Table of Contents

Chapter 3.4

Reevaluating the “Testimony of the Spirit” to Scripture

Does the Holy Spirit Tell Us What is Scripture?

Overall Objective

To offer a biblical and practical evaluation of the popular suggestion that the Holy Spirit subjectively authenticates Scripture.

Table of Topics

A) A Description of the “Testimony of the Spirit”

B) Promoters & Critics of the “Testimony of the Spirit”

C) Suggested Problems with the “Testimony of the Spirit”

C.1) The Doctrine’s Lack of Scriptural Support

C.1.a) Scriptures that are irrelevant

C.1.b) Scriptures that refer to regeneration in salvation

C.1.c) Scriptures that refer to assurance of salvation

C.1.d) Scriptures that refer to revelation

C.2) The Doctrine’s Practical Ineffectiveness

C.3) The Doctrine’s Potential Dangers: Pragmatism, Neoorthodoxy, & Liberalism

C.4) The Doctrine’s Unnecessary Depreciation of Spirit-Liberated Reason

D) A Better Approach to Identifying the Word of God

Publications & Particulars

Primary Points

A “testimony of the Spirit” is claimed to enable us to determine what is Scripture and what is not.

There is no clear biblical support for this application of the Holy Spirit.
Rather than securing the certainty of biblical authority, the “testimony” undermines it by subjecting it to the subjective experience of the individual.
The supposed effects of the “testimony” are difficult to distinguish from those that may be experienced from communication other than Scripture.
If the “testimony” is as effective as many claim, then we would expect a new Christian to identify all or only the sixty-six books of our present biblical canon out of a larger selection of literature.
The “testimony” must not have operated for many early Church leaders who accepted the OT Apocrypha as Scripture.
Unlike “testimony” proponents, we claim that nothing in all of Creation is self-authenticating, nor did God intend it to be so.
In essence then, it would seem the doctrine of the “testimony of the Spirit” becomes just another example of contemporary pragmatism in which we believe something to be true, like Scripture, because “it works.” What happens when it doesn’t “work?”
The key to identifying Scripture is to know what documents were written by supernaturally educated and authenticated men. Such a determination can only be based on historical research.

A) A Definition & Description of the “Testimony of the Spirit”

In the previous chapter we made the case that the epistemological foundation of our trust in the divine authority of particularly the NT is historical research, evaluated by our reason, and exercised under the God-ordained authority of our private judgment. However, many Christians claim otherwise, referring to a “testimony of the Holy Spirit” that enables us to know what is Scripture. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology defines this concept as, “The theological designation of the Holy Spirit’s activity in bringing about the believing acknowledgment of Scripture’s inherent authority.” ^[1] The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states that:

The witness of the Spirit . . . has as such the irrefutable force of testimony to Scripture as God’s Word, definitively establishing for believers its authenticity and authority. The Spirit’s witness is naturally and necessarily a witness to Scripture inasmuch as it provides it with the supreme proof, “that God in person speaks in it” ^[2]

Simply put, it is being claimed that the Holy Spirit somehow “tells us” that a particular writing or document is the divinely imparted word of God, as opposed to the mere writing of a human. ^[3]

While other theologians had discussed the revelatory ministry of the Spirit, it was John Calvin (1509–1564) in his Institutes of the Christian Religion who first fully developed the doctrine under the heading: “Scripture Must Be Confirmed By The Witness Of The Spirit. Thus May Its Authority Be Established As Certain; And It Is A Wicked Falsehood That Its Credibility Depends On The Judgment Of The Church.” ^[4] As the heading suggests, Calvin’s immediate concern was that the Roman Catholic Church of his day claimed it alone had the authority to decide, by the decrees of councils, what literature was divine Scripture and what was not. ^[5]

Accordingly, Calvin wrote:

[A] most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men! . . . They ask: who can convince us that these writings came from God? Who can assure us that Scripture has come down whole and intact even to our very day? Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters? What reverence is due Scripture and what books ought to be reckoned within its canon depend, they say, upon the determination of the church. . . . Yet, if this is so, what will happen to miserable consciences seeking firm assurance of eternal life if all promises of it consist in and depend solely upon the judgment of men? ^[6]

Obviously, the questions that Calvin mentions are incredibly important, and, in fact, the Roman Church did precisely what Calvin was accusing them of at the Council of Trent (1545-63), adding the Apocrypha to the OT. In his effort to deny the Roman Church’s authority in this matter, Calvin promoted the personal ability of each and every Christian to recognize what was authentic written divine revelation, and what was not, by virtue of the Holy Spirit that worked in them. Calvin’s view has some similarities to the Reformation doctrine of the right of private judgment. However, in our opinion, because he seemed to disregard the God-ordained place of Spirit-liberated reason, He placed the ground of certainty regarding the canon on a more mystical ground. His description of the Spirit’s ability to enable us to recognize divine documents from merely human ones is found in the following:

If we desire to provide in the best way for 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. . . .

[I]t is clear that the teaching of Scripture is from heaven . . . all the books of Sacred Scripture far surpass all other writings. . . . The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded. . . .

Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit.

Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as to a thing far beyond any guesswork! . . .

Such, then, is a conviction that requires no reasons; such, a knowledge with which the best reason agrees — in which the mind truly reposes more securely and constantly than in any reasons; I speak of nothing other than what each believer experiences within himself —though my words fall far beneath a just explanation of the matter. ^[7]

On the contrary, how could he extol the powers of the “testimony” more than claiming “with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it [Scripture] has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men.” That is a lot of certainty, and apart from any evidence.

Nonetheless, it should be noted that Calvin’s promotion of the “testimony” did not keep him from seeing value in reasonable proofs for the authority of Scripture. Accordingly, Richard Muller writes:

Calvin’s often-cited comments on certainty [in the authority of Scripture] point out the difficulty, not the resolution, of the question: He affirms, strongly, against Roman Catholic approaches to the problem of authority and certainty that “the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason” and that “the highest proof of Scripture derives . . . from the fact that God in person speaks in it,” and that, therefore, Scripture is “self-authenticating.”

But he then devotes an entire chapter of the 1559 Institutes-longer and more detailed than his discussion of the self-authenticating character of the text-to his discussion of rational evidences of the divinity and “credibility” of Scripture. Indeed, Calvin discusses these evidences of divinity at greater length than either Bullinger or Musculus [post-Reformation theologians often criticized today for their commitment to reason]. ^[8]

Nevertheless, with the teaching of Calvin, the doctrine of the “testimony” became the standard approach to establishing the authority of the Scriptures. Accordingly, when Calvin wrote the Gallic Confession (1559) it stated:

We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books which, however useful, can never become the basis for any articles of faith.

Subsequently, when the English Reformers authored the very influential Westminster Confession (1646), it included the following:

(I:4) The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God (1 Thes 2:13; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19, 21; 1 John 5:9)

(1:5) We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture (1 Tim 3:15). 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 (Isa 59:21; John 16:13, 14:1 Cor 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27). (underlining added)

While proponents of this view may not wish to claim as much, the inevitable conclusion to such a doctrine is that the “testimony of the Holy Spirit” gives the Christian the ability to confidently discern between various documents what is divinely imparted by God and possessing divine authority, from documents merely written by spiritual men. It is, no doubt, an ingenious idea, and admittedly, a much more spiritual sounding approach to the authentication of Scripture than the approach of reason.

Unfortunately, we do not think there is sufficient biblical or practical support to accept Calvin’s answer to the critical question of how do we know what documents are divinely imparted by God. In fact, we would suggest that one of the biggest mistakes in modern theology is the wide-spread acceptance to Calvin’s epistemology, while at the same time, rejecting his soteriology. For our part, we reject the former and larger agree with the latter.

What the “testimony of the Spirit” claims to do is rather clear: revealing to the Christian the divine authority of Scripture. How it supposedly does this is difficult to understand. Accordingly, William Abraham writes:

What Calvin exactly means by this [testimony of the Spirit] is notoriously difficult to determine, but there is no doubting its central place in his epistemology. . . . [I]n essence, appeal to the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit is an appeal either to an internal divine revelation or to the personal experience of the believer. ^[9]

Here, Dr. Abraham offers what seems to be the two possibilities of how proponents of the “testimony” describe its working. Some speak of it as “an internal divine revelation.” For example, the well-known Protestant theologian Bernard Ramm (1916-1992) writes in what is probably the most detailed defense of the “testimony of the Spirit”:

This confession (Matt 16:16-17) [revealed to and made by the Apostle Peter] was a statement of revelation, namely, that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God; it was made by an inward revelation, a testimonium. This confession, and the certainty that accompanied it, was the product of the inward revealing act of God the Father and is a reflection of that total New Testament doctrine of illumination. ^[10]

Dr. Ramm speaks of the “testimony” as a revelation of the Spirit, about Scripture, but separate from it. This would seem to be precisely what Calvin said at times, including in his commentary on 2 Timothy 3:16 where he writes:

If someone objects, “how can this be known?” [that all Scripture is authored by God], I reply that God is made known to be the author, both to teachers and pupils, by the revelation of the same Spirit . . . The same Spirit, therefore, who made Moses and the prophets certain of their own calling now also testifies to our hearts that he has used them as his servants to instruct us. ^[11]

Clearly, then, there is information being divinely revealed here that is about Scripture, but separate from it. This revelation of the “testimony” of the Spirit is commonly described as an illumination which Webster’s defines as: “to give knowledge to; to give spiritual insight.” ^[12] Clearly the term conveys the idea of giving information of some kind. The same is true of the word persuasion, which is used by Calvin and the Confessions quoted above. It is important to recognize here that persuasion of any kind requires evidence and information apart from what we are being persuaded about. In other words, if the Holy Spirit is persuading us that a particular document is Scripture, then He is providing us with divine revelation and knowledge apart from what Scripture is actually saying.

For example, we read the biblical quote:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. (Eph 1:3-4)

How do we know this is divine revelation concerning the truth of our predestination to salvation? What is being claimed by proponents of the “testimony” is that when reading this, we are not only receiving information about our predestination to salvation, but by virtue of the “testimony of the Spirit” I am also receiving information, or a “persuasion” that this quote was divinely imparted by God, not just written by a man. ^[13] Does the Spirit give us such a revelation about Scripture but apart from it? We will refute such an idea below by demonstrating that no Scripture promises or describes such a thing, nor does such an approach work in practical experience.

While some describe the “testimony” as an “internal divine revelation,” others refer to it as what Dr. Abraham called a “personal experience of the believer.” What seems to be meant by this is that when we are exposed to Scripture and feel comforted, encouraged, or guided, that this supposedly unique experience authenticates the words as divine.

Along these lines, Paul Helm in his entry to the Evangelical classic, Scripture and Truth edited by D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge is given the task of explaining, “What evidence ought to persuade people that the Bible is the Word of God?” ^[14] Helm’s answer is, “the certainty of the Scriptures as revelatory documents lies in their being confirmed in experience . . . the impact of the revelation on the lives of those who receive it.” ^[15] So, in this view of the “testimony of the Spirit” to the divinity of Scripture, it is the claim of a unique experience through which the Spirit does its convincing work.

