Another great awakening?: the use of Jonathan Edwards by Guy Chevreau and Hank Hanegraaff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1994 controversy was sparked within evangelical Protestant circles over a revivalistic movement dubbed the Toronto Blessing. Part of this controversy was a debate between the Blessing's supporters and opponents over who properly stood in the tradition of Jonathan Edwards. This project examines the use of Jonathan Edwards by two of these debaters, Guy Chevreau and Hank Hanegraaff. Chevreau and Hanegraaff argue towards opposite conclusions, while using the same revivalistic works of Edwards. These two writers arrive at such contrary conclusions because they both employ a poor historical method to bolster their own position. By imposing their own perspectives and preconceptions onto their reading of Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening, both Chevreau and Hanegraaff interpret Edwards out of context and arrive at highly partisan conclusions. A more careful reading of Edwards is valuable, as it produces a critique of the polemical positions of both Chevreau and Hanegraaff, rather than verifying either of their positions. Such a reading of Edwards involves the study of his context in order to understand the specific issues he was addressing. As well, it examines his arguments in that context, rather than reading his comments in the context of the historian's current debate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.187 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".