In Presuppositionalism Apologetics vs. Mormonism, beginning at the 23:53 mark, Daniel Constantino (who I will be debating in public on baptismal regeneration [and perhaps sola scriptura]) blundered and/or lied when he said that "personal revelation" would serve as my ultimate authority. If you listen to the interview Jacob Hansen and I did, we both said it was not our ultimate authority (God is, and the means of which he uses to communicate are); what I said (had be bothered to listen carefully) was that one's assurance (how one knows that they know they know, if you will) is personal revelation.
Be that as it may, I decided to compile the following quotes from historic and modern sources (many, though not all, are Reformed) on how it is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit that assures one of the authenticity of the Bible and/or their salvation. I look forward to Constantino being consistent and saying the witness of the Holy Spirit is the ultimate authority for Calvin, the Westminster divines, et al.:
Martin Luther’s Commentary
on James (1522):
I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable
although it was rejected in the early days. . . . Yet, to give my own
opinion without prejudice to that of anyone else, I do not hold it to be of
apostolic authorship, for the following reasons:
Firstly, because, in direct opposition to St. Paul and all the
rest of the Bible, it ascribes justification to works, and declares that
Abraham was justified by his works when he offered up his son. . . . This
defect proves that the epistle is not of apostolic provenance.
Secondly, because in the whole length of its teaching, not once
does it give Christians any instruction or reminder of the passion,
resurrection, or spirit of Christ. . . . All genuinely sacred books are
unanimous here, and all preach Christ emphatically. The true touchstone
for testing every book is to discover whether it emphasizes the prominence of
Christ or not. . . .
The epistle of James, however, only drives you to the law and its
works. . . .
In sum: he wished to guard against those who depended on
faith without going on to works, but he had neither the spirit nor the thought
nor the eloquence equal to the task. He does violence to Scripture, and
so contradicts Paul and all Scripture. . . . I therefore refuse him a place
among the writers of the true canon of my Bible; (Preface to the
Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, found in Martin Luther:
Selections from his Writings, ed. John Dillenberger [Garden City, NY:
Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1961], 35-36.)
Commenting on the Epistle of Jude:
No
one can deny that this epistle is an excerpt from, or copy of, the second
epistle of St. Peter, for all he says is nearly the same over again. Moreover, he speaks of the apostles as would
a disciple of a much later date. He
quotes words and events which are found nowhere in Scripture, and which moved
the fathers to reject this epistle from the canon. Moreover, the apostle Jude did no go into
Greek-speaking lands, but into Persia; and it is said that he could not write
Greek. Hence, although I value the book,
yet it is not essential to reckon it among the canonical books that lay the
foundation of faith. (Ibid., 36-37)
John
Calvin, Antidote to the Council of Trent (1547):
But
they affirm that it is impossible to know whom God has chosen except by special
revelation. I admit it. And, accordingly, Paul says that we have not received
the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we may know the
things which are given us of God, that we may know the things which are given
us of God. The gift he elsewhere interprets as meaning the adoption, by which
we are classed among his children, and which he holds to be so certain that we
may with loud voice glory in it. But I am not unaware of what they intend by
special revelation. I, however, mean that which our Heavenly Father specially
deigns to bestow on his own children. Nor is this any fancy of my own. The
words of Paul are well know, “Those things which are hidden from human sense
God hath revealed unto us by his Spirit, who also searcheth the deepest things
of God.” And, “Who hath known the mind of God, or who hath been his counsellor?
But we have the mind of Christ.”
On
the whole then, we see that that the venerable Fathers call rash and damnable
presumption, is nothing but that holy confidence in our adoption, revealed unto
us by Christ, to which God everywhere encourages his people. (John Calvin,
"Antidote to the Council of Trent," in Tracts [trans. Henry
Beveridge; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851], 3:136)
Second Helvetic
Confession (1566):
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)
John Calvin, Institutes
(1559):
With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the
Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and
unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did not the Church regulate all
these things with certainty? On the determination of the Church, therefore, it
is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books
which are to be admitted into the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the
pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled tyranny, care not in what
absurdities they entangle themselves and others, provided they extort from the
simple this one acknowledgement—viz. that there is nothing which the Church
cannot do. But what is to become of miserable consciences in quest of some
solid assurance of eternal life, if all the promises with regard to it have no
better support than man’s Judgment? On being told so, will they cease to doubt
and tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is our faith
subjected—into how great suspicion is it brought with all, if believed to have
only a precarious authority lent to it by the good will of men? (1.7.1)
As
to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without
recurring to a decree of the Church? it is just the same as if it were asked,
How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet
from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its
truth, as white and black do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste.
(1.7.2)
If, then, we would consult most effectually
for our consciences, and save them from being driven about in a whirl of uncertainty,
from wavering, and even stumbling at the smallest obstacle, our conviction of
the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human
conjectures, Judgments, or reasons; namely, the secret testimony of the Spirit. (1.7.4)
Jacob Arminius (1560-1609):
In
his “Oration III: The Certainty of Sacred Theology,” Jacob Arminius wrote
following wherein he affirmed the internal witness of the Holy Spirit and its
validity as a means of attaining knowledge of truth against criticisms of Roman
Catholics (“Papists”):
9. The
Internal Witness of the Holy Spirit
We
declare, therefore, and we continue to repeat the declaration, till the gates
of hell re-echo the sound, “that the Holy Spirit, by whose inspiration holy men
of God have spoken this word, and by whose impulse and guidance they have, as
his amanuenses, consigned it to writing; that this Holy Spirit is the author of
that light by the aid of which we obtain a perception and an understanding of
the divine meanings of the word, and it is the Effector of that Certainty by
which we believe those meanings to be truly divine; and that He is the
necessary Author, the all sufficient Effector.” (1.) Scripture demonstrates that
He is the necessary Author, when it says, “The things of God knoweth no man but
the Spirit of God. (1 Cor. ii.11.) No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but
by the Holy Ghost.” (1 Cor. xii.3.) (2.) But the Scripture introduced him as
the sufficient and the more than sufficient Effector, when it declares, “The
wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory, he hath revealed
unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep
things of God.” (1 Cor. ii.7, 10.) The sufficiency, therefore, of the Spirit
proceeds from the plenitude of his knowledge of the secrets of God, and from
the very efficacious revelation which he makes of them. The sufficiency of the
Spirit cannot be more highly extolled than it is in a subsequent passage, in
which the same apostle most amply commends it, by declaring, “he that is
spiritual [a partaker of this revelation,] judgeth all things,” (verse 15,) as
having the mind of Christ through his Spirit, which he has received. Of the
same sufficiency the Apostle St. John is the most illustrious herald. In his
general Epistle he writes these words: “But the anointing which ye have
received of Him, abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you; but as
the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and
even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him.” (1 John ii.27.) “He that
believeth on the Son of God, hath the witness in himself.” (1 John v. 10.) To
the Thessalonians another apostle writes thus: “Out Gospel came not unto you in
word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance.” (1
Thess. i.3.) In this passage he openly attributes to the power of the Holy
Ghost the Certainty by which the faithful receive the word of the gospel. The
Papists reply, “Many persons boast of the revelation of the Spirit, who,
nevertheless, are destitute of such a revelation. It is impossible, therefore,
for the faithful safely to rest in it.” Are these fair words? Away with such
blasphemy! If the Jews glory in their Talmud and their Cabala, and the
Mahometans in their Alcoran, and if both of these boat themselves that they are
Churches, cannot credence therefore be given with sufficient safety to the
scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, when they affirm their Divine Origin?