However, we should immediately recognize the dangers of authenticating divine revelation by how it makes us feel. As we will discuss further below, such a “testimony” of experience does nothing to distinguish Scripture from other types of mere human communication (books, sermons, counsel) that may be equally edifying, encouraging, or comforting at times. ^[16]

Finally, we would clarify that if proponents of the “testimony of the Spirit” wanted to define it as simply the Spirit’s work in regeneration to renew the human “heart” such that we can now recognize and appreciate truth in the Gospel and Scripture, then we would have little argument with them. ^[17] This is precisely the process and affect we have described elsewhere concerning Spirit-liberated reason, including the following:

Some of us may remember trying to understand the Scriptures before we were born again. Even though the words were in English, the meaning seemed like Mandarin Chinese. Still, even though we may have understood the meaning of the words in Scripture, we did not understand their significance. Then, after being born again, the Scriptures came alive! The difference was simply that our devil-darkened reason was liberated to discern and recognize truth as God intended [and replaced with Spirit-liberated reason]. . . . ^[18]

This is what the Apostle is describing regarding the Jews and their need to be regenerated in order to “see” Christ in Scripture. He writes:

But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is [epistemological ^[19]] freedom. (2 Cor 3:14-17)

We suggest that the Apostle is pointing out that the Jews were epistemologically blind to the Christ revealed in the OT Scriptures. Because of this dullness of mind and their veiled hearts they could not properly interpret Scripture, but with the regenerating work of the “Spirit of the Lord” their minds and hearts are freed to do so. ^[20]

Indeed, by virtue of spiritual regeneration, every Christian now possesses Spirit-liberated reason instead of the devil-darkened reason of those who are spiritually dead. Accordingly, the Spirit-controlled moral and logical reasoning of the Christian will perceive in the Bible that here is the greatest concentration of the most important truths in the world, and truth that is objectively confirmed in experience. For example, the moral New Nature in us would certainly validate the moral commands of Scripture. Not only that, but these documents contain the Gospel that saved us and was the cause of our spiritual regeneration.

However, no matter how wonderful these things are, they are not found in every part of the Bible. Therefore, while the Gospel and moral commands contained in Scripture may be validated by our experience of moral regeneration, its historical and amoral doctrinal contents (e.g. Trinity) need some other objective criteria. And even the way in which these things are validated, does not constitute a revelation from the Spirit, but a reasoned evaluation of our experience. This is perhaps our greatest disagreement with those who promote the “testimony” doctrine. While we claim the recognition of Scripture is a matter of research with our God-given and Spirit-liberated reason, proponents of the “testimony” want to claim that an unauthenticated, subjective, “secret” revelation of the Spirit tells us what is Scripture, apart from any human reasoning or objective evidence.

It is obvious then that this is a critically important issue. There are few questions more important than, “How do we know if the sixty-six books in the Bible are the words of God instead of merely the words of men?”

B) Promoters & Critics of the “Testimony of the Spirit”

The promoters of the doctrine of the “testimony of the Holy Spirit” include the vast majority of the most influential Christian scholars, theologians and historians in the last 450 years, including today. The names include Calvin, Zwingli, Turretin, Owen, Bavinck, Kuyper, Young, Richardson, Berkhof, Van Til, Packer, Ramm, Schaff, Sproul, Reymond, Grudem, Ryrie, Waltke, Bruce, Bromiley, Bloesch, Frame, and Carson. Notable exceptions include Luther, Hodge, Warfield, and Edwards. ^[21]

Because of its promotion by Calvin and its existence in the Church’s most respected confessions, it should not be surprising that the idea has been overwhelmingly popular, particularly among Reformed theologians. For example, the greatly admired seventeenth century Puritan theologian John Owen (1616–1683) wrote in his massive study of the Holy Spirit:

Wherefore, I say in general, that the Holy Spirit giveth testimony unto and evinceth the divine authority of the word by its powerful operations and divine effects on the souls of them that do believe. . . . [The Holy Spirit] effectually ascertains our minds of the Scriptures being the word of God, whereby we are ultimately established in the faith thereof. And I cannot but both admire and bewail that this should be denied by any that would be esteemed Christians. . . . God by his Holy Spirit doth secretly and effectually persuade and satisfy the minds and souls of believers in the divine truth and authority of the Scriptures, whereby he infallibly secures their faith against all objections and temptations whatsoever. ^[22]

Likewise, J. I. Packer, another Puritan theologian, at least in heart, describes the “testimony of the Spirit” to Scripture when he says:

Through the inner witness of the Spirit, Christians recognize that the Scriptures “breathe out something divine” and come with God’s own authority to all who hear or read them. . . . The church’s certainty about the canon rests finally, after all has been said that can be said about the history and pedigree of the separate books, on the Spirit-given awareness that they bear divine witness to Christ, and God himself speaks to us what they say. ^[23]

[R]ecognition of canonical Scripture depends ultimately on the covenanted inner witness of the Spirit, whereby the divine source and authority of those books which the church has historically attested to (not, therefore, the apocrypha) is made evident to faith. ^[24]

The ground of faith is the recognition of man’s word as God’s word. How does it come about? Through the work of the Holy Spirit, opening and enlightening the ‘eyes’ of the mind so that man ‘sees’ and knows the divine source . . . of the message that confronts him. ^[25]

Dr. Packer’s emphasis on this doctrine is especially important to note. Not only because of his stature as a great theologian, but because few others have been as involved in the battle for the authority of Scripture, and Dr. Packer consistently falls back on this doctrine as an argument.

Likewise, the renowned OT scholar Bruce Waltke writes:

The fact is that the Holy Spirit offers conviction that the Bible is truth. . . . It is well known that the Bible claims to be the Word of God, but what is not as well known is that the truthfulness of the Bible depends on the convicting work of the Holy Spirit and not on human reason. My conviction that the Bible can be trusted as God’s Word does not come from human reason, but from the Holy Spirit. If Scripture’s claim to truth must be validated by finite, fallible human reason, then even if it is inspired revelation of truth, humanity cannot know it and must continue to despair of attaining the meaning and value they seek. ^[26]

One of our favorite theologians, Herman Bavinck (1854–1921), is even more dogmatic about the centrality of the “testimony” not only to epistemology, but Christianity itself:

The testimony of the Holy Spirit is so far from being the Achilles’ heel of Protestantism that it should rather be called the cornerstone of our Christian confession, the crown and seal of all Christian truth, the triumph of the Holy Spirit in the world. Take away the testimony of the Holy Spirit, not only in relation to Scripture, but to all the truths of redemption, and there is no more church. . . . the apologetic value of the testimony of the Holy Spirit is second to none. ^[27]

Likewise, the very highly respected NT scholar F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) has written some of the most detailed descriptions of the historical evidence for the authenticity, apostolicity, and authority of Scripture. Nonetheless, he writes:

The work of the Holy Spirit [i.e. the fact that He has inspired a document] is not discerned by the means of the common tools of the historian’s trade. His inner witness gives the assurance to hearers or readers of scripture that in its words God himself is addressing them. ^[28]

Also speaking of a subjective assurance of the authority of Scripture, Wayne Grudem writes:

Our ultimate conviction that the words of the Bible are God’s words comes only when the Holy Spirit speaks in and through the words of the Bible to our hearts and gives us an inner assurance that these are the words of our Creator speaking to us. . . . Thus, the words of Scripture are “self-attesting.” ^[29]

Finally, the very important Chicago Statement of Inerrancy (1978), developed by many of the finest Evangelical scholars of our day states: “We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God’s written Word.” ^[30]

We see then that the idea that the Holy Spirit supernaturally authenticates Scripture is deeply embedded in the best of Christian theology. Still, the doctrine has not been without its opponents, even within the Reformed camp. First of all, the historical support for the doctrine has been relatively thin. The Dutch Reformed theologian Valentine Hepp, writing in the 1960’s in support of the doctrine, admits that before, and even immediately after Calvin, “There has been . . . very little recognition of the existence of the general testimony of the Spirit.” ^[31]

For example, even men such as Augustine (354-430) and Aquinas (1225–1274) who thought and wrote extensively on such epistemological/philosophical subjects, and “many Reformed theologians” have not included this doctrine in their epistemologies. ^[32]

The Puritan divine, Richard Baxter (1615-1691) wrote:

I confess, for my part, I could never boast of any such testimony or light of the Spirit or reason; neither of which, without human testimony or tradition, would have made me believe that the book of Canticles [Song of Solomon] is canonical and written by Solomon, and the book of Wisdom apocryphal and written by Philo, as some think, or that Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans and others is apocryphal [not Scripture], and the second and third Epistle of John canonical. Nor could I ever have known all or any historical books, such as Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, to be written by divine inspiration, but by tradition. ^[33]

As noted in the previous chapter, another Puritan at heart, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), described eight vital functions of human reason, the fifth being, “reason must verify any revelation as genuine.” ^[34] In relating the view of Edwards, a foremost expert on his theology, Dr. John Gerstner, relates that he believed:

To be sure, once the Bible by argument [or reason] is proven to be the Word of God there can be no more argument about the infallible authority of all of its message. Anyone at any time may return to the argument for biblical inspiration and the argument must be vindicated in the arena of debate or withdrawn. So said Jonathan Edwards and so said and says, (with a very weak voice today), the general historic Christian tradition. . . . Men receive things as truth purely because God has revealed them, yet . . . it is by the faculty of reason that men know it to be a revelation and by that faculty that they know that a divine revelation is to be depended on.

Likewise, Eduard Ruess, well known for his multi-volume work on the canon of Scripture in the nineteenth century, wrote concerning how the Reformers distinguished the documents of Scripture:

Was it really in virtue of the sovereign principle of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit? Would it be quite true to say that the first Protestant theologians, while unmoved by the enthusiastic eloquence of the author of [the apocryphal] Wisdom, so much extolled by the Alexandrians, felt the breath of God in the genealogies of Chronicles, or the topographical catalogues of the book of Joshua? . . . I have some difficulty in believing that they arrived at the distinction they drew by any test of that kind. ^[35]

In a similar vein, the seventeenth century Jesuit theologian St Francis de Sales (1567-1622), exposed the difficulty of appealing to the inner witness as follows:

Now let us see what rule they [the Reformers] have for discerning the canonical books from all of the other ecclesiastical ones. ‘The witness,’ they say, ‘and inner persuasion of the Holy Spirit.’ Oh God, what a hiding place, what a fog, what a night! We are not in this way very enlightened in so important and grave a manner. ^[36]

The eminent Reformed theologian B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) clearly had little use for the doctrine of the “testimony of the Spirit” in order to establish the authority of the Scriptures. Accordingly he wrote:

[T]he mystical tendency is manifesting itself at the present day most distinctly in a widespread inclination to set aside apologetics in favor of the “witness of the Spirit.” The convictions of the Christian man, we are told, are not the product of reason addressed to the intellect, but the immediate creation of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Therefore, it is intimated, we may do very well without these reasons, if indeed they are not positively noxious, because tending to substitute a barren intellectualism for a vital faith.

It seems to be forgotten that though faith be a moral act and the gift of God, it is yet formally conviction passing into confidence; and that all forms of convictions must rest on evidence as their ground, and it is not faith but reason which investigates the nature and validity of this ground.

“He who believes,” says Thomas Aquinas, in words which have become current as an axiom, “would not believe unless he saw that what he believes is worthy of belief.” Though faith is the gift of God, it does not in the least follow that the faith which God gives is an irrational faith, that is, a faith without cognizable ground in right reason. We believe in Christ because it is rational to believe in Him, not even though it be irrational.

Of course mere reasoning cannot make a Christian; but that is not because faith is not the result of evidence, but because a dead soul cannot respond to evidence. The action of the Holy Spirit in giving faith is not apart from evidence, but along with evidence; and in the first instance consists in preparing the soul for the reception of the evidence. ^[37]

Likewise, Dr. Warfield wrote elsewhere:

The “testimony of the Holy Spirit in the heart” does not communicate to man any new powers, powers alien to him as man; it is restorative in its nature and in principle merely recovers his [reasoning] powers from their deadness induced by sin. The knowledge of God to which man attains through the testimony of the Spirit is therefore the knowledge which belongs to him as normal man; although now secured by him only in a supernatural manner. ^[38]

Warfield is describing what we have referred to as the spiritual liberation of reason in regeneration, and it probably was not helpful for him to refer to it as the “testimony of the Spirit” at all. ^[39] Along these lines, Avery Dulles writes:

[B. B.] Warfield, while greatly admiring [Abraham] Kuyper and [Herman] Bavinck [and certainly Calvin], criticizes their views on faith and reason. The Amsterdam theologians, he objects, indulge a mystical tendency that substitutes the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit for the objective grounds perceptible to reason. . . . The Holy Spirit does not produce faith without grounds but enables us to grasp the objective validity of the grounds. ^[40]

Based on his knowledge and support of the theology and epistemology of Jonathan Edwards, it is not surprising that John Gerstner (1914-1996), one of the most respected Reformed theologians of our day, is quite critical of the “testimony of the Spirit” doctrine in his very helpful little book, A Bible Inerrancy Primer. While Dr. Gerstner did not reject some place for the “testimony of the Spirit” in the Christian’s life, he believed the concept was “misused” when “the Internal Testimony is submitted as proof that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.” ^[41]

Likewise, the renowned Evangelical theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003) has written:

While inner evidence for the canonical books may be useful, the question remains whether a sincere Christian left to himself would identify all or only our present twenty-seven New Testament books out of a larger selection of literature. Would he include all the canonical books and exclude all apocryphal books? Even pious men have at times questioned the canonical status of some of these writings. . . . Can the canonical works be discriminated solely in terms of one’s inner spiritual response? . . .

[T]he Bible’s authority does not rest upon our experience of the truth of Scripture. Scripture does, indeed, manifest its power in inner experience, but this experience is not the basis and ground of its claim to be authoritative. Not only does such an appeal by-pass historical concerns [and evidence] crucial for the efficacy of the Bible, but it also confers upon other Christian literature through which the Spirit may speak [to some] a dignity equal to that of the Bible. ^[42]

We could hardly state our view any clearer, and those who propose some “testimony of the Spirit” should more seriously consider the words of such a respected, evangelical, and learned theologian as Dr. Henry.

C) Suggested Problems with the “Testimony of the Spirit” Doctrine

C.1) The Doctrine’s Lack of Scriptural Support

In our critique of the doctrine of the “testimony of the Spirit” we will argue first that we see no Scriptural support for it. Calvin, uncharacteristically, does not even offer any Scriptures in support of his discussion on the topic. Accordingly, Geoffrey Bromiley writes:

The Reformers might advocate Scripture as a norm, but they offered little biblical support for their specialized use of the phrase “witness of the Spirit.” They did not do so, however, because they regarded the matter as self-evident. ^[43]

Needless to say, it is not “self-evident” to all Spirit-filled Christians and we need some scriptural support for such a critical doctrine.

However, it must be asked that even if there was biblical support for the “testimony” and it is the “testimony” that is telling us what is Scripture, then how do we know we have biblical support? We are arguing in a subjective circle that does not provide the kind of confidence that promoters of the “testimony” seek.

Nonetheless, many have suggested supporting verses, although they are consistently in a mere footnote or parentheses, with no discussion of them whatsoever. ^[44] The popular Reformed theologian R. C. Sproul, for example, says:

[T]he New Testament is replete with allusions to the work of the Spirit in securing our confidence in the Word. These references are scattered throughout the New Testament and include such classic texts as 2 Corinthians 4:3-6; 1 John 1:10; 2:14; 5:20; Colossians 2:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Galatians 4:6; Romans 8:15-16; and others. ^[45]

Likewise, after suggesting that 1 John 5:7-13 supports the doctrine, Bernard Ramm says in a footnote:

For other verses on the interior witness of the Spirit see John 15:26 (“he shall bear witness of me”); Romans 8:14-16 (“the Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit”); Gal. 4:6; 1 John 2:27 (“his anointing teacheth you”); 3:24 (“And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he gave us”); 4:13; 5:10-13; and 5:20. We must also keep in mind the numerous acts of the Spirit in the book of Acts [whatever that has to do with it]; and the powerful renewing effects of the Holy Spirit on the human mind (Rom. 8:4-27, John 3:3, and Titus 3:5). ^[46]

J. I. Packer offers the following verses in a footnote for support after his discussion of the doctrine: John 3:3; 1 Cor 2:14-15; 2 Cor 4:6; Eph 1:18; 1 John 2:20, 27; 5:7, 20. ^[47]

The Westminster Confession quoted above provides the following verses for its statement that:

Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority [of Scripture], is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (Isa 59:21; John 16:13, 14; 1 Cor 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27).

Finally, John Frame suggests that Ephesians 1:17ff; 3:14-19; and 5:8-21 speak of the “testimony of the Spirit.”

Obviously and understandably there is a good deal of redundancy in these lists. Still, they demonstrate that there certainly is no shortage of suggestions for Scripture that supports Calvin’s version of the doctrine of the “testimony of the Spirit.” Before discussing these passages, it is important to be reminded once again what specifically is said to be taught in these Scriptures. In other words, the question to ask is do any of these verses clearly teach us that the Holy Spirit enables us to confidently discern literature that is the written recording of direct revelation from God, from that which is merely the recording of the thoughts of men? Do they teach that the Spirit helps us detect Scripture? In all the flurry of verses thrown at this doctrine, none of them support what these authors suggest they support.

C.1.a) Scriptures that are irrelevant

First of all, many of the verses provided by the above authors seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with the Holy Spirit enabling us to discern the writings of God from the writings of men. For example, the Westminster Confession suggests Isaiah 59:21:

As for Me, this is My covenant with them,” says the LORD. “My Spirit, Who is on you, and My words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the LORD.

Most commentators believe this promise applies to the end-time restoration of Israel, not an operation of the Spirit in the Church. Even if some would apply it somehow to the Church today, it speaks of direct divine revelation, not a “testimony” to written Scripture.

Likewise, R. C. Sproul lists 1 John 1:10 above as a “classic text” supporting the “testimony of the Spirit” to Scripture. It says, “If we claim we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar and His word has no place in our lives.” This verse would seem to simply affirm that Scripture has no authority for the unbeliever. Dr. Sproul cites other texts that have nothing to do with the doctrine of the “testimony of the Spirit,” including 1 John 2:14 in which John tells, “young men” that “the word of God lives in” them and Colossians 2:2 where the Apostle writes, “My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ.” For our part, we do not see what these passages have to do with a “testimony of the Spirit” to the divinity of Scripture.

Similarly, John Frame suggests that Ephesians 5:8-21 speaks of the “testimony of the Spirit.” However, the Apostle simply introduces this section with the statement, “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light,” and proceeds to describe the moral virtues that Christians should have.

Finally, Bernard Ramm comments, “In its own way the most remarkable verse upon this subject is I John 5:20.” ^[48] There we read: “We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know Him Who is true.” At best, this is a reference to the regeneration of the Spirit which gives us “understanding” of the saving revelation of Jesus Christ in the Gospel. There is nothing here about a promised ability to detect written divine revelation, and to suggest so would seem to be unreasonable.

C.1.b) Scriptures that refer to regeneration in salvation

Most verses used to support a “testimony of the Spirit” to the divinity of Scripture actually apply to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in conversion. This simply (and wonderfully!) exchanges our rebellious nature with the Spirit, and liberates our reason, allowing us to do the most reasonable thing in the world: receive the free gift of salvation in Christ. ^[49]

For example, both Drs. Sproul and Packer cite 2 Corinthians 4:6 as support for the “testimony of the Spirit” to the divinity of Scripture. There the Apostle writes: “For God, Who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,”made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” This applies to how we get saved, not how we know what documents are Scripture.

Other verses cited for support simply describe the convicting work of the Holy Spirit to the Gospel. For example, many proponents of the “testimony of the Spirit” to Scripture cite 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 which reads: “For we know, brothers loved by God, that He has chosen you, because our Gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction.” Here, as in many other places, we see a description of the Spirit’s work in the process of salvation. And the reason the Apostle knew these Thessalonians has been chosen by God to be saved was the observable fruit of the Spirit in their lives, including sorrow and repentance for their sins and the number of other supernatural attributes Paul ascribes to them in versew 6-9. ^[50]

Proponents of the “testimony of the Spirit” to the divinity of Scripture commonly suggest that the work of the Spirit in enabling us to receive the Gospel, continues in some way to tell us what is Scripture as well. Accordingly, this is a primary approach of Bernard Ramm who claims:

Whatever differences Luther and Calvin may have had in regard to the testimonium and the relation of Word to Spirit, they were one in their belief in the reality and necessity of the testimonium. In his Small Catechism Luther wrote: “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord, or come to him; but the Holy Ghost has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me by his gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in true faith.” . . .

Thus the witness of the Spirit is precisely the taking of Christ out of the domain of historical faith and making him the reality he is in justifying faith. . . . The conviction of divinity associated with the Gospel spreads to include the total canon. . . . The testimonium, which is related immediately to the Gospel, relates itself immediately to the entire Scripture. ^[51]

In response, we would first suggest that there is no biblical or practical reason to suggest that the regenerating work of the Spirit in conversion applies to “the total canon” of Scripture, because not everything in Scripture is the Gospel, but rather, Jewish history and commands to Christians. Secondly, Luther’s words regarding conversion cannot be used to claim that he would have supported Dr. Ramm’s claim. Finally, there is an underlying misapplication of the Spirit’s work in salvation here. It is not a revelatory work, but a regenerating and releasing work. In other words, the Spirit does not reveal or communicate the Gospel, but it is proclaimed in a variety of ways just like any other information in this world. Rather, the Holy Spirit gives us a new “heart” to be able to receive the Gospel, which we believe in the same way we believe other things. ^[52]

Therefore, there is no warrant in using Scriptures that speak of spiritual regeneration to support the idea of an ongoing revelation or communication from the Spirit that tells us what documents are Scripture (e.g. John 3:3; Eph 3:14-19; Tit 3:5). The born again experience is unique to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and cannot be applied to any other Gospel, or to any other Scriptural truths. ^[53]

The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, will not cause regeneration, nor can its truth be authenticated in the same way as the Gospel. Accordingly, while we do not support the idea that a superior experience authenticates each and every one of the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible, we have suggested elsewhere that superior virtue and life transformation is the ultimate authentication of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We would simply claim that there is no biblical or practical evidence to apply this objective authentication of the Gospel to some subjective authentication of say, Ezra or James in which the Gospel is not communicated.

Accordingly, some theologians use the testimonium to refer to the work of the Spirit in salvation, as the Evangelical theologian Peter Jensen writes:

It is no accident, then, that what has been known inadequately as the ‘internal testimony of the Spirit’ should turn out to refer to the way God, through the Gospel, draws his people into the supremely loving relation of the Trinity, into the love of God, the communion of the Holy Spirit. The work of the Spirit, so defined, is his special work in relation to the Gospel, and, from the point of view of the saved, it is one of the glories of what God has done for them in Christ. ^[54]

Likewise, another Evangelical theologian, J. W. Montgomery writes:

[T]he testimonium has to do with soteriology (how one is saved), not with bibliology (how Scripture is validated). Calvin was . . . not correct . . . when he suggested that the objective evidence for scriptural truth is inadequate in itself apart from the Spirit’s working. ^[55]

Indeed, the real “testimony of the Holy Spirit” is the supernatural virtue produced by our regeneration in salvation, which authenticates the exclusivity of the Gospel for salvation. ^[56]

C.1.c) Scriptures that refer to assurance of salvation

Other verses used to support the “testimony of the Spirit” to the divinity of Scripture actually refer to our assurance of salvation (e.g. Rom 8:15-16; Gal 4:6; 3:24; 4:13; 5:7-13). For example, Bernard Ramm writes:

The two classical passages of the testimonium are Galatians 4:6 (“and because ye are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!'”); and Romans 8:15-16. . . . 1 John 5:6-12 is a most remarkable passage in connection with the testimonium. ^[57]

Not only do such verses have nothing to do with the authentication of the canon of Scripture, they are not even speaking of some subjective direct revelation of the Spirit either, but rather, the objective, observable fruit the Spirit produces in our life (cf. Gal 5:18-23), or the miracle working of Christ (cf. 1 John 5:6-12). This is discussed further elsewhere. ^[58]

C.1.d) Scriptures that refer to revelation

Finally, many of the Scriptures used to support the testimonium to Scripture speak of some sort of revelation from the Holy Spirit, but do not tell us that the content of that revelation is information about what documents are Scripture and which are not. For example, the great Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) wrote:

Jesus said, “He [the Holy Spirit] abideth with you forever”; and this has primary reference to this testimony concerning the Word of God. In the believing heart He testifies continually: “Fear not, the Scripture is the Word of your God.” ^[59]

Again, the claim is that the Spirit is providing an extra-biblical revelation about the Bible that tells us “the Scripture is the Word of your God.” The question of whether or not the Holy Spirit is revealing anything today apart from Scripture demands more discussion than we will provide here. Therefore, verses commonly used to support the idea that the “testimony of the Spirit” is a revelation about Scripture are discussed elsewhere including: John 10:37; 14:16-17; 15:26-27; 16:13-14; 1 Cor 2:10-15; Eph 1:17-18; and 1 John 2:20, 27. ^[60]

Briefly, we can first say that many of these passages are promises exclusive to the Apostles concerning their unique reception of divine revelation. They do not promise that all Christians are to receive divine revelation. Secondly, even if these passages are interpreted to mean that the Holy Spirit is revealing information apart from Scripture today, they say nothing about the fact that such information includes what is the correct collection of divinely given documents. Finally, most proponents of the “testimony” want to deny that it is a revelation at all, and therefore, Scriptures that speak of an extrabiblical revelatory ministry of the Spirit do not serve them well anyway.

Admittedly, many verses used to support the “testimony of the Spirit” to the divinity of Scripture are not discussed in detail here, but elsewhere. Nonetheless, we will make the claim here that such an application of the “testimony of the Spirit” has no biblical backing. We can go on and demonstrate as well that it is not a part of our practical experience either.

C.2) The Doctrine’s Practical Ineffectiveness

Proponents of the view we are discussing suggest that the Spirit allows us to detect and distinguish the written word of God from what is merely the written words of men. This process is described either as some sort of divine revelation or an inner experience. Here we will deal specifically with the idea that the unique divinity of Scripture is authenticated by its affects on us. As noted above, the Evangelical theologian Paul Helm gives a good description of this approach when he writes:

[T]he power of the Scriptures to raise and satisfy certain distinctive needs in the reader, particularly the recognition of his sin before God and the enjoyment of forgiveness and reconciliation to God through Christ. Connected with this is the displaying in Scripture of excellent moral standards that focus and integrate the life of the reconciled person. And connected with this is the provision of new motivations to reach out for the newly set standards. . . .

[T]he certainty of the Scriptures as revelatory documents lies in their being confirmed in experience . . . the impact of the revelation on the lives of those who receive it. ^[61]

Calvin had written much the same thing when he supported the self-authentication of Scripture as follows:

How peculiarly this property belongs to Scripture appears from this, that no human writings, however skillfully composed, are at all capable of affecting us in a similar way. Read Demosthenes or Cicero, read Plato, Aristotle, or any other of that class: you will, I admit, feel wonderfully allured, pleased, moved, enchanted; but turn from them to the reading of the sacred volume, and whether you will or not, it will so affect you, so pierce your heart, so work its way into your very marrow, that, in comparison of the impression so produced, that or orators and philosophers will almost disappear; making it manifest that in the sacred volume there is a truth divine, a something which makes it immeasurably superior to all the gifts and graces attainable by man. ^[62]

We do not wish to diminish the excellencies of Scripture one little bit, and fully agree with the above observations, but not with the application and conclusions. Accordingly, several questions come to mind at this point. What if a certain portion or even a whole book of the Bible does not affect me in such a glorious way? Is it still to be considered divinely communicated? If so, why? Are those portions or books of the Bible that affect me the most to be considered more divinely imparted than others? Haven’t sermons, Christian books, and other means of communication had similar affects in our life? Are these then to be considered as uniquely divinely given and on par with Scripture in authority?

It would seem then to be rather meaningless, and even potentially hazardous, to recognize Scripture based on it affects, as these may at times be indistinguishable from the popular, motivational, teaching and writing of mere humans. Rather, the definition of Scripture must reside in its source, and that being supernaturally authenticated messengers of direct divine revelation.

Again, Dr. Helm’s own question (and ours) is “What evidence ought to persuade people that the Bible is the Word of God?” Whatever evidence that is, it must be unique enough to set the Bible apart from all other communication, speech, literature, or otherwise. Dr. Helm’s application of what he calls “the theological doctrine of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit” ^[63] does not provide such evidence.

While we rarely want to be redundant, we are led to quote Carl F. H. Henry on this point once again:

While inner evidence for the canonical books may be useful, the question remains whether a sincere Christian left to himself would identify all or only our present twenty-seven New Testament books out of a larger selection of literature. Would he include all the canonical books and exclude all apocryphal books? Even pious men have at times questioned the canonical status of some of these writings . . . Can the canonical works be discriminated solely in terms of one’s inner spiritual response? . . .

Which is why we have no record of any Church Father ever appealing to a “testimony of the Spirit” to support the identification of a document as Scripture. This includes Irenaeus (died c. 175–195) who was compelled by the numerous Gnostic forgeries of Scripture in his day to give proof of where the authentic Christian revelation could be found. He did not appeal to some subjective “voice” of the Spirit, which would actually support Gnostics and mystics both then and today. Rather, Irenaeus wrote of how carefully the early Church had preserved the traditions concerning what documents the Apostles of Jesus Christ wrote. ^[65]

An honest Christian will admit that if an ancient and orthodox, although actually merely human authored document existed in their Bible, there is no guarantee whatsoever that they would recognize it as such. The example of the widespread and centuries-long acceptance of the forged Epistle to the Laodiceans as Scripture is offered as at least some proof of this. ^[66] Protestants would claim that this “witness of the Spirit” evidently failed such great Christians as St. Augustine and other early Church Fathers who accepted the OT Apocrypha as divine revelation from God.

Along these lines, one wonders what Protestant promoters of the “testimony of the Spirit” can say in reference to their rejection of the OT Apocrypha? At least Calvin was consistent when he explained his rejection of it by stating that he did not sense the “majesty of the Spirit” in the Apocrypha. ^[67] However, this seems to be nothing more (or less!) than exercising the subjective authority of our right to private judgment, although we would suggest such a judgment be made based on objective historical data rather than a subjective feeling.

We can ask here as well how the OT saints knew the limits of divinely imparted Scripture? They did not possess the Spirit like NT believers do, and we may conclude that at least for them, no such “testimony of the Spirit” existed. Along these lines, Dr. Abraham notes:

This doctrine [of the “testimony of the Spirit”] continued to be maintained even while the Reformers and their followers appealed to the Jewish community’s decisions on the canon when it came to deciding the boundaries of the Old Testament. Somehow it was all right to appeal to the [historical] Jewish community to determine the boundaries of the Old Testament, but it was not appropriate to appeal to the [historical] Christian community concerning the boundaries of the New Testament. Few appear to have been aware of the obvious inconsistency in these deliberations. ^[68]

In addition, as noted in the previous chapter, some honesty is called for in how people really come to believe that certain documents of Scripture are Scripture. Rightly or wrongly, most Christians accept the biblical canon not on some “testimony of the Holy Spirit” as much as the testimony of the Christian community in which they grow up in. ^[69] While this may not seem as “spiritual,” it is through this more natural testimony of parents and pastors that most Christians become convinced of the authority of Scripture, and such repeated testimony becomes tradition. ^[70]

And the convincing nature of testimony and tradition in human epistemology is demonstrated by the fact that very few Christians ever feel a need to investigate the canon of Scripture for themselves. Nevertheless, we would humbly suggest that what many declare as the “testimony of the Spirit” is nothing more (and nothing less!) than the more natural and cumulative effect of the testimony of humans and tradition.

Accordingly, a born-again Christian growing up in the Roman Catholic Church is probably going to believe that Bel and the Dragon is divinely given Scripture worthy of exercising God-like authority over their lives, and no “testimony of the Spirit” is likely to overcome the testimony of their priest or catechism teacher. Nor will they probably research the document’s historical and textual credentials in order to make a judgment for themselves as to whether or not their community of faith is right.

Such a reality in both Catholic and Protestant contexts needs to be taken into consideration when evaluating a statement such as that made by Robert Godfrey when he writes, “The self-authenticating character of the canon is demonstrated by the remarkable unanimity reached by the people of God on the canon.” ^[71] While such unanimity may exist among those who never question the canon, there are significant disagreements among those who have actually researched the topic. ^[72]

C.3) The Doctrine’s Potential Dangers: Pragmatism, Neoorthodoxy, & Liberalism

In essence then, it would seem the doctrine of the “testimony of the Spirit” becomes just another example of contemporary pragmatism in which we believe something to be true, like Scripture, because “it works.” What happens when it doesn’t “work?” This supposed “self-authentication” of Scripture is no different than how anything else is supposedly self-authenticated. A New Age self-help book will authenticate itself because of its positive, and even life-changing affect on a person. Why are people spending billions of dollars on such materials? Because it works. Does this mean the New Age gurus have truth? Probably. And this is exactly the problem with such a pragmatic approach to recognizing what is ultimately divinely authored from what is merely humanly authored. A lot of programs and perspectives “work,” and even contain truth, but that does not guarantee their divinity.

Accordingly, Dr. Gerstner remarked:

The “testimony of the Holy Spirit” seems no different than Samuel Coleridge’s rather famous, but widely rejected statement, “That is inspired which inspires me” or Barth’s contention that the word of God is “that which finds me.” ^[73]

Not only is our experience with Scripture insufficient to distinguish it from other Christian communication, it does not distinguish it from any other religious communication either. Some, no doubt, may describe their experience with reading the sacred literature of Hinduism or New Age philosophies in a similar way as Christians would in regards to Scripture. It is difficult to see how the conviction that a believer experiences from the spoken or read word of God is any more powerful than what many unbelievers might experience with other words. Movies, music, and Muslim clerics have been known to have a forceful, life changing affect on people without some “illumination” or ministry of the Spirit of God.

Accordingly, J. W. Montgomery notes, “The ‘inward witness’ remains as subjectively unverifiable as the Mormon claim to a ‘burning in the bosom.’” ^[74] Likewise, the Evangelical apologist E. J. Carnell writes:

There are hundreds of conflicting faiths in the world, many, if not all, of which claim to be based upon some manifestation of the witness of God’s Spirit to our hearts. These claims cannot all be true, for they are inconsistent, and consistency is the first property of truth. ^[75]

Likewise, Paul Helm essentially admits this very thing when he writes:

It might be said that the view that I am defending, that the evidence for the Scriptures being the Word of God is primarily internal [experiential] evidence, leaves that position formally similar to the position of the truth claims of the myriad other religions and ideologies. In a sense this is perfectly true. Christianity is in this position. ^[76]

No it is not. The human Apostles and Prophets who wrote OT and NT Scripture have claims to truth that significantly exceed others. Muhammad, for example, the author of the Koran, never dared to predict the future or perform miracles. God’s ordained messengers did, clearly authenticating themselves in unique and superior ways that sets their writing apart from all other human communication.

An appeal to an internal, admittedly subjective experience is fraught with difficulties. ^[77] For example, several early Church leaders in the fourth century rejected John’s Revelation because it did not impress them spiritually enough. As noted above, Calvin stated that he rejected the OT Apocrypha because he did not sense the “majesty of the Spirit” in it. Would we claim that such subjective criteria are a legitimate reason for a Christian to reject something as the written word of God to be obeyed? If not, then we cannot claim that such subjective criteria are sufficient to accept something as the word of God to be obeyed.

As NT scholar I. Howard Marshall notes:

It would be simple to gather testimonies from Christians to show that every kind of material in the Bible can serve as a vehicle for conveying the Word of God to them. However, it must also be admitted that some Christians would say that there are some parts of the Bible which do not speak to them. ^[78]

And why wouldn’t such people be justified in rejecting the divinity of such portions of Scripture if the authentication of them depends on them “speaking” to us? In the end, such a doctrine does not protect the authority of the Scriptures as well as Calvin and subsequent theologians have thought.

Millard Erickson more honestly admits the insufficiency of a subjective, experientially-based criteria for accepting Scripture when he writes:

While inspiration conveys a special quality to the writing, that quality is not always easily recognized and assessed. On the one hand, the devotional materials and the Sermon on the Mount have a quality that tends to stand out and can be fairly easily identified. In part, this is due to the subject matter. In other cases, however, such as the historical narratives, the special quality conveyed by inspiration may instead be a matter of the accuracy of the record, and this is not as easily or as directly assessed. Nevertheless, the sensitive reader [whatever that means] will probably detect within the whole of the Bible a quality that unmistakably points to inspiration. ^[79]

Maybe. Then again, maybe not. And then what happens to the authority of Scripture? This feeling that Calvin describes is not nearly as clear, unique, and consistent as he suggests. For example, what the contemporary Reformed theologian John Armstrong prescribes for gaining certainty in the authority of Scripture would seem to work for other literature as well. He writes:

When we are assailed by doubts regarding the authority of the Scripture what are we to do? The answer of this truth is that we must have more profound intercourse with the Word of God itself. Here, as we read, meditate, and study the Scripture we are acted upon by God the Holy Spirit who bears witness to the supreme authority of the Word through the self testimony of the Scripture. ^[80]

We would suggest that if one applied the same diligent attention to the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, or the Shepherd of Hermas, or even to a sermon by Charles Spurgeon, that one may experience something indistinguishable from what Armstrong is describing. Feelings and affects may help us distinguish between good and bad spiritual writing, but they will not distinguish spiritual writing written about God or Scripture, from that which is directly from God and is Scripture.

Accordingly, Dr. Gerstner replies against the subjectivity of the doctrine under discussion:

If it is so used as proof of Inerrancy [or canonicity] how is it such unless somehow God’s Spirit testifies, tells, signifies to us, reveals in us or the like that the canonical Scriptures are from him? . . .

In summary we must reject the Testimony of the Spirit as the basis of Inerrancy [or canonicity] . . . because: first, if his “Testimony” is construed as audible or verbal [revelation], it simply does not exist; second, if his “Testimony” is construed as a spiritual effect [experience] intensifying our feelings as we read Scripture this is not a proving of the Inspiration or Inerrancy [or canonicity] of Scripture . . .

[The doctrine] amounts to this: “My heart is moved when I read the Bible more and/or differently than when I read any other literature. Therefore, this Bible, which is the occasion or cause of this wonderful feeling, must be God’s Word.” . . .

Christians do, in fact, testify that often when they read the Bible nothing “happens.” . . . Instead of abiding by the laws of evidence [and reason] which God has given us we become laws to ourselves . . .

No one is likely ever to admit that the Bible is the Word of God apart from this experience here described. Nothing so powerfully affects men’s convictions about Inspiration as this experience. Nevertheless, precious and valuable as it is, the believer’s testimony is not the basis of an argument for Inerrancy [or canonicity]. On the contrary, Inerrancy [and canonicity] must be the basis of validating Christian experience. ^[81]

Such a subjective approach involving the Spirit can result in the following rather ridiculous statement by the otherwise very respected Reformed theologian Francis Turretin (1623–1687):

Although believers are persuaded by the testimony of the Holy Spirit of the inspiration of the Scriptures, it does not therefore follow that all who possess the Spirit should agree in receiving equally every book. Since he [the Holy Spirit] is not given to all in an equal measure [what?], so neither does he furnish all with an equal knowledge both as to the principle of religion and as to its doctrines, nor move them to assent by an equal power. Hence some Protestants might doubt concerning one or another canonical book because they were not yet sufficiently enlightened by the Holy Spirit. ^[82]

Need we say more?

But there is one more thing to say here and that is a concern that this doctrine is rather identical to a neoorthodox or existential ^[83] view that Scripture does not become the word of God until it is experienced as such. Lutheran Professor of Theology, J. Theodore Mueller succinctly describes the Barthian view of Scripture as follows:

Barth regards only that as the Word of God which the Spirit impresses upon the individual human mind as such, or, we may say, the Bible is God’s Word only so far as God speaks through it. If God does not speak through the Scriptures they are not God’s Word, but merely man’s word. ^[84]

Compare this to descriptions of Evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem in his popular Systematic Theology of how the “testimony of the Spirit” authenticates Scripture:

Our ultimate conviction that the words of the Bible are God’s words comes only when the Holy Spirit speaks in and through the words of the Bible to our hearts and gives us an inner assurance that these words are the words of our Creator speaking to us. ^[85]

They seem rather identical and equally incorrect and eventually dangerous.

A similar neoorthodoxy seems evident in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, which as noted above, defines the “testimony” of the Holy Spirit as, “The theological designation of the Holy Spirit’s [present-ongoing] activity in bringing about the believing acknowledgment of Scripture’s inherent authority.” ^[86] Later, however, the author says, “This doctrine of the internal testimony should not be confused with the Barthian view that . . . acknowledges authoritative revelation only in an ever-recurring, present act of God.” ^[87] Why not?

It seems obvious that the foundation of neoorthodoxy’s view of Scripture and what has been derived from Calvin’s “testimony of the Spirit” to the word of God are dangerously indistinguishable. In fact, Karl Barth (1886–1968) concluded the section of his Church Dogmatics on the inspiration of Scripture by stating that Calvin’s view of how Scripture is authenticated essentially summed up his own. ^[88]

Contemporary adherents of this view do not often take this seriously enough. What can eventually happen is precisely what the Presbyterian seminary Professor Paul Achtemeier does with it in his recent book, Inspiration and Authority:

Without the internal testimony of the Spirit, Scripture remains mute in its witness to the truth. That insight is of central importance for any understanding of the inspiration of Scripture because it is clear evidence that that inspiration does not in fact cease with the production of the writing but must also continue with the reading, or “inspiration” does not describe a significant reality. . . .

It is just the insight into the necessity of this internal testimony of the Spirit, therefore, which confirms our insight that we must understand inspiration in terms of a process rather than in a more static way as limited to the individual authorship of individual books . . . the Spirit witnesses to the truth of the content of Scripture, and in that way convinces us of its inspired nature . . . the testimony of the Holy Spirit is essential to a recognition of the inspiration and hence the authority of the biblical witness. ^[89]

Obviously, such a conclusion was neither Calvin’s intention, nor many of those who espouse this view today. But again, at least in our understanding, proponents of this particular application of the “testimony of the Spirit” have not adequately differentiated their view from neoorthodox theology, nor do we think they can do so. ^[90]

Unfortunately, liberal Bible scholars have taken advantage of the weaknesses of the doctrine of the “testimony” to attack the inerrancy of Scripture. This allows them to reject the traditional view of the divinity and Apostolic authorship of the NT documents and still claim they can be authoritative. One of the first such scholars to do so was the Presbyterian OT scholar C. A. Briggs (1841-1913). In support of their own liberal views of biblical authority supported by the doctrine of the “testimony” Jack B. Rogers and Donald McKim of Fuller Seminary write:

Briggs . . . launched a violent attack on Princeton’s “scholastic theology” [i.e. Hodge and Warfield] as the real but misguided foe of evangelical [liberal] biblical criticism. He rejected inerrancy and also the Princeton position that canonicity depended on authorship or tradition. Instead Briggs appealed to the Reformers and interpreted them as teaching that canonicity depended upon the witness of the Holy Spirit. He also made a distinction between “plenary” and “verbal” inspiration. Briggs accepted plenary inspiration, which acknowledged errors and inconsistencies in the Bible but which nonetheless held Scripture to be the infallible rule of faith and practice. But he rejected verbal inspiration.

The testimony of the Westminster Confession was explicit for Briggs: “The Westminster Confession excludes human authorship from the inspiration and divine authority of the Scriptures, when it states: ‘The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man.’” ^[91]

It is true that even good doctrines can be abused by bad theologians, but we suggest it is the weaknesses within the doctrine of the “testimony” that make it a particularly useful tool in the hands of those who would undermine the divine authority of Scripture.

C.4) The Doctrine’s Unnecessary Depreciation of Spirit-Liberated Reason

Bernard Ramm offers an explanation as to why Calvin settled on his application of the “testimony of the Spirit”:

Having rejected the authority of the Roman Church and its effort to underwrite the authority of the Bible, Calvin might have turned to human reason to demonstrate the authority of the Bible. But there were two matters causing hesitancy in this procedure: (1) the human reason had come under certain darkening effects from sin; and (2) being fully persuaded by human reason the believer would still have but human faith. There must be a divine certainty about divine matters. ^[92]

If this is true, we would suggest Calvin was wrong. First of all, there does not seem to be an adequate appreciation for the significant difference between a Christian’s supernaturally Spirit-liberated reason and the “sin darkened” reason of the spiritually dead. ^[93] Let it be said here that no “testimony of the Spirit” will force a Christian to accept something that violates their God-honoring, and God-given logical reasoning faculties. No action of the Spirit can or should make up for a lack of objective evidence for the authority of Scripture.

Secondly, Dr. Ramm and other proponents of this doctrine are erroneously claiming that some subjective operation of the Holy Spirit can grant us a level of certainty that is greater than what reason can produce. As demonstrated elsewhere in Knowing Our God, God created humans to believe nothing without reasons, and our certainty is directly dependent on the amount of evidence we have. ^[94] We may admit that our experiences with biblical documents are part of the evidence upon which we believe them to be divine, but it is not the only or ultimate evidence. In addition, while proponents of the “testimony” suggest our conviction of the divinity of Scripture comes to us by revelation instead of reason, they still must admit that this supposed revelation is processed, evaluated, stored, and protected by reason.

Accordingly, there are some similarities in how God authenticates both His existence and His Word—through reason. It is not a separate revelation that is authenticating the revelation of Creation and Scripture in the following passage, but the use of reason:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. ²Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. ³There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. ⁴Their voice goes out into all the Earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens He has pitched a tent for the sun, ⁵which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. ⁶It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat. ⁷

The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. ⁸The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes. ⁹The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous. ¹⁰They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb. ¹¹By them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. (Ps 19:1-11)

Here, David is in awe of what his reason perceives about God’s Creation and written Word. It is not the Holy Spirit that is directly revealing to David how supernatural Creation is. The Apostle says that unbelievers are without excuse for not recognizing the same thing, even though they only have reason, not the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 1:18-20). Likewise, the attributes of God’s word are being perceived and evaluated here by David’s Spirit-controlled reason. It is not a revelation from the Spirit that is telling Him Scripture is so awesome, but His reason.

Now if proponents of the “testimony” want to claim that these perceptions of reason regarding the attributes of Scripture help to secure our confidence in its divinity then, in our opinion, they would appear to be on the right track. However, when they disparage the God-given place and purpose of Spirit-controlled reason, and illegitimately claim a direct revelation from the Spirit that grants our certainty in Scripture, they actually not only undermine the God-given authority of reason, but Scripture itself.

When critics of Scripture come knocking, causing doubt in the minds of believers concerning its authority, it will not help to claim that some revelation or feeling from the Holy Spirit will defend it from all attacks. The very Reason that “spiritualists” have slandered and rejected as a guide, will be the very Reason they will be searching for and begging to come back to help. The best defense for attacks on the authority of Scripture is not some mystical “testimony,” but rather reasonable evidences, and a reasonable refutation of the critic’s arguments. The convictions of the “testimony” are only safe where there is ignorance of the issues involved in establishing the divine authority of the documents of Scripture. When such ignorance is penetrated by the first knowledgeable critic, it is reason and research that will be needed to restore confidence, not a feeling. ^[95]

This leads to another fatal flaw in the popular application of the “testimony of the Spirit.” While its proponents claim that Scripture is self-authenticating, we claim that nothing in all of Creation is self-authenticating, nor did God intend it to be so. As we have written elsewhere:

We would humbly suggest that even the word “self-authenticating” is nonsense because nothing in all of Creation is “self-authenticating,” at least not in a convincing way. Not even God is “self-authenticating,” but rather provides abundant objective evidence for His existence (cf. Rom 1:18-20). Likewise, Jesus Christ Himself said, “If I testify about Myself [i.e. “self-authentication”], My testimony is not valid” (John 5:31; cf. vs. 32-37). What else in all Creation would these theologians claim is “self-authenticating”? In the end, “self-authentication” becomes no authentication at all, which is a fairly scary position to put the Word of God in. ^[96]

The closest thing to self-authentication in Scripture is the proclaimed and fulfilled prophecies it contains. Yet even this evidence requires careful, objective historical research and has nothing to do with a subjective “testimony of the Spirit” but everything to do with the God-ordained authority of human reason for validating the divinity of a revelation.

Something as subjective as the mere claim of the presence of the Holy Spirit cannot be the ground of certainty for a human. ^[97] How do we know that it is the Holy Spirit? By objective tests. This is precisely what the Apostle John was claiming when he wrote:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. (1 John 4:1-3)

For the Apostle, not even God the Holy Spirit was self-authenticating. And he did not instruct us to authenticate divine revelation (whether from a prophet or otherwise) through subjective feelings, but rather objective evidence, such as a verbal confession of the Incarnation.

Did the Bereans authenticate divine revelation because of how “helpful” or inspiring the words of the Apostle Paul were to them? On the contrary, they “examined the [OT] Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). They had an objective test for revelation, not a subjective one, and they were commended in the early Church because of it.

If the “testimony of the Spirit” were applied consistently to the authentication of Scripture, then the need for external, objective evidence for Scripture’s authority would be diminished, if not eliminated. This is, in fact, the very conclusion that can be drawn from Calvin and the Westminster Confession on this doctrine. Accordingly, Dr. Bromiley admits that the Reformers:

believed firmly that to receive the Spirit’s witness is to know beyond question that Scripture is God’s Word, so that difficulties at the human level will not cause undue alarm. First and last the authenticity of the Bible rests, not on the ability of believers to resolve difficulties, but on the Spirit’s own attestation of the truth of its message. ^[98]

Elsewhere, Dr. Bromiley similarly writes:

The attack on the historical reliability of the Bible was damaging just because orthodoxy no longer had full confidence in the witness of the Spirit but had to find for it rationalistic support by a reversal of the relationship between inspiration and inerrancy, suspending the former on the latter. . . . orthodoxy was guilty of all these unfortunate tendencies . . . exalting [man] in his rationality . . . and showing so little genuine appreciation for the illumination of the Holy Spirit and His work. . . . The inspiration of Scripture is genuinely the work of the sovereign Spirit, whose operation cannot finally be subjected to human analysis, repudiation, or control. ^[99]

This would appear to be nothing less than a fideistic intellectual copout. It is clearly being suggested that issues of inerrancy, apparent contradictions, and questionable or even negative historical evidence regarding the authenticity and authority of the Scriptures can be simply whisked away because of some supposed mystical and comforting feeling from “the Spirit.”

John Calvin’s acceptance of 2 Peter and James are a case in point. Regarding the former, Calvin wrote regarding 2 Peter 3:16 [“(Paul’s) letters contain some things that are hard to understand”] that, “Peter himself would have never spoken thus.” ^[100] Likewise, regarding James, Calvin said, “as to the author, there is somewhat more reason for doubting [that he was an Apostle].” ^[101]

There is a great deal of reasoning occurring here in Calvin’s mind, and he accordingly uses reason to counter his own doubts by essentially saying of both epistles that they contained nothing heretical. While that would seem insufficient credentials for accepting a document as the word of God, it is nonetheless obvious that Calvin certainly used his own reason to support the divine authority of these documents in his own mind. However, not surprisingly, despite his doubts that the Apostle Peter could have written 3:16, and perhaps the rest of the epistle as well, he finally responded: “In every part of the Epistle the majesty of the Spirit of Christ appears.” ^[102] What he meant by that, and how he knew it, remain a mystery.

The same inconsistency between human reason and the “testimony” seems evident in the great Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof when he wrote:

Many scholars [place] . . . human reason . . . as an arbiter over the divine revelation. This, of course, cannot be the position of those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God. . . .

Resting, as it ultimately does, on the testimony of the Holy Spirit, no amount of historical investigation can shake this conviction. . . . This being our position, we unflinchingly accept all that the various books of the Bible tell us concerning their authorship, destination, composition, inspiration, etc. Only in cases where the text is evidently corrupt, will we hesitate to accept their dicta as final. ^[103]

Ah, so there is a place for reason in detecting a corruption of the biblical text and therefore rejecting it as God’s word? For all of Dr. Berkhof’s accusations against those who would use reason to authenticate revelation (“cannot be the position of those who believe the Bible is the Word of God”), he himself accepts reason to do this very thing.

D) A Better & Biblical Approach to Identifying the Word of God: Research rather than revelation

As outlined elsewhere, we are advocating that we authenticate and recognize the writings of men who received divine revelation the same way they were authenticated for their speaking that divine revelation. ^[104] The Jews were not instructed to accept a Prophet as God-sent because of some subjective “testimony of the Spirit,” but rather God wanted them to base their decision on a reasonable assessment of objective, miraculous evidence that the Prophet was expected to provide (cf. Deut 18:20-22). Namely, the ability to miraculously predict the future. The same was true of the King (cf. John 14:10-11) and the
Apostles (cf. 2 Cor 12:12), whom God authenticated as His messengers with miracle working abilities.

The key, therefore, to identifying Scripture is to know what documents were written or sanctioned by such supernaturally authenticated men. Accordingly, J. I. Packer, although a foremost proponent of a “testimony of the Spirit” for establishing the authority of the Biblical documents, writes:

[T]he fixing of the New Testament canon (a work which was almost finished within a century of the apostolic age) was in essence a matter of finding out by historical enquiry which books were authentically apostolic, i.e. were written or sanctioned by apostles, or came from the inner circle where revelation operated through prophets and apostles (cf. Eph. 3:5). ^[105]

Likewise, R. C. Sproul, in a chapter length explanation of how the NT documents came to be accepted as divinely authoritative, does not even mention the “testimony of the Spirit,” but explains their historical credentials. ^[106] In a similar manner, Millard Erickson makes an admirable, although unnecessary attempt to synthesize our more objective approach to authenticating Scripture with the more subjective “testimony of the Spirit” when he writes:

The inner witness of the Spirit . . . frequently works through means rather than directly. He creates certainty of the divine nature of Scripture by providing evidences that reason can evaluate. ^[107]

According to Dr. Erickson, the “evidences that reason can evaluate” ultimately depend on “historical enquiry.”

Of course, it is tempting to think that God has indeed provided a supernatural, immediate authentication of the divinity of Scripture. As Edward Dowey has noted, “In one bold stroke, by the exact correlation of word and Spirit, Calvin answered in principle the question of the canon.” ^[108] We could wish this were true, but in reality, our certainty in determining which documents deserve the authority of divine Scripture is a matter of painstaking research, not immediate revelation. Accordingly, we devote an entire book to this task elsewhere. ^[109]

Another obvious reason that theologians have promoted the “testimony of the Spirit” for the identification of what is Scripture is because they have desired to provide a level of certainty to this issue that is greater than what we can really have. For example, Calvin wrote concerning the canon of Scripture, “We do not seek arguments or probabilities on which to rest our judgment, but we subject our judgment and intellect as to a thing elevated above the necessity of being judged.” ^[110] It is interesting to note how often the Holy Spirit is used in theology to make things more supernatural and certain than they really are, and all of this without scriptural or practical warrant. Elsewhere we have written:

For the regenerated Christian, Jesus Christ is more than a probability. However, there is a tendency in Christianity to claim absolute certainty in more areas than we can. Does God give us warrant to be absolutely certain about everything like He is? No. And, in fact, we are left to probabilities and our own private judgment in more areas than some Christians think. But this is precisely what God intended, and it is yet another example of the gap between us and our Creator. God expects us to live in the realm of private judgment, our Spirit-liberated reason, a multitude of probabilities, and adequate certainty, all of which are under His sovereignty. ^[111]

And such is the case with even the canon of Scripture. However, as we noted in the previous chapter:

[W]hile the above may at first seem to throw the whole NT canon up in the air, anyone who has studied this issue knows that most of it settles back to firm earth immediately. For example, not even the most critical, unspiritual, and unreasonable liberal scholars deny that the Apostle Paul wrote Romans, as the historical evidence in the early Church for its authenticity and apostolic authority is undeniable to any reasonable person. The same is true for the majority of biblical documents.

However, contrary to many conservative scholars today, we do not simply brush aside the testimony of the early Church and regarding the divine authority of some of the NT documents, and we suggest there is a place for a possible reevaluation of a few of them. Nonetheless, even if historically doubted documents like 2 Peter and James were excluded from the canon, it would not affect a single doctrine of the historical, orthodox, Christian Church. However, as noted above, we believe canonical issues demonstrate that this doctrine of private judgment is not simply an academic, philosophical issue, but rather, a very important and practical one. ^[112]

Perfect objectivity may be a human impossibility. However, when we are substantiating truth claims, it is important to adopt the approach that is as objective as possible. We freely admit that even our own approach to determining what literature is Scripture has a subjective element to it. Concerning the authentication of the NT canon, for example, we propose the criteria to be inerrancy and historical evidence of apostolic authorship or sanction. However, it is obvious that even these more objective evidences will be subjectively interpreted and evaluated differently by different people. In the end, there is no way to substantiate truth claims in a way that will be objective and convincing for everyone. This is why we say that the most objective approach should be taken, and that God has given us all both the responsibility and accountability for using our right to private judgment in the best and most virtuous way we can.

Finally, as noted above, “the testimony of the Spirit” doesn’t provide us with any greater certainty that a document is divine revelation anyway. What some would base on a feeling, we base on history. There is a lot more that supports the authority and reliability of history, than the trustworthiness of our feelings. The feelings that “the testimony of the Spirit” is said to provide are not in the least bit unique to Christians. But the history of the authorship, authentication, duplication, distribution, collection, protection, application, fulfillment, and tradition of Christian Scripture is far superior and supernatural than any other writing known to humanity.

Publications & Particulars

Fred H. Klooster, “Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT), Walter Elwell ed. (Baker, 1984), 564. ↑
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, “Witness of the Spirit,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), Geoffrey W. Bromiley ed., 4 vols., (Eerdmans, 1988), IV.1088. ↑
Some Reformed writers not only suggest that the “testimony” secures the authority of Scripture, but the ancient creeds as well. For example, Keith Mathison writes:

Advocates of sola scriptura do not believe these creeds to be without error because of a belief in ecclesiastical infallibility. We believe them to be inerrant for the same reason we believe the table of contents of Scripture to be inerrant because of the corporate testimony of the Holy Spirit to Christ’s people. (The Shape of Sola Scriptura [Canon Press, 2001], 339.

It is rather amazing in our opinion that Dr. Mathison would claim that God has secured and authenticated divine authority for the “creeds.” Which ones? For further critique of Dr. Mathison’s view of epistemological authority see section 3.3.B.5 in the previous chapter. ↑
Most theologians point to Calvin as the originator of the doctrine of the “testimony of the Spirit.” Accordingly, Bernard Ramm, who has written the most detailed defense of the doctrine, writes, “According to Pannier and Warfield there is nothing on the subject before Calvin [who is] the author of the testimonium” (The Witness of the Spirit [Eerdmans, 1959], 23, 79.

Dr. Ramm adds, “Where Calvin derived this doctrine is not known. It appears only in seed form in the first edition of the Institutes, so we may infer that he did not enter into his Protestant faith with this doctrine fully developed” (12).

In light of Dr. Ramm’s view, it is odd that elsewhere he attempts to find the “testimony of the Spirit” to Scripture in Augustine (cf. 23). However, he supports this with only references to Augustine’s thoughts on the regeneration of people in order to accept the Gospel and the deity of the Holy Spirit. More convincing is John Owen’s quotes of Clement of Alexandria (c. 155- c. 220) on this doctrine (A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, [online at ccel.org], VI.6).

Nonetheless, Richard Gaffin, Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster is right when he asserts, “The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, by which we are brought to a saving conviction of the divine origin and truth of Scripture, is a particular doctrine the church owes to Calvin.” (“The Holy Spirit,” WTJ 43 (Fall 1980), p. 60). ↑
Ramm suggests several reasons for Calvin’s desire to promote the “testimony”:

In developing his doctrine of the testimonium Calvin was faced with three alternative theories. Christian certainty was explained by Romanism as the gift of an infallible Church to the believing Catholic. The enthusiasts, or fanatics, found their certainty of faith in an immediate revelation of the Holy Spirit, a revelation which was not bound to the contents of Scripture. And some apologists were asserting that they could demonstrate the truthfulness of the Christian faith by purely rational evidences. Calvin was unhappy with all three theories, and developed his doctrine of the testimonium in opposition to each of them. (Witness, 12) ↑
Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, online at http://www.ccel.org, I.vI.2. ↑
Calvin, Institutes, I.vii.4-5. ↑
Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology (Baker, 1993). ↑
William Abraham, Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology : From the Fathers to Feminism (Clarendon Press, 1998), 134-5. ↑
Ramm, Witness, 43. One of many examples of the confusing and contradictory nature of Dr. Ramm’s description and defense of the “testimony” is demonstrated by comparing this quote with the following: “Nor is the testimonium a voice which says, ‘The Bible is the Word of God.’ This would be a revelation, not an illumination. The believer eventually comes to this decision, but not in this manner” (94). In one paragraph he seems to be saying it is a revelation and in another he denies it. ↑
John Calvin, Calvin’s Bible Commentaries, online at http://www.ccel.org., 2 Tim 3:16. ↑
Webster’s, 413. Actually, this is the definition for “enlighten” because the definition for “illuminate” is simply: “to enlighten spiritually or intellectually.” (599). ↑
The fact that persuasion requires the conveying of information makes Dr. Ramm sound contradictory and confusing when he states, “The testimonium is an illumination and a persuasion. It is not an impartation of knowledge” (Ramm, Witness, 93). Again, according to Webster’s, illumination is the “giving of knowledge,” and so is anyone’s understanding of persuasion.

Likewise, John Frame writes:

[T]he Reformers saw no difficulty in affirming both the sufficiency of Scripture and the necessity of the Spirit’s testimony. They made it clear (for even in their time there were misunderstandings in this area) that the Spirit’s testimony was not a new revelation; rather, the Spirit’s work was to illumine and confirm the revelation already given. . . . The Spirit witnesses that the Word is true, but the Word already has told us that!

Again, the claim that the Spirit “confirms” the revelation of Scripture requires revelation/information apart from Scripture. Accordingly, Webster’s defines “confirm” as, “to give new assurance of the validity of; remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact” (275). The idea is that any confirmation of any claim requires evidence about, but apart from, what is being confirmed. Therefore, there seems to be no way around the fact that if, as Dr. Frame says, “the Spirit’s work [is] to . . . confirm revelation already given,” then such a confirmation must contain some sort of revelation that is in addition to and separate from the bare text of Scripture.

We can certainly understand the effort by proponents of the “testimony of the Spirit” to deny that it involves extra-biblical revelation, but they cannot coherently do so. Along these lines, it is interesting to note Dr. Ramm’s claim that:

The testimonium is a revealing action, not a revealed content. It is an illumination, not a communication. For this reason Calvin opposed the enthusiasts who claimed a revelation with a content. (Witness, 18)

If Calvin really had in mind those who claimed direct divine communication from the Spirit apart from Scripture when he developed the doctrine of the “testimony of the Spirit” then the great theologian made a mistake, because it is impossible to understand the “testimony” as something other than a claim that the Spirit is telling us something apart from Scripture. While the mere words of Scripture can claim they are inspired (2 Tim 3:16) mere words cannot authenticate such a claim. Therefore, if we choose to claim that Scripture is authenticated by a “testimony” from the Spirit, we must be willing to admit it is an extra-biblical revelation. ↑
Paul Helm, “Faith, Evidence, and the Scriptures” in Scripture and Truth, D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge eds. (Baker, 1992), 304. ↑
Ibid. 312. The same essential point is suggested by Philip E. Hughes in another entry to the book. (see p. 193) ↑
Other advocates of the “testimony of the Spirit” to the divinity of Scripture claim that it simply communicates and authenticates the “truth” or “authority” of Scripture, not so much its “inspiration” or “canonicity.” Such confusion is illustrated when Dr. Ramm writes that the “testimony”:

[E]stablishes the reality of a canon, but not its limits. The reality of the canon means a truth of God, a giveness of revelation, and its fixation in Scripture. The New Covenant is written, and the life of Christ is documented, and the revelation given the apostles is inscripturated. The reality of a canon is involved in the testimonium. . .

No critical or historical study can deliver to the consciousness of the believer anything but a probable judgment; but only in the testimonium do we arrive with certainty at the notion of a written revelation of God. But the testimonium cannot settle the limits of the canon. Here the way of faith must yield to the way of science [historical research].

The contention, that the testimony of the Spirit revealed in Christian experience is the test of canonicity,” writes de Witt, “is as wide of the mark, and it is an error of the same kind, as the contention that the musical enjoyment of the music of Handel’s Messiah is testimony to the historical fact that Handel was its author, which is nonsense. (Witness, 93, 125)

What is nonsense is trying to say that the Holy Spirit gives us certainty that something is divine revelation but then deny it has anything to do with determining what documents are to be included in the Bible. In response, the well-regarded Lutheran theologian J. W. Montgomery states the obvious:

One cannot dualistically split the “truth” and “authority” of the Bible from its “inspiration” and “canonicity,” claiming that the witness of the Spirit applies to the former and not to the latter. This is because truth, authority, inspiration, and canonicity are integrally connected (a problem with any one of them will be a problem for all); if the Holy Spirit is the sine qua non for establishing one, He will likewise be essential for validating the rest. (“Lessons from Luther on the Inerrancy of Holy Writ” in God’s Inerrant Word, J. W. Montgomery ed. [Bethany Fellowship, 1974], 390). ↑
For example, Dr. Ramm writes that the “testimony of the Spirit” to the divinity of Scripture is:

an opening of the eyes of the understanding; an unplugging of the ears of the soul; a removal of a veil from the mind; a persuasion by the divine barrister. (Witness, 86)

We could agree with everything except the last statement, persuasion being a very different thing than simply enabling, the latter not involving revelation while the other does. ↑
For further discussion of the place of reason concerning Scripture see sections 2.5.E, 3.1.C and chapter 3.5. ↑
Admittedly, our interpretation of 2 Cor 3:14-17 goes against that of most commentators (e. g. Barrett, Kruse, Barclay, Barnett) who claim the Apostle is speaking of a freedom from the law or sin in general as is described in Romans 6-7. But this does not reflect the immediate context in which the Apostle is speaking epistemologically here of dull minds and veiled hearts. The freedom, therefore, is an epistemological freedom reflecting Romans chapter 8 rather than chapters 6-7. And it is this epistemological freedom that would better account for the Apostle’s confidence and boldness in preaching the truth, not a freedom from the Mosaic Law. ↑
Excerpted from section 4.15.C. See chapter 4.16 for further discussion of the epistemological work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration as regards the Gospel. ↑
Some wish to add Jonathan Edwards as among those who supported the “testimony of the Spirit” for the authentication of Scripture. For example, Stephen J. Nichols attempts to prove this in his book, An Absolute Sort of Certainty: The Holy Spirit and the Apologetics of Jonathan Edwards (Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003). In our view, Nichols downplays Edward’s emphasis on objective reason and virtue apologetics for the authentication of the Christian religion and highlights his relatively few statements concerning the testimony of the Spirit for assurance of salvation, resulting in a rather severe distortion of Edward’s epistemology. In addition, Nichols ends up making the same contradictory, confusing, or impractical defenses of the doctrine that are addressed in this chapter. For further on this see below under section B and section 3.6.C. ↑
Owen, VI.6. ↑
J. I. Packer, “’Sola Scriptura’ in History and Today” in God’s Inerrant Word, John Warwick Montgomery ed. (Bethany Fellowship, 1974), 49. ↑
J. I. Packer, Truth & Power (Harold Shaw, 1996), 59. ↑
J. I. Packer, “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God (Eerdmans, 1958), 118. ↑
Bruce K. Waltke, Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion? (Eerdmans, 1995), 177-8. ↑
Herman Bavinck, Prolegomena, Church Dogmatics Vol. 1 (Baker, 2003), 599-600. ↑
F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, (InterVarsity, 1988), 281. ↑
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 77. ↑
Quoted from Grudem, 1206. ↑
Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Unpublished syllabus, 1955), 50. ↑
Bavinck, 600. He adds:

Admittedly, only a few statements about the Holy Spirit occur in the works of Luther, Zwingli, and Melanchthon. But Calvin developed this doctrine at length and related the subject matter to the content as well as to the form and authority of Scripture. . . .

[G]radually the doctrine of the internal testimony began to lose its place of honor even in Reformed theology. Already in Turretin, Amyrald, Molina, et al., it was weakened and identified with the so-called illumination of the Holy Spirit by which the intellect is enabled to note the marks and criteria of the divinity of Holy Scripture (583-4).

Which, by the way, is what we would suggest is the proper perspective, and what we refer to as Spirit-liberated reason. ↑
Preface to second part of Saints Rest, quoted in How God Inspired the Bible, J. Paterson Smyth (James Pott & Co., 1918), 26-7. ↑
John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. (Berea, 1991), I:51. ↑
Eduard Reuss, History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament, 2 vols. (Houghton, Mifflin, & Co., 1884), 312. ↑
Abraham, 167. ↑
Benjamin B. Warfield, “Apologetics” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, reprint, 10 Vols. (Baker, 2000), IX:15. ↑
Ibid., “Calvin’s Doctrine of God,” V:151. ↑
Elsewhere Warfield attempts to defend Calvin’s view as being in line with Warfield’s own insistence on the priority of external historical evidence, but in our view does not succeed. Reading Calvin’s statement on the issue in the Institutes (I.vii) makes it clear that Calvin prioritized the more subjective and internal “witness of the Spirit” over any external criteria, just as did the Westminster Confession. Warfield, Works, V.70-103. ↑
Avery Dulles, The Assurance of Things Hoped For (Oxford University Press, 1994), 99. ↑
John H. Gerstner, A Bible Inerrancy Primer (Baker, 1965), 14. It can be added that Dr. Gerstner attempts (unsuccessfully in our opinion), to defend the Westminster Confession of Faith in light of his criticisms of the doctrine of the testimony of the Spirit. He writes:

It may be necessary to show that we are not here opposing the Westminster Confession of Faith’s view of things but actually defending it. It teaches that “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof of the Scriptures is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts” (1, 5). But these words teach only that the “Testimony of the Holy Spirit” “persuades” us of the Inspiration of the Bible. (Ibid., 16).

The Confession seems to say more than that. It says “our full persuasion and assurance” depends on the Spirit and all other criteria are far secondary. ↑
Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 6 vols. (Word, 1979), IV.420, 421, 423, 436-7. Underlining added. ↑
Bromiley, 1088. ↑
The only real exception is Bernard Ramm’s, The Witness of the Spirit. ↑
R. C. Sproul, “The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit” in Inerrancy, Norman Geisler ed. (Zondervan, 1979), 353. Dr. Sproul notes elsewhere, “For an excellent, comprehensive survey of the biblical texts relevant to this see Ramm.” (Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine, [Presbyterian & Reformed, 2005], 204). All supporting verses in Ramm’s Witness of the Holy Spirit are dealt with in this chapter or other chapters referred to. ↑
Bernard Ramm, The Pattern of Authority (Eerdmans, 1957), 33. ↑
Packer, Fundamentalism, 118. ↑
Ramm, Witness, 46. ↑
For further discussion of the relationship between regeneration and conversion see chapter 4.16. ↑
However, the NLT reads here: “the Holy Spirit gave you full assurance that what we said was true.” If this is the correct translation, than we would claim that it was not through some subjective “witness” but because of the observable supernatural fruit that the Holy Spirit worked as a result of their conversion. ↑
Ramm, Witness, 20, 36, 68-69. ↑
For further discussion of the relationship between regeneration and conversion see chapter 4.16. ↑
For further discussion regarding the Spirit’s role in our salvation see chapter 4.16. If it is further asked what authenticates the Gospel, we would answer objective virtue, not a subjective revelation of the Spirit. This is discussed in Book 5: Biblical Apologetics. ↑
Peter Jensen, The Revelation of God (Intervarsity, 2002), 256. Unfortunately, although Dr. Jensen seems to accurately define this work of the Spirit here, he seems to describe it elsewhere as an ongoing process. ↑
Montgomery, 391. ↑
For a defense of virtue as the ultimate apologetic of the Christian faith see Book 5: Biblical Apologetics. ↑
Ramm, Witness, 50. ↑
For further discussion regarding the Spirit’s role in our assurance of salvation see chapters 3.6 and 5.5. ↑
Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, trans. by Henri De Vries, (Eerdmans, 1946), 193. ↑
For detailed discussions of the proper interpretations of these Scriptures that some view as promising extra-biblical revelation from the Spirit see Book 14 chapters 14.13-14.18. ↑
Helm, 310, 312. The same essential point is suggested by Philip E. Hughes in another entry to the book. (see p. 193) ↑
Calvin, Institutes, I.viii. 1. ↑
Helm, 312. ↑
Henry, IV.420, 421, 423, 436-7. Underlining added. ↑
For further discussion of early Church testimonies to the authority of NT documents see Volume 3 ↑
For further discussion of the fraud regarding the Epistle to the Laodiceans see the forthcoming Book 16. ↑
Quoted by Edward A. Dowey, The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (Columbia, 1952), 118. ↑
Abraham, 155. ↑
Accordingly, we would suggest that the following testimony of J. I. Packer in support of the “testimony of the Spirit” could just as easily be explained as an example of the testimony of the Christian community:

I was converted at age eighteen through the Inter-Varsity people at Oxford University. They gave me my nurture, and one of the first things that became reality for me in the course of that nurture was what John Calvin some years later taught me to recognize as the inward witness of the Holy Spirit to the divinity of Holy Scripture. I can still remember the gathering at which I went in, not at all sure that the Bible was the Word of God, and came out absolutely certain that it was, though all that had happened was that one visionary chapter of the Book of Revelation had been reverently expounded.

It was not, as I said, until long after that I found in Calvin the phrase that fits what had happened to me. Calvin said that this Spirit-given certainty that the Bible is the Word of God is something that every Christian experiences. I rejoiced when I read that, for that was what I had experienced. (Honoring the Written Word of God [Paternoster, 1999], 161.

We in no way intend to be disrespectful of Dr. Packer’s interpretation of his experience, but would simply suggest that the same affect can be explained by the confidence with which the teacher preached the word and that others exhibited in the authority of what was being preached. In other words, could there be a more natural explanation for becoming convinced in the authenticity of Scripture, then the supernatural one claimed? ↑
For further discussion of the important and God-ordained place that human testimony has in our beliefs see section 2.5.D. ↑
Robert W. Godfrey, “What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura?” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible (Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), 19. ↑
For further discussion of ancient and modern disagreements on the canon see Volume 3. ↑
John H. Gerstner, “Warfield’s Case for Biblical Inerrancy” in God’s Inerrant Word, John Warwick Montgomery ed. (Bethany Fellowship, 1974), 135. ↑
Montgomery, 393. ↑
E. J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Eerdmans, 1956), 67. ↑
Helm, 318. ↑
Obviously, proponents of applying the “testimony of the Spirit” in this way attempt to refute its subjectivity. Helm, for example, writes:

[O]ur position cannot be ruled out as mere subjectivism, the idea that so-called religious or theological truth is merely about the believer’s own state of mind. For while there is a subjective side of things, a believer, there is an objective side, the text and its meaning, something public and verifiable. (313).

Nonetheless, Dr. Helm’s criteria for evaluating the objective text is still highly subjective.

Likewise, Bernard Ramm ends up with similarly confusing and contradictory language when he attempts to refute the subjectivity of the “testimony”:

The important thing is to note that the testimonium is by its very nature a divine and secret work and therefore incapable of objectification. It is an easy temptation to brand the testimonium as subjective, but from the theological side the privacy of the testimonium is its very strength, for it is by the same token immediate and therefore certain and sure. (Witness, 76) ↑
I. H. Marshall, Biblical Inspiration (Eerdmans, 1983), 22. ↑
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Baker, 1998), 244, underlining added. ↑
John H. Armstrong, “The Authority of Scripture” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible (Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), 128-9. ↑
John Gerstner, Primer, 16-20. ↑
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, James T. Dennison ed., 3 vols. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1992), I:97. ↑
Millard Erickson provides one of the more succinct descriptions of existentialism, although it is a very difficult concept to accurately and fully define. Erickson writes:

There are many aspects or dimensions to the tenet of [extentialism]. Basically it is the contention that reality cannot be captured within, or reduced to, intellectual concepts. It goes beyond them, or breaks out of them. Further it is not possible to put ideas into a logical system . . . Humans can detect no discernible pattern of meaning. The meaning of reality must be created by one’s own free choice. (46.)

Existentialism is essentially anti-rational (many would say plain irrational), downplaying to a great degree the value of God-given reason. Individualism and autonomy are characteristic as well. In addition, Dr. Erickson says, “The final tenet of existentialism is subjectivity . . . Where the object evokes great inward passion or subjectivity, there is truth. This is the really important type of truth” (Ibid., 47).

Finally, Dr. Erickson notes:

Of all philosophies existentialism has probably been the one most widely utilized and even adopted by theologians in the twentieth century, particularly from about 1920 to 1950 or 1960. The major influence of Soren Kierkegaard was not on his day but on those who lived two and three generations after his time. Karl Barth, for example, recognized the presence of Kierkegaardian thought in his first attempt at writing a dogmatics, and even though he attempted to purge it from his later writing there is some question whether he ever fully succeeded. And the indebtedness of Emil Brunner and Reinhold Niebuhr to Kierkegaard is clear, as is the existentialist basis of the thought of Paul Tillich and Rudolf Bultmann.

There have been various effects of this existentializing of theology. First is the subjectivizing of truth. Truth is truth when it becomes truth for me. It is not to be thought of as an objective set of propositions; it must be assimilated by someone if it is to be regarded as truth. Second is the separation of religious truth from more objective types of truth in general. Unlike these other types of truth revelation does not come through general culture. A third result of the existentializing of theology is a nonsubstantive or nonessentialist view of religious reality. Truth, sin, and salvation are not fixed substances, “blocks of reality,” or permanent states. They are dynamic occurrences. (Ibid., 47). ↑
J. Theodore Mueller, “The Holy Spirit and the Scriptures” in Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought, Carl F. H. Henry ed. (Baker Book House, 1958), 278-9. ↑
Grudem, 77. ↑
Klooster, 564. ↑
Ibid. ↑
See Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 5 vols. (T&T Clark, 1936-1977), I.ii. 536 ff. Accordingly, G. W. Bromiley writes in the ISBE:

In later centuries rationalist attacks tended to push the appeal to the Spirit’s witness into the background, especially as it came to be equated increasingly with an unsubstantiated feeling or experience, but Barth revitalized the Reformation teaching in the 20th cent., boldly claiming that he found here, not the Achilles’ heel of the Protestant system as D. F. Strauss had alleged, but “its indestructible strength” (CD, 1/2, 537). (IV:1088). ↑
Paul Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority (Hendrickson, 1999), 123-24, 148. ↑
Dr. Ramm certainly attempts to distinguish the “testimony of the Spirit” from Barthian theology, but would seem unsuccessful. Throughout the book he claims it is wrong to identify the “testimony” with “religious experience” (cf. Witness, 26), yet has to admit that: “A testimonium which [does not include] experience would be meaningless. Nevertheless the testimonium is not religious experience per se” (104). Such is the difficulty one has in distinguishing Calvin’s testimonium from Barth’s neoorthodoxy. ↑
Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (Harper & Row, 1979), 351, 356 ↑
Ramm, Witness, 28-9. ↑
For further discussion of the important difference between Spirit-liberated and devil-darkened reason see chapters 4.12-16. ↑
For further discussion of the relationship between objective evidence and human certainty see chapters 6.12-14. ↑
For example, John Owen writes

What is the ground and reason why the meanest [most humble] and most unlearned sort of believers do assent unto this truth, that the Scriptures are the word of God, with no less firmness, certainty, and assurance of mind, than do the wisest and most learned of them; yea, oft times the faith of the former sort herein is of the best growth and firmest consistency against oppositions and temptations. (VI.6)

Again, we would simply suggest that the confidence that the “unlearned” have in the canon of Scripture is simply a demonstration of the God-ordained place of human testimony by which they have gained such confidence. However, convictions based on the mere testimony of people are fine until the testimony of other equally convincing people is heard- then personal research is needed. For further on human testimony as a God-ordained source of reliable knowledge see sections 2.5.C and 3.3B.D.1. ↑
For further discussion of the meaninglessness of “self-authentication” see section 3.1.C.4.b ↑
The uselessness of the kind of subjective authentication in the “testimony” is illustrated when Dr. Ramm writes:

Because it is in the heart or spirit, it has been called a secret witness or an inner witness. It is common to all Christians but not to all men. It is inner and therefore not a datum available to psychologists or philosophers. There is a great objectivity here and at the same time a real subjectivity. All Christians have sympathetic rapport with those fellow Christians who have the same witness in their hearts. Yet this witness can in no sense be made a public object. Therefore most philosophers and psychologists will always suspect its integrity, which need cause Christians no concern. If it is true that only the pure in heart can see God, then there is nothing more to say except that spiritual realities must be spiritually discerned. (Witness, 52)

It may be noticed that we start with the same kind of subjective claims concerning the superiority of the Christian faith in chapter 2.2 when we point out that we have experienced regeneration and no one following other faiths has. If we would have left it at that, our argument would have had the same subjective weakness as Dr. Ramm’s description of the “testimony.” However, we add to our subjective claims an attempt to prove them with the objective evidence of virtue apologetics in Book 5. Dr. Ramm seems to glory in the fact that he does not even attempt the same thing in his defense of the “testimony.” ↑
Bromiley, IV:1088 ↑
Reference unavailable. ↑
Calvin, Commentaries, 2 Pet 3:15 ↑
Ibid., James ↑
Ibid., 2 Peter ↑
Louis Berkhof, Introduction to the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1915), Prolegomena. ↑
See sections 3.1.C-D. ↑
Packer, Honoring, 36. ↑
R. C. Sproul, “The Establishment of Scripture,” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible (Soli Deo Gloria, 1995 ↑
Erickson, 283. ↑
Dowey, 118. ↑
For a thorough study of the canon of Scripture, see the forthcoming Book 15 of KOG. ↑
Calvin, Institutes, I.vii.5. ↑
Quoted from section 2.6.C. ↑
Excerpt from section 3.3B.A. ↑