Fideism is
the core of the Protestant experience.
The highly
predictable rejoinder from the Protestant who cannot substantiate the
falsifiable claims of his religion (such as matters of baptism, justification,
and sola scriptura) almost invariably is to reduce the dialog to the puny
dimensions of personal, subjective belief. A good example is easily found every
time I ask Protestants why someone should believe the objectively testable
claims of their religion pertaining to such mundane issues as the very basic
question of whether the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith.
Consider the
following subjective appeals to "prove" their doctrine of sola
scriptura:
We may be moved and induced by
the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy
Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine,
the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole
(which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only
way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the
entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence
itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and
assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the
inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our
hearts. (Westminster
Confession of Faith, Chapter 1: "Of the Holy Scripture" [emphasis
added])
In the Second
Helvetic Confession, from 1566, under chapter 1, “Of the Holy Scripture Being
the True Word of God,” we read the following in section 5:
Neither do we think
that therefore the outward reaching is to be thought as fruitless because
the instruction in true religion depends on the inward illumination of the
Spirit, or because it is written ‘No man shall teach his neighor;
for all men shall know me’ (Jer. xxxi. 34), and ‘he that watereth, or
he that planteth, is nothing, but God that giveth the increase’ (1 Cor. iii.
7). For albeit ‘no man can come to Christ, unless
he be drawn by the Heavenly Father’ (John vi. 44), and be inwardly
lightened by the Holy Spirit, yet we know undoubtedly that it is the will of
God that his word should be preached even outwardly. God could indeed, by his
Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of an angel, without the ministry of St. Peter,
have taught Cornelius in the Acts; but, nevertheless, he refers him to Peter,
of whom the angel speaking says, ‘He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do’
(Acts x. 6) (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. III: The
Evangelical Protestant Creeds [revised by David S. Schaff; New York:
Harper and Row, 1931; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2007], 832;
emphasis added)
Norman Geisler, a
leading Protestant apologist and philosopher, and his co-author Ralph
MacKenzie, wrote the following on how they, as Protestants, "know"
the Bible to be true:
Reformed theologians
also believe that the Spirit of God brings divine assurance that the Bible is
the Word of God. This is known as the witness of the Spirit. Only the God of
the word can bring full assurance that the Bible is the Word of God.. Further,
Reformed theologians acknowledge that aid of the Holy Spirit in understanding
and applying the Scriptures to our lives. But he does not do this contrary to
the Bible or contrary to good rules of biblical interpretation. (Norman Geisler
and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and
Differences [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995], 179 n. 6)
Similarly, in a
recent book-length defense of Sola Scriptura, God's Word Alone: The
Authority of Scripture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2016), Matthew
Barrett wrote the following:
Calvin was clear that
the Scripture’s credibility does not depend on man’s reason but on the
testimony of the Holy Spirit. Calvin explains that we will never be persuaded
of the trustworthiness and authority of Scripture’s doctrine until we are
“persuaded beyond doubt that God is its Author.” Therefore, the “highest proof
of Scripture derives in general from the fact that God in person speaks to it.”
In that light, we must look to a “higher place than human reasons, judgments,
or conjectures” and turn instead to the “secret testimony of the Spirit.” The
“Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the
inward testimony of the Spirit.” The same Spirit who spoke through the prophets
will penetrate “into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed
what had been divinely commanded” (Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.7.4).
(p. 67)
Many of the
“contradictions” that scholars found problematic a century ago have now been
resolved with time and study. Nor can we neglect the role of the Spirit. What
at first appears to be an unsurmountable hurdle later becomes a small speed
bump when the Spirit illuminates the Word so that we can better understand its
meaning. (p. 266)
[I]nternal clarity is
quite different [to external clarify]. Because the unbeliever is spiritually
blind, he cannot see the truth of Scripture in a saving way unless his eyes are
opened by the Holy Spirit (Luther, Bondage of the Will, in LW 33.28
[cf. 98-99]). So while a person may read and memorize the Scriptures backward
and forward, exegete its words, diagram its sentences in the original
languages, and masterfully describe the historical and cultural background of
an individual text, this is not to say that the person has truly understood
Scripture’s message. There is knowing Scripture, and then there is knowing Scripture.