Will the true Church be any less a Church because the sons of the stranger
arrogate that title to themselves? This is the distinction between opinion and
knowledge. It is their opinion, that they know that of which they are really
ignorant. But they who do know it, have an assured perception of their
knowledge. “I is the Spirit that beareth witness that the Spirit is truth” (1
John v. 8,) that is, the doctrine and the meanings comprehended in that
doctrine, are truth.”
“But
that attesting witness of the Spirit which is revealed in us, cannot convince
others of the truth of the Divine word.” What then? It will convince them when
it has also breathed on them: it will breathe its Divine afflatus on them, if
they be the sons of the church, all of whom shall be taught of God: every man
of them will hear and learn of the Father, and will come unto Christ.” (John
vi. 45.) Neither can the testimony of any Church convince all men of the truth
and divinity of the sacred writings. The Papists, who arrogate to themselves
exclusively the title of “the Church,” experience the small degree of credit
which is given to their testimonies, by those who have not received an afflatus
from the spirit of the Roman See.
“But it
is necessary that there should be a testimony in the Church of such a high
character as to render it imperative on all men to pay it due deference.” True.
It was the incumbent duty of the Jews to pay deference to the testimony of
Christ when he was speaking to them; the Pharisees ought not to have
contradicted Stephen in the midst of his discourse; and Jews and Gentiles,
without any exception, were bound to yield credence to the preaching of the
apostles, confirmed as it was by so many and such astonishing miracles. But the
duties here recited, were disregarded by all these parties. What was the reason
of this their neglect? The voluntary hardening of their hearts, and that
blindness of their minds, which was introduced by the Devil.
If the
Papists still contend, that “such a testimony as this ought to exist in the
Church, against which no one shall actually offer any contradiction,” we deny
the assertion. And experience testifies, that a testimony of this kind never
yet had an existence, that it does not now exist, and (if we may form our judgment
from the scriptures,) we certainly think that it never will exist.
“But
perhaps the Holy Ghost, who is the Author and Effector of this testimony, has
entered into an engagement with the Church, not to inspire and seal on the
minds of men this certainty, except through her, and by the intervention of her
authority.” The Holy Ghost does, undoubtedly, according to the good pleasure of
his own will, make use of some organ or instrument in performing these his
offices. But this instrument is the word of God, which is comprehended in the
sacred books of scripture; an instrument produced and brought forward by
Himself, and instructed in his truth. The Apostle to the Hebrews in a most
excellent manner describes the efficacy which is impressed on this instrument by
the Holy Spirit, in these words: “For the word of God is quick and powerful,
and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of
soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the
thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Heb. iv, 10.) Its effect is called
“Faith,” by the Apostle. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God.” (Rom. x.7.) If any act of the Church occurs in this place, it is that by
which she is occupied in the sincere preaching of this word, and by which she
sedulously exercises herself in promoting its publication. But even this is not
so properly the occupation of the Church, as of “the Apostles, Prophets,
Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers,” whom Christ has constituted his labourers
“for the edifying of his body, which is the Church.” (Ephes. Iv.11.) But we
must in this place deduce an observation from the very nature of things in
general, as well as of this thing in particular; it is, that the First Cause
can extend much further by its own action, than it is possible for an
instrument cause to do; and that the Holy Ghost givens to the word all that
force which he afterwards employs, such being the great efficacy with which it
is endued and applied, that whomsoever he only counsels by his word he himself
persuades by imparting Divine meanings to the word, by enlightening the mind as
with a lamp, and by inspiring and sealing it by his own immediate action.
The
Papists pretend, that certain acts are necessary to the production of truth
faith; and they say that those acts cannot be performed except by the judgment
and testimony of the Church—such as to believe that any book is the production
of Matthew or Luke—to discern between a canonical and an Apocryphal verse, and
to distinguish between this or that reading, according to the variation in
different copies. But, since there is a controversy concerning the weight and
necessity of those acts, and since the dispute is no less than how far they may
be performed by the Church—lest I should fatigue my most illustrious auditory
by too great prolixity, I will omit at present any further mention of these
topics; and will by Divine assistance explain them at some future opportunity.
My most
illustrious and accomplished hearers, we have already perceived, that body the
pages of our sacred Theology are full of God and Christ, and of the Spirit of
both of them. If any inquiry be made for the Object, God and Christ by the
spirit are pointed out to us. If we search for the Author, God and Christ by
the operation of the spirit spontaneously occur. If we consider the End
proposed, our union with God and Christ offers itself—and end not to be
obtained except through the communication of the Spirit. If we inquire
concerning the Truth and Certainty of the doctrine; God in Christ, by means of
the efficacy of the Holy Ghost, most clearly convinces our minds of the Truth,
and in a very powerful manner seals the Certainty on our hearts.
All the
glory, therefore, of this revelation is deservedly due to God and Christ in the
Holy Spirit: and most deservedly are thanks due from us to them, and must be
given to them, through the Holy Ghost, for such an august and necessary benefit
as this which they have conferred on us. But we can present to our God and
Christ in the Holy Spirit no gratitude more grateful, and can ascribe no glory
more glorious, than this, the application of our minds to an assiduous
contemplation and a devout meditation on the knowledge of such a noble object.
