were pressed to defend the interpretations, which were never more concrete than “Behold He cometh!”
You can probably guess the rest of the story. Here is what is remarkable, though: many stalwarts of the Scottish church actually spoke highly of Irving as a person. See Robert Murray M’Cheyne’s touching words.
In light of today’s experience, Irving comes across as quite normal. We are used to seeing Pentecostal churches. His prophecy talks pale in comparison to Left Behind. In terms of talent, Irving seems to be quite similar to Mark Driscoll, except that Irving did not have the abuse scandals and by all accounts was a quite gentle person.
While by no means a scholarly account, the book covers most of the relevant material and was no doubt a welcome addition to material on Irving.
Edward Irving’s more noticeable errors–e.g., speaking in tongues, lack of discernment–distract from the root problem. Irving’s problem was not simply that he sought to revive the apostolic gifts. Rather, he sought to meet Christ outside of where Christ promised to be found. Although Arnold Dallimore is a critic of Irving, he is quite fair. The book is well-written.
Irving’s early life includes the curious incident where he stopped attending the local Church of Scotland and visited a Seceder church, and he did so on principled grounds. What is strange is that it does not appear that Irving was actually converted. Moreover, unless I missed something, Irving, despite his problems with the Church of Scotland, stayed in the Church of Scotland.
Irving’s initial problem, one perhaps common to many talented young men, was his initial rise to fame. He got too famous too quickly. While it did go to his head, he quickly lost much (but not all) influence. The high and mighty of London were initially attracted to him as an orator. Once he started preaching about the end times, they went elsewhere. It seems he embraced something like premillennialism, though his system was by no means coherent. By itself this is not all that remarkable. What it did was point Irving to the idea that before the return of Christ, the apostolic gifts must once again manifest themselves.
Something else happened before that, however. Irving was accused of preaching “the sinful nature of Christ’s humanity.” Whatever else he might have meant by it, he was out of his depth as a thinker. Dallimore does a decent job outlining the position (95ff), although not all of the tenets are heretical:
When Christ came to earth, he took postlapsarian nature, not prelapsarian.
Christ was subject to the same sinful tendencies as we are.
Christ’s battle was a real one.
Christ was victorious by the power of the Holy Spirit, not because of his divine nature.
This same Holy Spirit is equally available to all of us.
Christ presented to the Father a perfect human nature.
The above terminology is mine, not Irving’s. Irving was quite inept at explaining his position. Several of these points are indeed problematic. Irving could have appealed to numerous Eastern fathers and at least blunted the charge of heresy. It is doubtful he knew of them, however. Let us work through these points.
1’ The reason he said postlapsarian is obvious. Does Jesus assume all of my human nature? Gregory of Nazianzus in his second letter to Cledonius said he did. Prelapsarian humanity did not need to be redeemed. The problem, however, in simply saying that Christ took postlapsarian humanity is that our fallen human nature has sinful tendencies that go far beyond that of mere temptation. In other words, concupiscence is sin.
2’ Tendencies is a stronger word than temptation. Had he said temptations, I doubt any would have been concerned.
3’ This seems true enough.
4’ This is mostly true. We are not Lutherans. We believe Jesus was gifted with the graces of the Holy Spirit above his companions. The synoptics often mention that Jesus did his miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. There is more to the story, however.
4* It would have behooved Irving to very clearly state that the Holy Spirit immediately sanctified Jesus’s human nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary. That would have allowed him to say Jesus took a real humanity while avoiding concupiscence.
5’ If Jesus was gifted with the graces of the Holy Spirit beyond his companions, then we cannot simply say, pace Irving, that we can do the same things by the power of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, Jesus is not stingy with the Holy Spirit.
6’ By itself that is a true proposition.
In any case, it is not surprising that Irving was eventually deposed for this teaching. I do not think that slowed him down, as his “charismatic” ministry was just beginning. That Irving was wrong on the charismatic gifts should go without saying. Let us take the position of a charismatic, however, and see if Irving’s practice holds up. It does not. Paul’s admonitions to the churches are clear: all things should be done decently and in good order. That means one or two prophesy (presumably at most!). If any speak in tongues, let them be interpreted. None of that happened. It was chaos.