The latter is work of the Holy Spirit. (p. 320)
Sufficiency does not
preclude the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit. While we should
not be seeking revelation from the Spirit in addition to Scripture, we must not
go to the other extreme (as some evangelical rationalists have done) and
eliminate the Spirit entirely. Rather, Word and Spirit go together. God gives us
his sufficient Word, but he intends the Spirit to come alongside us to help us
understand his Word. Therefore, must like Calvin (see chapter 1), the
Westminster Confession advocates the illuminating work of the
Spirit: “The Spirit . . . [is] necessary for the saving understanding of such
things as are revealed in the Word (John 6:45; 1 Cor. 2:9-12).” (p. 337)
Scripture reassures
us that should we come to God’s Word with the Spirit as our counselor, the Lord
will reward our hungry soul with sweet and satisfying food (1 John 2:20,
26-27). (p. 344)
I cannot prove the
Bible is true. Only the Spirit can do that. And until he does, you will never
see Scripture as God’s Word . . . The Bible testifies to its own identity. But
this isn’t enough. We must then pray that the Spirit would irresistibly
persuade sinners that the Bible is what it says it is. (p. 374)
In 2005, a
book was released featuring essays by a series of well-respected Evangelical theologians
and scholars:
Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation of the Ministry
of the Spirit of God Today, eds. Daniel B. Wallace and M. James Sawyer (Dallas: Biblical
Studies Press, 2005)
After discussing his
family’s battle with a son’s serious illness, Wallace wrote the following in an
essay entitled, “The Uneasy Conscience of a Non-Charismatic Evangelical”:
Through this
experience I found that the Bible was not adequate. I needed God in a personal
way—not as an object of my study, but as friend, guide, comforter. I needed an
existential experience of the Holy One. Quite frankly, I found that the Bible
was not the answer. I found the scriptures to be helpful—even authoritatively
helpful—as a guide. But without feeling God, the Bible gave me
little solace. In the midst of this “summer from hell,” I began to examine what
had become of my faith. I found a longing to get closer to God, but found
myself unable to do so through my normal means: exegesis, scripture reading, more
exegesis. I believe that I had depersonalized God so much that when I really
needed him I didn’t know how to relate. I longed for him, but found many
community-wide restrictions in my cessationist environment. I looked for God,
but all I found was a suffocation of the Spirit in my evangelical tradition as
well as in my own heart. (p. 7)
Elsewhere, in an
essay entitled, “The Witness of the Spirit in Romans 8:16,” Wallace wrote:
3. How does
the Spirit bear witness to our spirits? Certainly, he works on our hearts to
convince us of the truth of scripture. But there is more. His inner witness is
both immediate and intuitive. It involves a non-discursive presence that is
recognized in the soul. This at least is the position of Calvin and the
Reformers . . . Thus, the inner witness of the Spirit is supra-logical,
not sub-logical—like the peace from God that surpasses all understanding. There
are elements of the Christian faith that are not verifiable on an empirical
plane. This makes them no less true.
4. For
conflict in the academic realm: If the witness of the Spirit that I am
a child of God is intuitive, then it is outside the realm of what is
objectively verifiable. This does not make it any less true. We are too much
sons of the Enlightenment when we deny intuition and internal apprehensions any
value. When you fell in love, what scientific means did you use to verify the
state of your heart? None. As every mother tells her child, “You just know.”
It’s an apt analogy because it is one of the last vestiges of the
pre-Enlightenment era that we still affirm. No one challenges it because there
are no scientific means to determine whether a person is in love. Yet, we send
bright young students armed with an M.Div. or Th.M. from an evangelical
seminary into battle at secular schools, telling them only, “Trust your
exegesis.” Too many have become spiritual casualties because they suppressed
the inner witness of the Spirit . . . (p. 50)
In his essay, “The
Witness of the Spirit in the Protestant Tradition,” M. James Sawyer discusses
the various confessions (e.g., Westminster [1647]) that appealed to the inner
witness of the Holy Spirit, as well as various theologians in the Protestant
traditions. Commenting on Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), Sawyer wrote:
[H]e had a keen
interest and fervent awareness of the necessity and reality of the witness of
the Spirit in the life of the believer as an immediate experiential presence.
He at various times makes mention of the work of the Spirit. A couple of
examples will suffice to show his essential agreements with Wesley as to the
nature of the witness, and his continuity with the Reformers in linking the
witness of the Spirit to confirming the truth of the word of God. Edward notes:
And it seems to be
necessary to suppose that there is an immediate influence of the Spirit of God,
oftentimes, in bringing texts of Scripture to the mind. Not that I suppose it
is done in a way of immediate revelation, without any use of the memory; but
yet there seem plainly to be an immediate and extraordinary influence, in
leading their thoughts to such and such passages of Scripture, and exciting
them in the memory. Indeed, in some, God seems to bring texts of Scripture to
their minds no otherwise than by leading them into such frames and meditations
as harmonize with those Scriptures; but in many persons there seems to be
something more like this . . . (Jonathan Edwards, “A Faithful Narrative
of the Surprising Work of God,” The Works of Jonathan Edwards,
2.1084-85)
In speaking of one of
his parishioner’s experiences of the Spirit, Edwards testifies again to the
immediate nature of the witness of the Spirit in confirming the truth and
divinity of scripture.