But in our meditations upon it, (to prevent us from straying into the paths of
error,) let us betake ourselves to the revelation which has been made of this
doctrine. From the word of this revelation alone, let us learn the wisdom of
endeavouring, by an ardent desire and in an unwearied course, to attain unto
that ultimate design which ought to be our constant aim—that most blessed end
of our union with God and Christ. Let us never indulge in any doubts concerning
the truth of this revelation; but, “the full assurance of faith being impressed
upon our minds and hearts, by the inspiration and sealing of the Holy Spirit,
let us adhere to this word, “till [at length] we all come in the unity of the
faith and of knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure
of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” (Ephes. Iv. 13.) I most humbly
supplicate and intreat God our merciful Father, that he would not be pleased to
grant this great blessing to us, through the Son of his love, and by the
communication of his Holy Spirit. And to him be ascribed all praise, and
honour, and glory, forever and ever. Amen. (The Works of James
Arminius [2d ed.; Lamp Post Inc., 2015], 1:75-79)
Westminster Confession
of Faith (1646):
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. (WCF 1:5)
London Baptist Confession
of Faith (1689):
We
may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to a high and
reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the
efficacy of the doctrine, and 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, and many other
incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections 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. (LBC 1:5)
Abraham Kuyper
(1837-1920)
In the
first place, it is the Holy Spirit who seals the Word. This
has reference to the “testimonium Spiritus Sancti,” of which our fathers used
to speak and by which they understood the operation whereby He creates in the
hearts of believers the firm and lasting conviction concerning the divine and
absolute authority of the Word of God . . . Of all clericalism, that of the
intellectual stamp if the most unbearable; for one is always silenced with the
remark, “You don’t know Greek,” or, “You don’t read Hebrews”; while the child
of God feels irresistibly that in the matters that concern
eternity, Greek and Hebrew can not have the last word. And this apart from the
fact that to a number of these scholars Professor Cobet might say in turn:
“Dear sir, do you still know Greek yourself?” Of the shallow knowledge of
Hebrew in the largest number of cases, it is better not to speak.
No, in
that way we never get there. To make the divine authority of the Holy Scripture
real to us, we need not a human but a divine testimony,
equally convincing to the simplest and to the most learned—a testimony that
must not be cast as pearls before swine, but be limited to those who can gather
from its noblest fruit viz., to them that are born again.
And
this testimony is not derived from the Pope and his priests, nor from the
theological faculty with its ministers, but comes with the sealing from the
Holy Spirit alone. Hence it is a divine testimony, and as such
stops all contradiction, and silences all doubt. It is a testimony the same to
all, belonging to the peasant in the field and to the theologian in his study.
Finally, it is a testimony which they alone receive who have open eyes, so that
they can see spiritually.
However,
this testimony does not work by magic. It does not cause the confused mind of
unbelief suddenly to cry out: “Surely the Scripture is the Word of God!” if
this were the case, the way enthusiasts would be open, and our salvation would
depend again upon a pretended spiritual insight. No, the testimony of the Holy
Spirit works in an entirely different way. He begins to bring us into contact
with the Word, either by our own reading or by the communication of others.
Then He shows us the picture of the sinner according to the Scripture, and the
salvation which mercifully saved him; and lastly, He makes us hear the song of
praise upon his lips. And after we have seen this objectively, with the eye of
the understanding, He then so works upon our feeling that
we begin to see ourselves in that sinner, and to feel that the truth of the Scripture
directly concerns us. Finally, He takes hold of the will, causing
the very power seen in the Scripture to work in us. And when thus the whole
man, mind, heart, and will, has experienced the power of the Word, then He adds
to this the comprehensive operation of assurance, whereby the Holy Scripture in
divine splendor commences to scintillate before our eyes. (Abraham
Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit [trans. Henry De Vries;
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975], 190, 192-3, italics in original)
Herman Bavinck (1854-1921)
. . . revelation in Scripture assumes that humanity is also corrupted in its religious disposition and needs re-creation. It would therefore deny itself it is recognized the “unspiritual” person as its rightful judge. If Christianity is a religion of redemption in the full and true sense of the word and hence seeks to redeem human beings from all sin, from the errors of the mind as well as the impurity of the heart, as much from the death of the soul as from that of the body, it in the nature of the case cannot subject itself to the criticism of human beings but must subject them to its criticism. The revelation that comes to us in Christ through Scripture in fact takes that position towards us. It does not put itself on a level below us to ask for our approving or disapproving judgment on it but takes a position high above us and insist that we shall believe and obey. Scripture even expressly states that the unspiritual cannot understand the things of the spirit, that they are folly to them, that they reject and deny them in a spirit of hostility [1 Cor. 2:14]. The revelation of God in Christ does not ask for the support or approval of human beings. It posits and maintains itself in subline majesty. Its authority is normative as well as causative. It fights for its own victory. It itself conquers human hearts and makes itself irresistible.
Revelation, accordingly, now divides itself in two grand dispensations. When the economy of the Son, of objective revelation, is completed, that of the Spirit begins. God is the author also of this subject revelation, in other words, of this illumination and regeneration. . . . The Holy Spirit is the great and powerful witness to Christ, objectively in Scripture, subjectively in the very hearts of human beings. By that Spirit we receive a fitting organ for the reception of external revelation. God can only be known only by God; the light can be seen only in his light. . . . . By this witness of the Holy Spirit, revelation is realized in humanity and reaches its goal. (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003], 1:505, 506)
The Testimony of the Spirit
This witness of the Holy Spirit has been all too one-sidedly applied, by Calvin and later Reformed theologians, to the authority of Holy Scripture. It seemed that it had no other import than the subjective assurance by itself. It was separated from the life of faith and seemed to refer to an extraordinary revelation of which Michaelis was honest enough to admit that he had never experienced it. Scripture, however, teaches very differently.
Generally speaking, the Holy Spirit was promised by Jesus as the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, who leads first and apostles, then, by their word, also all other believers, into the truth. He witnesses of Christ to them and glorifies him (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:14). To that end he convicts people of sin (John 16:8-11), regenerates them (John 3:3), and prompts them to confess Christ as Lord (1 Cor. 12:3). He further assures them of their adoption as children of God and of their heavenly inheritance (Rom. 8:14f.; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13; 4:30, makes known all the things believers have received from God (1 Cor. 2:12; 1 John 2:20; 3:24; 4:6-13), and in the church is the author of all Christian virtues and all spiritual gifts (Gal. 5:22; 1 Cor. 12:8-11). It is evident from all these passages that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is of a religious-ethical kind and intimately bound up with people’s own faith life. IT does not bypass people’s faith; it is not a voice from heaven, a dream or a vision. It is a witness that the Holy Spirit communicates in, with, and through our own spirit in faith. It is not given to unbelievers but is the portion only of the children of God. Episcopius therefore raised the objection (Inst. Theol. IV, sec I, c. 5 §2) that the testimony of the Holy Spirit cannot be a ground of faith because it is something that only comes later (John 7:38; 14:17; Acts 5:32; Gal. 3:2; 4:6). But from the very beginning faith itself is the work of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3) and receives its seal and confirmation in the Spirit of adoption. Believing itself is a witness of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and through our spirit. (Ibid., 593-94; cf. pp. 594-95 for a discussion of the testimony of the Spirit and ‘assurance’)
. . . Calvin also rightly linked the testimony of the Holy Spirit to Scripture as the word of God. This testimony has a “material object” in the content but also a “formal object” in the witness of Scripture, and the two are inseparable. When the Holy Spirit guarantees the trustworthiness of the apostolic witness who first, in Jesus’ name, proclaimed that gospel and thereby bound all humankind to their witness. But he also offers direct assurance of it. For the Holy Spirit does not reveal to the believer any previously unknown truth, neither in respect of Christ nor in respect of Scripture. He takes everything from Christ, and so the believer can only confess what Christ has given him or her. Scripture, however, contains a doctrine about itself, as much as about Christ. And the testimony of the Holy Spirit with respect to Scripture as Scripture consists in the fact—not that believers receive an immediate heavenly vision of the divinity of Scripture, nor that they mediately infer its divinity from the marks and criteria of Scripture, or, even less, than on the basis of the experience of the power that is unleashed by it they conclude that it is divine, but—that they freely and spontaneously recognize the authority with which Scripture everywhere asserts itself and which it repeatedly expressly claims for itself.
In this connection it is not the authenticity, nor the canonicity, not even the inspiration, but the divinity of Scripture, its divine authority, which is the true object of the testimony of the Holy Spirit. He causes believers to submit to Scripture and binds them to it in the same measure and intensity as to the person of Christ himself. . . . [against the charge of ‘circular reasoning] strictly speaking, the testimony of the Holy Spirit is not the final ground but the means of faith. The ground of faith is, and can only be, Scripture, or rather, the authority of God. (Ibid., 596, 597, italics in original; comment in square bracket added for clarification)
Bernard Ramm (1959):
We
believe that God persuades of divine truth, and that therefore on both the
outside and the inside, objectively and subjectively, we are dealing with
divinity. This does not mean that God avoids earthly instruments, but rather
that he enters them from the inside (mysteriously) and by them persuades us.
This persuasion is not mystical nor magical nor theological legerdemain; but in
our hearts the earthly medium receives such a divine reinforcement that the
faith which is engendered is faith upon divine authority.
Concretely,
what we have here is the testimonium. We have been efficaciously
persuaded by the divine Spirit about the divine truth in a divinely inspired
book. On the objective side, the subjective side, on the part the book, we are
confronted with the divine. Therefore we may say that faith is prompted by a
divine Spirit and is directed toward a divine truth. It is faith in the
authority of God, and on the authority of God.
Nor
must we fail to note that faith is made for Scripture and Scripture for faith.
When God gave Scripture, he gave it so that it would be a fit object for faith
(i.e., autopistic). And when he prompts faith, he prompts it in
such a way that the believer becomes hungry for Scripture. He wants to live by
every word which proceeds from the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4). He desires the
“pure spiritual milk” (to logikon adolon gala, 1 Peter 2:2) of Sacred
Scripture and as he matures he is ready for “solid food” (stereas trophē,
Heb. 5:12). For with David “his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his
law he meditates day and night” (Ps. 1:2). (Bernard Ramm, The Witness
of the Spirit: An Essay on the Contemporary Relevance of the Internal Witness
of the Holy Spirit [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1959], 71-72,
italics in original)
Chicago Statement
on Biblical Inerrancy (1978):
3.
The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His
inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
John Stott
(1991):
The
witness of God the Holy Spirit
If our
Christian assurance rests primarily on the finished work of God the Son, who
died for our sins, and secondarily on the word of God the Father, who promises
salvation to those who trust in Christ crucified, its third ground is the
witness—both internal and external—of God the Holy Spirit.
Consider
his inward witness first. The wisdom of mistrusting our
feelings has already been mentioned. Because they fluctuate, they are an
unreliable guide to our spiritual state. Yet feelings have a place in
our Christian assurance—not the fickle flutters of a shallow emotion, but
the steady increase of a deepening conviction. Of this the New
Testament speaks. It is the work of the indwelling Spirit. We sometimes
over-emphasize his work of pricking our conscience and convicting us of sin. He
certainly does this. But it is also his gracious work to pacify our
consciences, calm our fears, and counter out doubts with his gentle reassurance.
Paul
alludes twice in his Letter to the Romans to this inward work of the Spirit. In
Romans 5:5 he writes that ‘God has poured out his love into our hearts by the
Holy Spirit, whom he has given us’, and in Romans 8:16 that ‘the Spirit himself
testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children’, especially when he
prompts us to cry ‘Abba, Father’ (verse 15). Do we sometimes become
profoundly aware that God has set his love upon us, that the old tension and
friction between him and us has given place to reconciliation, and that his
arms enfold and uphold us? It is the witness of the Spirit Do we sense in
prayer that we are in right relationship with God, that his smile is upon us,
that he is our Father and we are his children? Again, it is the witness of the
Spirit. He ports God’s love into our hearts and he makes God’s fatherhood a
reality to us. Sometimes his witness is quiet and undemonstrative. At other
times, as Christian people in different ages and cultures have testified, it
can become an overwhelming experience of his presence and mercy. (John Stott, Christian Basics: A Handbook of Beginnings, Beliefs and Behaviour [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1991], 32-33,
emphasis added)
Norman Geisler
and Ralph MacKenzie (1995):
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)
William Lane Craig
(2000):
. . . the witness of the Holy Spirit [is] self-authenticating, and
by that notion I mean (1) that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical
and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for the
one who has it and attends to it; (2) that such a person does not need
supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with
confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God: (3) that such
experience does not function in this case as a premise in any argument from
religious experience to God, but rather is the immediate experiencing of God
himself; (4) that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will
imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as
“God exists,” “I am reconciled to God,” “Christ lives in me,” and so forth; (5)
that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of
Christianity’s truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and (6) that
arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the
experience of the Holy Spirit for the one who attends fully to it . . . As I
read the New Testament, it seems to me that for both Paul and John the
fundamental way in which a believer knows the truth of the Christian faith is
by the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. When I say “the Christian faith,” I do
not mean fine points of doctrine such as infralapsarianism or amillennialism,
but rather the belief that one has been reconciled to God through Jesus Christ,
or some rough equivalent. Thus, Paul tells us that every Christian believer is
an adopted son of God and is indwelt with the Holy Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9;
Gal. 4:6). It is the witness of God’s Spirit with our spirit that gives us the
assurance that we are God’s children: “For you did not receive a spirit that
makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of Sonship. And by
him we cry ‘Abba, Father.’ The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that
we are God’s children” (Rom. 8:15-16). Paul does not hesitate to use the term plērophoria (“complete confidence, full assurance”) to indicate the
surety that the believer possesses as a result of the Spirit’s work (Col. 2:2;
1 Thess. 1:5; cf. Rom. 4:21; 14:5). (William Lane Craig, “Classical
Apologetics,” in Stanley N. Gundry and Steven B. Cowan, eds., Five Views on Apologetics [Counterpoints: Bible and Theology; Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan, 2000], 29-30)
Daniel Wallace
(2005):
Through
this experience [is family’s battle with a son’s serious illness] 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. (Daniel
Wallace, "The Uneasy Conscience of a Non-Charismatic Evangelical," in
Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation of the Ministry of the
Spirit of God Today, ed. Daniel B. Wallace and M. James Sawyer (Dallas:
Biblical Studies Press, 2005), 7)
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 . . . (Wallace, The Witness of the Spirit
in the Protestant Tradition," in ibid., 50)
M. James Sawyer
(2005):
[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. (M. James
Sawyer, "The Witness of the Spirit in the Protestant Tradition,” in Who's
Afraid of the Holy Spirit? 84-85)
David
Eckman (2005):
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. (David Eckman, “The Holy Spirit and Our Emotions,” in Who’s Afraid of
the Holy Spirit? 212)
Re. Gal 5:22-23:
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. (Ibid., 213)
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 (Ibid., 214)
Donald K. Smith
(2005):
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. (Donald
K. Smith, "The Holy Spirit in Missions," in Who's Afraid of the Holy
Spirit? 243, 244)
Mike (and Ann) Thomas
of “Reachout Trust” [UK counter-cult organization] (2008):
She [his wife Ann] came along that evening [to a friend's
Protestant church], and the love that was shared there, the gospel was preached
and Ann lasted about twenty minutes into the service when she fled the
building. And I thought, "what have I done? I've done something dreadful
here; something is wrong and I've not picked up on this." So I rushed out
to her; two of the ladies in the church came out as well--very concerned. And
Ann was sobbing in the carpark. And we said, "what's wrong?" And she
said, "there's nothing wrong; it's just so wonderful!" And the Spirit
of God was so powerful and she just couldn't take the weight of it. It was an
incredible experience." (Mormonism
- What is it really like? - 4, 8:23 mark)
Matt Slick
(2010):
Sungenis:
How do you know what books are in the Bible?
Slick:
Well, Jesus tells us "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me" (Slick vs. Sungenis on the
Bodily Assumption of Mary, 35:08 mark)
Ian Christopher
Levy (2012) on John Wycliffe (d. 1384) and the Gospel of Nicodemus
Wyclif
does trust that the Old Testament authors were divinely inspired, not only due
to the sanctity of their lives and the authentication they received from the
entire church, but because their books resonate with love and their minds were
conformed to celestial affections. It is their pure proclamation of the Word of
God that secures their authenticity. And yet Wyclif finds that the Gospel of
Nicodemus also meets these criteria, even as he admits the work is itself
apocryphal. Despite the fact that the book’s precise status remained murky,
Wyclif was not alone in valuing the Gospel of Nicodemus; it can be found in
some late medieval biblical codices. At all events, this conclusion prompts
Wyclif to examine the nature of apocryphal books generally. He appeals to
Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus to make the point that we need not
disbelieve these books as if they were false; but neither should the church
militant explicitly believe in them as if they were authentic. Wyclif then
applies this principle to the Gospel of Nicodemus as well as other books that
the church has decided neither to condemn explicitly nor canonize them
explicitly. Thus even as Wyclif finds value in such books he adopts a rather
sensible and realistic position that the current number of biblical books is
sufficient since canonizing any more may well prove burdensome for the church.
Having said that, however, Wyclif still thinks it likely that many apocryphal
books can qualify as Holy Scripture, inasmuch as they are inscribed in the Book
of Life—the Liber Vitae. And this means that Christians should
trust in them, whether explicitly or implicitly, just as one trusts the
canonical scripture. Indeed, says Wyclif, many of these apocryphal books do
convey sacred truths that are contained in the Book of Life. (Ian Christopher
Levy, Holy Scripture and the Quest for Authority at the End of the
Middle Ages [Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2012], 61)
This
is rather interesting for many reasons including (1) Wyclif’s view of the
Gospel of Nicodemus is similar to the Latter-day Saint view of the Apocrypha
(cf. D&C 91) and (2) how even the forerunners to the Protestant Reformation
had a subjective view of canonical certainty.
James White
(2014):
I
believe that the Bible is the word of God because God's Spirit, that has taken
out my heart of stone and given me a heart of flesh, draws me to his Word and
gives me faith to believe what His Word says. (James White Vs Steven Anderson - KJV
Onlyism, 23:50 mark)
Carlos Bovell
(2015):
While
the mystical experiences of their authors initially worked
"externally" to foster the earliest believers' commitment to
gradually receiving the NT writings as Scripture, there is an even more
important facet to Scripture's authority that stems from within believers.
Aside from the social mechanisms of institutional control that became operative
in Christian cultures and sub-cultures (which worked to discourage radical
breaks from inherited, religious traditions), another, and arguably more
important, subjective component was also at work. What might
be called the Bible's "internal" authority derives from the fact
that, upon reading Scripture (or hearing Scripture being read), believers find
that the Christian Bible is a provision from God to Spirit-filled Christians,
which acts as a means of grace for communing with him. By contemplatively
reading the Bible and hearing the Bible being read, believers can commune with
God "in" the glorified Christ through the Holy Spirit. The Bible
exerts its authority upon believers internally by virtue of its being
designated by God to serve in a capacity of facilitating communion with God in
Christ by the Spirit. Since a disproportionately small percentage of believers
have the raw experience of having the resurrected Christ appear to them (much
less instruct them). God more regularly coordinates the Spirit in the texts
with the Spirit in believers. (Carlos R. Bovell, “The Internal Authority of
Scripture” in Biblical Inspiration and the Authority of Scripture,
ed. Carlos Bovell [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2015], 90-91; italics
in the original)
Matthew Barrett
(2016):
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). (Matthew Barrett, God's
Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2016], 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. (Ibid., 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. (Ibid., 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).” (Ibid.,
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). (Ibid., 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. (Ibid.,
374)
K. Scott Oliphant
(2016):
I
didn't [believe the Bible prior to conversion] either, I didn't, I could say,
and what changed me was that I opened it and I read it and the power of God was
in it . . . and then God changed me and I saw it for what it was. (REFORMCON2016 | Live Stream | Dr.
Scott Oliphint, 59:48 mark)
Te-Ti
Lau (2016):
The
work of the Spirit in enabling us to hear Scripture as God’s word can be seen
in two parts: illumination and demonstration. First, the Holy Spirit illumines
or opens our mind to behold the divine excellence that is contained in
Scripture. He regenerates our noetic faculties such that we are able to hear
the words of Scripture as God’s personal message to us. IN essence, the Spirit
as the divine author of the text opens the text to us. Second, the Holy Spirit
demonstrates or testifies to the truth of Scripture. In 1 Corinthians 2:4-14
and 1 Thessalonians 1:5, Paul attributes the persuasive and convicting power of
the gospel to the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The testimony of the Spirit
then provides us with the certainty that Scripture is indeed the word of God.
Calvin remarks:
If we
desire to provide in the best way of our consciences—that they may not be
perpetually beset by the instability of doubt or vacillation, and that they may
not also boggle at the smallest quibbles—we ought to seek our conviction in a
higher place than human reasons, judgments, or conjectures, that is, in the
secret testimony of the Spirit. (Institutes, 1.7.4.)
The
certainty afforded by the Holy Spirit is not a formal certainty: it is not
self-evident or incorrigible in the sense that 1+1=2. Rather, it is a moral
certainty that gives one cognitive rest or peace regarding the divine authority
of Scripture.
Scripture
is self-authenticating: it attests to its own divinity. But we need the Spirit
to illumine that self-attestation, and we need the Spirit to testify and assure
us that self-authentication is valid and true. In so doing, the Spirit does not
provide new evidences, but testifies to the truth that is objectively inherent
in the text. The Spirit then is not the reason for faith, but
the cause of faith. The reason for faith
would be Scripture’s self-attestation as seen in the explicit and implicit
claims of Scripture to be the word of God as mentioned earlier in this essay.
The Spirit is the cause of faith because he illumines our
minds and furnishes us with the assurance that the claims of Scripture are
true, making us perceive and accept the authoritative status of Scripture as
the word of God. This does not mean that Scripture lacks intrinsic authority
before the work of the Spirit. Scripture has objective authority in and of
itself, as it is the inspired word of God. The Spirit, however, works
existentially within an individual and establishes the subjective authority of
Scripture with respect to that individual. (Te-Ti Lau, “Knowing the Bible Is
the Word of God Despite Competing Claims” in The Enduring Authority of the
Christian Scriptures, ed. D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
2016], 989-11012, here, pp. 1007-8)
Kevin J. Vanhoozer (2016):
Commenting
on the debate as to whether the testimony of the Spirit is subjective and/or
objective, Kevin Vanhoozer wrote:
Enter
the Holy Spirit. Pentecost marks the gift of the Holy Spirit, the ultimate
author of Scripture, and thus the ultimate authority of its interpretation. We
are discussing sola fide, and for Calvin, “faith is the principal
work of the Holy Spirit” (Calvin, Institutes III.1.3). Can an
appeal to the Holy Spirit redeem the principle of private judgment? Is it
because Luther and Calvin had the Holy Spirit that they were in a position to
arbitrate between interpretive options—for example, to decide “when the Fathers
conformed to Scripture and when they did not”? Is the Holy Spirit the principle
of interpretive authority? Or does appealing to the Holy Spirit simply relocate
the problem of the locus of interpretive authority to a different level,
leaving Protestants to discern which interpretive community the Spirit is
actually guiding? It will be important to keep in mind both levels of the
conflict of interpretations: private and public.
According
to Bernard Ramm, “the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures . .
. is the principle of authority for the Christian church” Ramm
contrasts this with what he calls the “abbreviated Protestant principle,” which
he associates with William Chillingworth’s famous comment: “The Bible, I say
the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants.” It is abbreviated because
although it correctly identifies the external principle, it
omits the internal principle: the witness of the Spirit.
Calvin is the clear hero in Ramm’s The Witness of the Spirit.
Calvin avoids both the Romanist error of positing an infallible church and the
“Enthusiast” (i.e., radical Anabaptist) error of founding certainty on an
immediate revelation of Scripture that was not bound to the contents of
Scripture (remember Anne Hutchinson). Calvin’s mediating third way calls for
preserving the union of Word and Spirit, and he goes so far as to say that to
separate them is “detestable sacrilege”—this in a chapter entitled “Fanatics,
Abandoning, Scripture and Flying Over to Revelation, Cast Down All the
Principles of Godliness” (Calvin, Institutes I.9.1)
That
Calvin’s notion of the internal witness of the Spirit stops short of resolving
the problem of interpretive authority becomes apparent when one realizes that
or him the primary function of the Spirit’s testimony is to assure us that the
Bible is God’s Word (a witness to divine origin). The testimonium of
the Spirit does not indicate what of the many interpretations
on offer is the correct one (a witness to divine meaning). Calvin says that we
recognize the Spirit in his agreement with Scripture: “He is the Authority of
the Scripture: he cannot vary and differ from himself” (Institutes I.9.2).
Of course, what Scripture means is precisely what is at issue. Geneva, we have
a problem.
Kathryn
Tanner helpfully sets out the two sides of a “split understanding” of how the
Spirit works. Those on one side of the split stress the immediacy of how the
Spirit’s work in human subjectivity: “the Spirit showed me”—a claim to
self-evident divine validation that is hard for others to refute without
getting into a schoolyard dispute (“Did not!” “Did so!”). To claim such divine
inspiration of one’s interpretation risks making one’s hearing of the Spirit
the trump card, rather than Scripture itself. Appealing to an experience of the
Spirit is “an attack on the authority of all communally and socially validated
forms of intellectual, religious, and moral achievement that takes their rise
from long, slow processes of training and learning.” Direct appeals to the
Spirit’s authority are shortcuts that lead back to another kind of abbreviated
Protestant principle, where Spirit effectively eclipses Word.
On the
other side of the split are those who emphasize the mediate nature of the
Spirit’s work in the course of ordinary human history. The Spirit’s authority
is not over and above other sources but at work in, under, and through them.
Instead of resting in subjective certainty, those who take this view engage in
a discerning process: “But test the spirits to see whether they are from God”
(1 John 4:1). Stated positively: this view sees reason, study, grammar books,
and so forth as what the Westminster Confession of Faith calls “the ordinary
means” the Spirit uses to guide us into all truth (John 16:13) (Westminster
Confession of Faith 1.7) And this is the crucial point: determining how the
Spirit exercises his authority and leads the church into all truth. Here we may
recall Luther’s pointed retort, in his treatise “On the Bondage of the Will,”
to Erasmus citing interpretive disagreement as evidence of Scripture’s lack of
clarity: “The Holy Spirit is no skeptic.” (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Biblical
Authority After Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of
Mere Protestant Christianity [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press,
2016], 77-78, emphasis in original)
Elsewhere,
Vanhoozer noted:
The
first thing faith believes is that Scripture is the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16);
that is, in reading Scripture we are hearing God’s own speech. A Christian
“proves” that the Bible is God’s Word not by amassing reams of historical
evidence but by attending to its claims. It is as if reading Scripture evokes
in the reader a more focused sensus divinitatis: “the highest proof
of Scripture derives in general from the fact that God in person speaks it”
(Calvin, Institutes I.7.4). Calvin used the term autopistos to
refer to Scripture’s self-athenticating testimony that needs no external
demonstration, not even from the institutional church, but only the internal
confirmation of the Spirit who authored it (Calvin, Institutes I.7.5).
(Ibid., 97)
Finally,
Vanhoozer, with respect to the illumination of the Spirit and interpretation of
Scripture, wrote:
. . .
the Spirit illumines our minds . . . for those who have been enlightened, it is
impossible to miss the light (meaning) of the gospel shining out from its pages
. . . Scripture’s clarity does not mean that reading works ex opera
operato, as if simply pronouncing the words magically yields understanding.
Nor does clarity mean that Scripture wears doctrines like the Trinity on its
sleeve. Rather, it means that those whose eyes of the heart (Eph. 1:18) have
been opened by the spirit cannot miss the main story: the good news about Jesus
Christ. (Ibid., 112-13)
Imad N. Shehadeh
(2018):
In his translation of Rom 8:14-16, Trinitarian
apologist Imad N. Shehadeh rendered v. 16 slightly differently:
For all
who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not
received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received
a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba!
Father!” The Spirit Himself testifies to our spirit that we are children of
God. (Rom 8:14-16)
Commenting on the use of “to” instead of “with,”
Shehadeh notes that:
Here
the translation “testifies to our spirit” of v. 16 replaces
NASB’s “testifies with our spirit.” At issue, grammatically,
is whether the Spirit testifies alongside of our spirit (dat. of association),
or whether he testifies to our spirit (indirect object) that we are God’s
children. If the former, the one receiving this testimony is unstated (is it
God? or believers?). If the latter, the believer receives the testimony and
hence is assured of salvation via the inner witness of the Spirit. The first
view has the advantage of a συν- (sun-) prefixed verb, which might be
expected to take an accompanying dat. of association (and is supported by NEB,
JB, etc.). But there are three reasons why πνευματι (pneumatic)
should not be taken as association: (1) Grammatically, a dat.
with a συν-
prefixed verb does not necessarily indicate association. This, of course, does
not preclude such here, but this fact at least opens up the alternatives in
this text. (2) Lexically, though συμμαρτυρεω (summartureo) originally
bore an associative idea, it developed in the direction of merely
intensifying μαρτυρεω (martureo).
This is surely the case in the only other NT text with a dat. (Rom 9:1). (3)
Contextually, a dat. of association does not seem to support all to testify to
our being sons of God [Cranfield, Romans, 1:403]. In sum, Rom 8:16
seems to be secure as a text in which the believer’s assurance of salvation is
based on the inner witness of the Spirit. The implications of this for one’s
soteriology are profound. The objective data, as helpful as they are, cannot by
themselves provide assurance of salvation; the believer also needs (and
receives) an existential, ongoing encounter with God’s Spirit in order to gain
that familial comfort” (NET Bible notes). An added support to this are the
parallel concepts of the leading of the Spirit (8:14) and the crying of sons
(8:15). (Imad N. Shehadeh, God With Us and Without Us, 2 vols.
[Carlisle, U.K.: Langham Global Library, 2018], 1:15 n. 5)
Matt Slick
(2018):
The
reason I believe it is, I mean, it is very subjective, I believe it by
faith--that's it. That's why I believe the Bible. (Roman Catholicism Open
Discussion, 4/3/2018, 14:08 mark)
Daniel Castelo
and Robert W. Wall (2019):
.
. . God-fearing saints made certain judgments within a Spirit-drenched context,
one in which the Spirit was involved at the beginning, during the process, and
toward the end of a complex series of developments called “canonization.”
The
church’s “canon-consciousness,” then, is the graced (God-given) capacity to
discern what substantively agrees with the apostolic testimony of Jesus from
what does not. The church’s act of discernment is not a magical performance.
The recognition of a text’s canonicity, if properly led by the Spirit,
is necessarily honed in worship by prayer and in faithful use when teaching and
training God’s people. Canonization is a process of and for the church
in which God’s Spirit is present, performing the role for which the Spirit was
sent (see John 14-16). There is no need for a biblical canon if there is no
church, and without a biblical canon the church would be spiritually
impoverished. (Daniel Castelo and Robert W. Wall, The Marks of
Scripture: Rethinking the Nature of the Bible [Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Academic, 2019], 5-6, emphasis added)
This notion of the Spirit’s use of Scripture was informed by what
the church deemed as helpful to the task of inspiring believers and keeping
them faithful to Jesus and the teachings and preachings of the apostles. Often,
when people speak of the canonical process, criteria are appealed to that are
of a historical (authorial origins, context, and so on) as well as theological
(how well a book coheres to other established books and so forth) nature. From
these gleanings, people stamp the process as a recognition of a text’s
“inspiration,” with the appeal sometimes made to 2 Tim. 3:16 (“All scripture is
inspired by God”). Missing from this allusion, however, is the second half of
the verse (“and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness”), which might in turn function as a gloss on what
the term “inspiration” may involve and how a test comes to be recognized as
“inspired” in the first place. In this sense, “Scripture” is a dynamic process, a dynamism shaped during
the canonical process by historical and theological actors and by a formational
impress as well. (Ibid., 8-9 n. 8, emphasis added)
This
notion of the Spirit’s use of Scripture was informed by what the church deemed
as helpful to the task of inspiring believers and keeping them faithful to
Jesus and the teachings and preachings of the apostles. Often, when people
speak of the canonical process, criteria are appealed to that are of a historical
(authorial origins, context, and so on) as well as theological (how well a book
coheres to other established books and so forth) nature. From these gleanings,
people stamp the process as a recognition of a text’s “inspiration,” with the
appeal sometimes made to 2 Tim. 3:16 (“All scripture is inspired by God”).