In what is perhaps a different angle from today’s charismatics, the Irvingites said the tongues were actual foreign languages, not a “heavenly language.” In any case, the Irvingites were pressed to defend the interpretations, which were never more concrete than “Behold He cometh!”
You can probably guess the rest of the story. Here is what is remarkable, though: many stalwarts of the Scottish church actually spoke highly of Irving as a person. See Robert Murray M’Cheyne’s touching words.
In light of today’s experience, Irving comes across as quite normal. We are used to seeing Pentecostal churches. His prophecy talks pale in comparison to Left Behind. In terms of talent, Irving seems to be quite similar to Mark Driscoll, except that Irving did not have the abuse scandals and by all accounts was a quite gentle person.
While by no means a scholarly account, the book covers most of the relevant material and was no doubt a welcome addition to material on Irving.
December 27, 2018
Interesting and easy to read for a book of this genre. Edward Irving was a great example of tender and compassionate pastoral care, especially for "the least of these". There is also a lot to learn from his mistakes. The book is full of implications for practical and theological questions such as "how does God speak to his people?" and "what role does the intellect play in Christian discipleship?".
May 19, 2019
Arnold Dallimore (1911-1998), a Canadian pastor and popular biographer, begins this work by declaring an intent to write “without bias” and to present “historic truth with honesty and accuracy.” Most readers of a Calvinist—or at least non-Charismatic—persuasion will agree that Dallimore has done his job carefully, thoughtfully, and well. Dallimore stresses Irving’s great gifts and even empathizes with the eccentricities of character that propelled Irving from the pinnacle of success as a London clergyman of the 1820s to ridicule as a fanatic, a charlatan, and even a madman before his premature death in 1834.
Irving seems to have been a man easy to like. His longtime friend, Thomas Carlyle called him “the freest, brotherliest, bravest human soul mine ever came in contact with.” Yet unsteadiness of character led Irving to endorse charismatic gifts such as prophecy, healing, and speaking in tongues; and Irving’s support of these spiritual gifts ended with his virtual subservience to their practitioners and thus to the virtual destruction of his ministry.
Besides providing a portrait of a nearly forgotten clergyman of the early nineteenth century, Dallimore uses Irving’s instability to demonstrate the weakness of the modern charismatic movement. To my mind, his admonition to modern charismatics is sound, although charismatics will undoubtedly disagree. Secular historians will also wonder if Dallimore’s frankly stated theological agenda can be squared with his just as frankly stated goal of writing unbiased history.
My own most serious criticism of the biography is that in his decision to treat Irving as “the fore-runner of the charismatic movement,” Dallimore has brushed lightly over Irving’s other claim to theological importance, his emphasis on premillenialist eschatology, an important component of 20th-century Protestant fundamentalism. Although reviewers are correctly warned not to criticize a book that the author has not written, it is unfortunate that an author of Dallimore’s abilities did not fill this void in what is likely to remain a standard biography of Edward Irving for some time to come.
Irving seems to have been a man easy to like. His longtime friend, Thomas Carlyle called him “the freest, brotherliest, bravest human soul mine ever came in contact with.” Yet unsteadiness of character led Irving to endorse charismatic gifts such as prophecy, healing, and speaking in tongues; and Irving’s support of these spiritual gifts ended with his virtual subservience to their practitioners and thus to the virtual destruction of his ministry.
Besides providing a portrait of a nearly forgotten clergyman of the early nineteenth century, Dallimore uses Irving’s instability to demonstrate the weakness of the modern charismatic movement. To my mind, his admonition to modern charismatics is sound, although charismatics will undoubtedly disagree. Secular historians will also wonder if Dallimore’s frankly stated theological agenda can be squared with his just as frankly stated goal of writing unbiased history.