She had sometimes the
powerful breathings of the Spirit of God on her soul, while reading the
Scripture; and would express her sense of the certain truth and divinity
thereof. She sometimes would appear with a pleasant smile on her countenance;
and once, when her sister took notice of it, and asked why she smiled, she
replied, I am rim-full of a sweet feeling within. (ibid., 1100-1101)
Thus, with both
Edwards and Wesley there is an insistence on the immediate nature of the
witness of the Spirit. Neither one follows the Puritan lead of insisting on the
practical syllogism in gaining assurance of salvation. For both, the evidence
of the Spirit is an immediate supra-rational experience in the soul, not
unrelated to the word, and not to be conceived as mysticism. (pp. 84-85)
David Eckman, in “The
Holy Spirit and Our Emotions,” wrote the following in a section entitled, “The
Spirit and Our Emotions”:
Since the presence of
the Spirit is internal, the work of the Spirit of God is emotional. One example
will illustrate the point. As the believer is involved in the exercise of
faith, the Spirit of God, for example, will supply joy and peace. In the
details of a particular text, Rom 15:13, the Spirit is not the only member of
the Trinity relating to the Christian. Paul related the believer’s emotional
life to two members of the Trinity, the Father and the Spirit. The God of hope
is supposed to fill (the same word as used in Eph 5:18) the believer with every
variety of joy and peace in the process of believing. All of this is to be done
by the inherent power of the Holy Spirit. The process of generating these
emotions is completely dependent upon the Holy Spirit’s work. (p. 212)
With respect to Gal
5:22-23 (“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness,
goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is
no law” [NASB]), Sawyer writes that:
Spirituality is a
life normally dominated by primary emotions—primary in the sense that these are
what Christian existence is founded upon. Note how each term of the fruit of
the Spirit carries an emotional connotation. (p. 213)
In a section on how
to minister to our emotions, Sawyer offered the following tips to the reader
which is reminiscent of how LDS missionaries teach people how to tell the
difference between superficial emotions and the experience of the Holy Spirit:
What we have to do to
gain and maintain spiritual health is as follows:
We have to recognize
or differentiated what is going on within our emotional life and in the
management of our appetites (Gal 5:16-24). This gives us information as to
where we are starting from, either with spirituality or carnality . . . We have
to set our minds on our relationships above; we control our thinking (Rom
8:1-6; Col 3:1-3). The terms used in both Rom 8 and Col 3 refer to perspective.
By reckoning we relate to God personally instead of to our appetites (Rom
6:11-12). The focus of a person’s inner life can either be the God on the
outside of the appetites on the inside. Sadly our appetites many times have far
more impact on many of us than God does. The focus on our inner person has to
be on God the Father, and our identity before him as found in Christ, and not
in our appetites. So no matter the level of pressure from our inward desires,
we must freely approach and share ourselves with God. (p. 214)
Finally, in his
essay, “The Holy Spirit in Missions,” Donald K. Smith wrote the following under
the heading of “Rationalism Largely Excludes the Holy Spirit,” which, if it
came from a Latter-day Saint, would be branded by Evangelicals as “cultic” due
to its “anti-intellectual” nature:
Why, then, does it
appear that the Holy Spirit is more active in Asia, Africa, or Latin America
than in Europe and North America? . . . I suggest that the real point is not a
difference in the working of the Holy Spirit, but in a difference in the
working of our human perceptions. Just as our unaided ear cannot detect radio
signals nor can our eyes pick up television signals, the untransformed heart is
unable and/or unwilling to perceive the Holy Spirit except in ways consistent
with our existing understanding. Our ability to perceive anything rests not
only on our physical senses but on our previous experience and on our heart
belief—our world view.
In Western cultures,
reason is considered supreme. The cultural mainstream says that feelings are
not to be trusted, and emotion should always be controlled. The Enlightenment
paradigm infuses nearly every part of Western life, even our systematic theologies.
It leads us to believe that Truth must be found and proved by careful logic,
and that logic rests on empirical observations. If “it” cannot be weighed,
counted, or measures in some way, “it” does not exist . . . This core/heart
belief in Western cultures has made it nearly impossible to perceive the
genuine working of the Holy Spirit.
Thus, the fundamental
reason the ministry of the Holy Spirit seems more visible outside the North
Atlantic nations is a matter of perception. We experience what we are
conditioned to perceive. Since the dominant paradigm in North Atlantic nations
is rationalistic, humanistic, and materialistic, we do not expect to see
reality outside the boundaries established by our minds. (pp. 243, 244)
In reality,
this is all the Protestant has, as we know the formal doctrine of their theology
is anti-biblical. See:
This
double-mindedness from Protestants is troubling. Few people want to relinquish their natural,
God-given ability to reason properly. To do so is to tickle one’s toes in the
pool of total insanity. But Protestants, when defending the claims of their
religion, will give up their ability to reason or think clearly with almost
instant and mechanically predictable regularity. They will even dive headlong
into the deep pool of fideism. Behind the scenes, I think this is really just a
way of dealing with their own recognition of their inability to substantiate
even the most mundane and non-supernatural or spiritual claims upon which their
religion was founded.