Missing from this allusion, however, is the second half of the verse (“and is
useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness”), which might in turn function as a gloss on what the term
“inspiration” may involve and how a test comes to be recognized as “inspired”
in the first place. In this sense, “Scripture” is a dynamic process, a
dynamism shaped during the canonical process by historical and theological
actors and by a formational impress as well. (Ibid., 8-9 n. 8, emphasis
added)
If the
Spirit appointed the Gospel as an auxiliary for disclosing the sanctifying word
of truth to teach and guide Jesus’s disciples for their mission during this
interim period, then we might further ask how this community, which has
received this teaching Spirit at Pentecost (John 20:21-23; see Acts 2:1-4),
comes to recognize and canonize the fourfold Gospel the Spirit will use to
teach them about Jesus in his absence. Stipulating the criteria of
canonization has been a topic of much discussion and debate since the
magisterial Reformation. For the purpose of this typology, however, we will
continue to follow the lead of the Lord’s intercessory prayer in John 17.
According to verses 20-23, John’s Jesus targets a future when the church’s
successful mission adds new converts by its ministry of the sanctified word of
truth (that is, the canonical Gospel) now in its possession. The Gospel of the
Spirit’s own choosing may be recognized by its usefulness in producing a
certain kind of witness in a post-ascension world that no longer benefits from
the historical Jesus’s personal presence as God’s incarnate Son.
In two
particular ways, this passage serves to clarify the church’s vocation: (1)
Three successive hina (ινα, “so that,” 17:21) clauses focus our attention on
the compelling witness of a unified community whose life
together underwrites the risen Son’s messianic missions to purify the world of
its sin (cf. John 1:29).
(2) The
second effect of the community’s Spirit-breathed ministry of
this sanctified Gospel is its reception of God’s “glory” or presence given to
them (17:22). The full range of the community’s experience of God’s indwelling
presence may be inferred from the repetition of “glory” in the Gospel. God’s
glory is disclosed in the works of Jesus (v. 4) as “full of grace and truth”
(1:4). The Spirit of truth participates in the glorification of Jesus by
continuing to communicate the life of “the Holy One of God” (6:69) to his
followers (16:12-16). We take this to be a profoundly trinitarian sensibility
in which the glorious presence of the Father, which is self-evidently “full of
grace and truth,” is instantiated in the works of God’s Son, whose apostolic
witness is preserved in the canonical Gospel—a sanctified word of truth—for use
by the Spirit to sanctify the church for its ministry in the world.
These
conclusions shape how we understand canonization as a process of divine
providence: the canonical process was a hallowing process by which the church
came to recognize those texts appointed and made holy by the Spirit for use in
teaching the church that Jesus is the way, truth, and life. The Spirit’s
current ministry is cued by Jesus’s departure and his temporary absence from
his followers, who continue to ask Thomas’s question: “How can we know the
way?” These writings were collected and ordered into a scriptural witness for
the church’s work in the mission Dei. It is by this sacred witness
that we know “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name
under heaven given to people by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12 AT). (Ibid.,
81-82, italics in original, emphasis in bold added)
Lou Going (2019):
The Inward Witness and Illumination of the Holy Spirit
The Scriptures not only attests to its God-breathed character, and hence to its authority, but it possesses in itself objective evidence to support its claims to be God's true word. This is summed up well in the Savoy Declaration—Berkshire Amendment.
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 doth 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. (SD-BA 1:5)
The objective "evidence" that the Bible is the Word of God consists in what the Declaration calls, "the heavenliness of the matter and efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all its parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation and the many other incomparable excellencies and the entire perfection thereof." All of this is contained in the Bible and provides reasons for our faith in its trustworthiness and justification for submission to its authority. As such, it is God's revelation, and hence His communication to the world.
Yet we need more if the objective self-attestation of the God-breathed Scriptures is to be understood with the full assurance of faith. We need that objective revelation subjectively opened to our minds and our hearts. The complete process of God revealing truth is when our minds and hearts by the Holy Spirit are illumined so as to receive the Bible as God's true and authoritative word. This is what the Declaration calls "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible and divine authority" of the Bible.
Paul speaks of this subjective witness-bearing work of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 2:
But we impart a secret hidden and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"—these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. (1 Cor. 2:7-12 ESV)
Paul writes of a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which the Scriptures declared, and quotes Isaiah 64:4, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him." This is a reference to the gospel. These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. Note that the gospel, which has been objectively revealed in Christ and preserved in the Scriptures that attest to Christ, is subjectively revealed by the Spirit so "that we might understand the things freely given us by God." The Holy Spirit who inspired the human authors is the one who enables us to receive what they have written. There is a difference, but not a separation, between the Holy Spirit's inspiration of the Scriptures and His inward testimony or illumination of one's mind and heart. The illumination of the Holy Spirit is not to be understood as additional content or evidence that goes beyond Scripture but His aid in making one receptive to the Scriptures and their teaching.
So, the Spirit does not present more evidence or argument to us. His role is not to add another piece of evidence, another argument to the case for faith. Rather, he witnesses to the evidence for the truth that is objectively present in Scripture. He witnesses to what is certainly true. His role is to cause faith. His role is to take away our blindness so that we can rightly see Scripture’s self-attestation and be convinced by it. He enables us to see the evidence for what it is: God’s clear and certain revelation of himself. He makes us accept Scripture’s self-attestation. So, the work of the Spirit is the cause of faith; the self-witness of the Scripture is the reason for faith. We need both to be assured of the truth of Scripture. It is in this way that God comes with his personal words to attest them to our minds and heart. (John Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013], 678-679)
There is no conflict between the Bible and the Holy Spirit. He who inspired the Bible now illumines the believer’s mind to receive the objective self-attestation of the Bible. This is how God speaks to people. There is no new content added to the Bible. Nevertheless, there is true and saving understanding of the Bible apart from the internal testimony and illumination of the Holy Spirit. (Lou Going, “The God-Breathed Character of the Bible: Affirming the Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures,” in Standing on the Promises: Essays in Honor of Stephen C. Brown and Wesley A. Ross, ed. Andrew J. Rice [Bloomington, Ind.: WestBow Press, 2019], 66-68)