My own most serious criticism of the biography is that in his decision to treat Irving as “the fore-runner of the charismatic movement,” Dallimore has brushed lightly over Irving’s other claim to theological importance, his emphasis on premillenialist eschatology, an important component of 20th-century Protestant fundamentalism. Although reviewers are correctly warned not to criticize a book that the author has not written, it is unfortunate that an author of Dallimore’s abilities did not fill this void in what is likely to remain a standard biography of Edward Irving for some time to come.
August 29, 2022
A very sad but enlightening biography. There is nothing new under the sun and the enemy is more than happy to drag us into the delusion that God is revealing himself through divine revelation apart from the Bible. Dallimore does an excellent job of showing the downward slide of Edward Irving, a preacher who like the rest of us has a fallen nature that longs to lead us away from "thus saith the Lord".
"Oh the deep subtlety- the hollowness of our hearts- the awful justice of our God, who, because of the craving after something more than the gentle dew of the Spirit, gave us indeed meat to our lust, by leaving us under a spiritual power, which was sweet to the taste, but afterwards wormwood and ashes.
Surely we have so much of glorious revelation made plain to us, that we can feed upon it in peace and patience... and need not to cultivate an unhealthy appetite after crude and novel views in which we can find neither rest nor edification" ~Robert Baxter (pg.158)
"Oh the deep subtlety- the hollowness of our hearts- the awful justice of our God, who, because of the craving after something more than the gentle dew of the Spirit, gave us indeed meat to our lust, by leaving us under a spiritual power, which was sweet to the taste, but afterwards wormwood and ashes.
Surely we have so much of glorious revelation made plain to us, that we can feed upon it in peace and patience... and need not to cultivate an unhealthy appetite after crude and novel views in which we can find neither rest nor edification" ~Robert Baxter (pg.158)
October 17, 2020
One of the best biographies I have ever read.
Arnold masterfully presents the life of Irving, taking special care to show us the man as he really was.
This was not a dry read. I clearly saw and understood the man in this volume, which is something many biographies fail at doing.
This is Arnold Dallimore at this best!
Arnold masterfully presents the life of Irving, taking special care to show us the man as he really was.
This was not a dry read. I clearly saw and understood the man in this volume, which is something many biographies fail at doing.
This is Arnold Dallimore at this best!
August 29, 2017
Some good insights into an interesting time in church history.
March 2, 2023
Unlike any biography I've read. A sad tale of a gifted man who wasted his abilities. A quick, sobering read with lessons for today. Dallimore is an engaging writer.
February 17, 2009
I picked up this book with high hopes - after all it had "forerunner" and "charismatic" in the title! It turned out to be a very sad story of how a talented young preacher got so caught up in the power of his own ministry that he got way off base in terms of theology and practice. What is worse, because he ended up pursuing (though never receiving) and leading a group of people who were open to the Spirit's move, he is help up by the author (a disspensationalist) as a poster-boy for why that is a bad idea! The author's point (indirectly but very plainly) is that the same problems that plagued Edward Irving still plague those who follow in his footsteps today. There would have been a whole other way to look at his life - discussing the shepherding issues that would have preserved both him and his ministry from a p.o.v. that is more gracious to the charismatics of today - but that was not this book!
March 30, 2014
Well written, concise account of the life of Irving. His life serves as a great caution to all Christians, ministers especially to beware of un-orthodox influences, and to generally be cautious in whom we let influence and guide our thinking about God.
February 14, 2015
Sad and troubling story of a gifted and godly preacher in early 1800s Scotland/England whose ministry became shipwrecked by his own unabated devotion to charismatic excess. Powerful demonstration of how aberrant teachings can have tragic consequences.
June 30, 2014
This is one of the best Biographies I have ever read. You should read it too.
September 1, 2012
For a book dealing with such a controversial topic Arnold Dallimore is very fair and doesn't play the 'party spirit' despite his disagreement with Irving. Recommended.
September 13, 2013
Interesting book for those who are interested in the catholic apostolic history and particularly in the life of Edward Irving.
January 5, 2015
What a fascinating and saddening life.
Definitely worth the read.
Definitely worth the read.
June 11, 2016
A significant warning of the errors that can result in the Charismatic movement and the dangers of "revivalist" rhetoric. Very important read.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews