Chapter 3.6

Reevaluating the “Testimony of the Spirit” to Salvation

Does the Holy Spirit Tell Us We Are Saved?

Overall Objective

To offer a biblical and practical evaluation of the popular suggestion that the Holy Spirit communicates directly and subjectively to us that we are saved.

Table of Topics

A) Historical & Modern Support For Assurance Through a “Testimony of the Spirit”

B) Biblical Support for Assurance through Objective Virtue

B.1) The Apostle John’s Support of Objective Assurance

B.2) Jesus’ Support of Objective Assurance

B.3) The Apostle Paul’s Support of Objective Assurance

C) Historical Support for Assurance through Objective Virtue

D) Practical Problems & Dangers with an Assurance through a “Testimony of the Spirit”

Publications & Particulars

Primary Points

• The “testimony of the Spirit” teaching is used to suggest that the Holy Spirit directly and subjectively communicates to us that we are saved.
• We wish to suggest that the “testimony of the Spirit” to our salvation that the Scriptures speak of is not so much an internal, subjective, and mystical communication, but rather, it is the external, objective, and practical evidence provided by His obvious fruit working in our lives.
• There is no clear biblical support for such a ministry of the Spirit.
• The Bible’s most concentrated teaching on the assurance of our salvation is 1 John. However, John never points his listeners to some subjective, assuring ministry of the Spirit, but rather to the objective evidence He manifests in our lives.
• No amount of subjective, peaceful, self-affirming feelings about one’s relationship and standing with God can, or should, make up for a lack of the objective moral evidence of one’s life.
• Romans 8:15-16 tells us that the Spirit testifies to our sonship with our spirit, not to it, and is in the context of describing the objective fruits of the Spirit.
• A subjective foundation for our assurance is no foundation because even spirits must be tested objectively.
• An emphasis on some sort of subjective assurance of our salvation has given some an excuse to ignore a lack of objective evidence, leading to a false assurance.

A) Historical & Modern Support For Assurance Through a “Testimony of the Spirit”

As noted in chapter 3.4, the idea of a rather mystical, direct, subjective testimony of the Spirit was essentially the invention of John Calvin. Before him, there is little evidence for such an idea. As we said there, in our opinion, one of the greatest mistakes of modern theology is the widespread rejection of Calvin’s biblical soteriology, and the widespread acceptance of his unbiblical epistemology.

Nonetheless, Calvin commented on the Apostle Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 1:22, “He anointed us, set His seal of ownership on us, and put His Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come”:

Here, however, the Apostle declares in general terms, that the elect have the Spirit given them, by whose testimony they are assured that they have been adopted to the hope of eternal salvation. Hence we may know the nature of faith to be this, that conscience has from the Holy Spirit a sure testimony [revelation] of the good-will of God towards it, so that, resting upon this, it does not hesitate to invoke God as a Father. . . .

Let us observe, however, that it is not acquired in a natural way, and is not attained by the mental capacity, but depends entirely upon the revelation of the Spirit. ^[1]

Clearly, Calvin is promoting the idea of a subjective, direct, revelation of the Spirit, apart from anything our reason (“mental capacity”) would evaluate, that confirms our salvation. Such a perspective is simply an out growth of his doctrine of the testimony of the Spirit for the recognition of Scripture discussed in chapter 3.5.

However, not even Calvin could completely dismiss the objective evidence that the indwelling of the Spirit provides, and wrote elsewhere that objective, “Personal holiness is not the condition for faith but the true evidence of our faith.” ^[2] Nonetheless, Calvin certainly promoted the idea of a more mystical and subjective foundation for our assurance.

Many Reformed theologians followed him and accordingly we read in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646):

This certainty [of salvation] is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption. ^[3]

Like most theologians, the authors of the Confession were willing to give some attention to the more objective “inward evidence of those graces” that the Spirit produces, but also wished to add a subjective dimension to the Spirit’s work as well, a “witnessing with our spirits.”

This subjective “testimony of the Spirit” to our salvation is primarily espoused by Reformed theologians, as Presbyterian theologian Donald Bloesch comments:

[I]n Reformation theology we do not need to look for [objective] evidences of our [right] standing in the sight of God, for faith itself brings us the assurance that we are loved by God and forgiven through the sacrifice of Christ. ^[4]

We are not surprised then to find the fine Reformed teacher D. M. Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) saying that this subjective and rather mystical “testimony of the Spirit” is “the highest form of assurance possible; there is nothing beyond it. It is the acme, the zenith of assurance and certainty of salvation.” ^[5]

Even the well-known Evangelical apologist William Craig, known for his promotion of objective evidences for Christianity, writes:

[T]he witness of the Holy Spirit [is] ‘self-authenticating,’ and by that notion I mean (1) that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical [truthful, genuine] and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable [sure]) for the one who has it and attends to it; (2) that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God. ^[6]

More examples could be given of those who support some sort of mystical, subjective, direct revelation by the Spirit that assures us of our salvation, but these will do. Especially since the concept would seem to us to lack biblical support. On the other hand, an assurance of our salvation based on the objective virtue produced by the Holy Spirit in us is amply attested in Scripture.

B) Biblical Support for Assurance through Objective Virtue

B.1) The Apostle John’s Support of Objective Assurance

The Bible’s most concentrated teaching on the assurance of our salvation is 1 John. However, the Apostle never points his listeners to some subjective, assuring ministry of the Spirit, but rather to the objective evidence He manifests in our lives. ^[7] While we deal with most of these passages elsewhere, some will be discussed here. ^[8]

Contrary to some who teach that it is gifts of the Spirit, such as speaking in tongues, that proves our salvation, we contend that it is the fruits of the Spirit (cf. Gal 5:22-26; Col 3:12-15). Against the common teaching of our Roman Catholic and Lutheran brothers that our water baptism gives us assurance of our salvation, we would claim that it is the life transformation that comes with spiritual baptism (cf. Eph 1:13-14). And against many Reformed and Evangelical theologians who suggest some inner, subjective feeling of assurance that the Spirit communicates to our spirit, we insist that the real “testimony of the Spirit” to our salvation is the objective, observable virtue that flows out of the born again Christian’s life.

It is this very thing that the Apostle John is so eager to explain in his epistle. While the Apostle’s purpose for writing his Gospel was “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name” (21:31), his purpose in 1 John is, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).

His goal in his Gospel is the salvation of unbelievers, while his goal for the epistle is assurance for believers. ^[9] While the Apostle John claims in his Gospel that it was Christ’s physical miracles that authenticated Him as the only way of salvation (cf. John 14:6; 20:30), he claims in his epistle that it is our miraculous, objective virtue that proves we have such salvation.

For example, he writes in simple and straightforward terms:

We know that we have come to know Him if we obey His commands. The man who says, “I know Him,” but does not do what He commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys His word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in Him: Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did. (1 John 2:3-6)

In other words, the certainty of our salvation rests not in feelings or subjective revelations from the Spirit, but rather in the objective evidence of our Christ-like virtue. Renowned NT scholar John Stott, in his superb commentary on 1 John, comments on this passage as follows:

The Gnostics in particular laid claim to the knowledge of God. They had been enlightened with the true gnōsis. John does not deny the possibility of knowing God, since both the Old Testament and the Gospel promise it (e.g. Jer. 31:34; Jn. 17:3). But he insists that no religious experience is valid if it does not have [objective] moral consequences (cf. Tit, 1:16). It is not the person who claims to be a Christian and to know God who is presumptuous, but the person whose claim is contradicted by his conduct. He is a liar (v. 4). ^[10]

The Apostle repeats this truth several times in this short letter. He writes again in chapter 2:

Anyone who claims to be in the light [correctly believing what is necessary for salvation] but hates his brother is still in the darkness [i.e. unsaved]. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him. (1 John 2:9-11)

Granted that the supernatural and superior virtue of Christians proves the truth of Christ, how do we know if we possess the truth of Christ? The Apostle writes:

If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of Him. (1 John 2:29)

No one who lives in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him. Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil . . .

No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:6-10)

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. (1 John 3:14)

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in His presence whenever our hearts condemn us. (1 John 3:18-20)

Dr. Stott comments regarding these latter verses:

It is implied that we shall be able to do this [be assured of our salvation] only if we know that we belong to the truth. It is the mind’s knowledge by which the heart’s doubts may be silenced. But how can we know this? What is the meaning of the this is how with which the verse begins? . . .

Here (as in 4:6) it seems to refer back to the preceding paragraph about love. It is ‘everyone who loves’ who ‘has been born of God and knows God’ (4:7). Love is the final objective test of our Christian profession, for true love, in the sense of self-sacrifice, is not natural to human beings in their fallen state. Its existence in anyone is evidence of new birth and of the indwelling Spirit (3:24; 4:12-13), and it shows itself ‘with actions’.

‘There are actual things we can point to – not things we have professed or felt or imagined or intended, but things that we have done’ (Law). If we thus love ‘in truth’ (v. 18), we may indeed have full assurance in our hearts. ‘The fruit of love is confidence’ (Westcott). ^[11]

The Apostle John also explains why love is the ultimate proof of our standing with God:

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (1 John 4:7-8)

The kind of love that God is requiring can only come from Him, and He only gives it to those who know Him. ^[12]

Obviously, in none of these statements is the Apostle implying that a born again Christian cannot sin. First of all, he has already said that to claim sinless perfection is to be deceived (cf. 1:8, 10), and secondly, he has promised that, “if anybody does sin, we have One Who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (1 John 2:1).

Also, we would contend that the clearest, most immediate proof of our spiritual regeneration is our desires, not our practice. It is our desires to be holy that change rather powerfully and immediately when real conversion occurs, because we immediately receive “a new heart and . . . a new spirit” (Ezek 36:26), which is Christ’s own heart and Spirit because He has come to live inside of us. However, while our desires change rather powerfully and immediately, it will require our whole Christian life for our consistent practice to catch up. God changes our desires radically and instantly at conversion, but we still need to, “be transformed by the renewing of [the beliefs of our] mind” (Rom 12:2) so that we more consistently practice what we desire.

Therefore, it is not our fluctuating performance which we should base our assurance of salvation on, but our ardent, abiding, enormous hatred of sin in our lives. This is precisely what is illustrated in the life of the Apostle Paul in Romans 7:14-25. His struggle with sin in him, even after over 20 years of being an Apostle of Jesus Christ, ^[13] was very real. ^[14] But even more real was his great hatred for that sin. He wrote:

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. . . . As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. . . . So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! (Rom 7:15-25)

Do you sense the passionate “hate” for indwelling sin in the Apostle’s words? It was not the absence of sin that alone demonstrated the Apostle possessed the Holy Spirit, but his great desire to be holy. Accordingly, it is not only the victories over sin that prove our salvation, but the very fact that we are “waging war” against it at all, tells us the Holy Spirit lives in us.

So much so that the Apostle recognized that, in a sense, “it is no longer I myself who do” the sins he hated, but the sinful habits and lies still operating in the unrenewed parts of his mind. On the contrary, he said, “in my inner being [my real regenerated self] I delight in God’s law,” which is something the unregenerate will never do (cf. Rom 8:5-11). And it is that very “delight” in obeying God, and our passionate hatred for sin, that will inevitably result in the practically holier life that the Apostle John describes so clearly. ^[15]

The Apostle John’s concern, then, is not the struggle with a sin here and there that all Christians experience. Rather, he is writing of the habitual and persistent pursuit, practice, and even pleasure of sins against God and our conscience. Christians do not habitually practice sin, do not persistently pursue it, and certainly do not enjoy living in it. This is what makes us radically and miraculously different than we were before our rebirth, and from the rest of the world who are still “all under sin” (Rom 3:9).

One could hardly make our point better than the renowned NT scholar F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) who wrote concerning the kind of assurance of salvation taught in 1 John:

Whatever high claims may be made by one who indulges in sin, that indulgence is sufficient proof that he has no personal knowledge of Christ. . . . [T]he new birth involves a radical change in human nature; for those who have not experienced it, sin is natural, whereas for those who have experienced it, sin is unnatural—so unnatural, indeed, that its practice constitutes a powerful refutation of any claim to possess the divine life. ^[16]

Some may find the Apostle John’s instruction on the proof of salvation too dogmatic and unqualified. However, we should be careful of watering down his statements. Of course, theoretically, one could “not do what He [Christ] commands,” be one who “hates his brother,” and “one who continues to sin” and still be a Christian, even though the Apostle says they would be “a liar,” “still in darkness,” and have never “known Him” (1 John 2:4, 9; 3:6). Perhaps a real born again Christian could live for an extended period of time in a hateful, sinful lifestyle. But we seriously doubt it. For certain they would be miserable, and if not, than they truly would have no basis to believe they belong to Christ.

And this is the Apostle John’s point. We doubt he intended to exclude all possibility that there could be someone whom God knows is a Christian, but whose life is so barren of holy, virtuous fruit at the moment, that to a discerning human it would not seem so. Nonetheless, in such cases we can lovingly and biblically warn people that although their claim to be saved may be true, neither we nor they have reason to believe it is true. This is because, as the Apostle John so clearly teaches, all that humans have to go on is the presence or absence of the objective supernatural virtue of the indwelling Holy Spirit. And this is why throughout Scripture, those who claim to know Christ are encouraged to, “be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure” (2 Pet 2:10; cf. Phil 2:12; Heb 3:7-19; 6:1-12; 10:26-39).

While the Apostle John’s appeal to objective moral fruit for the assurance of salvation is clear, some take some of his statements out of context in order to suggest otherwise. For example, the Apostle writes: “And this is how we know that He lives in us: We know it by the Spirit He gave us” (3:24). Interpreted in isolation, this may be implying some subjective assurance of the Spirit of our salvation. However, in the immediate context, both before and after this statement, the Apostle specifically tells his readers that this assurance of the Spirit is not based on a subjective feeling, but demonstrable virtue. The full passage says:

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in His presence whenever our hearts condemn us. . . .

Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from Him anything we ask, because we obey His commands and do what pleases Him. And this is His command: to believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as He commanded us. Those who obey His commands live in Him, and He in them. And this is how we know that He lives in us: We know it by the Spirit He gave us.

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. (1 John 3:18-4:2)

In verses 18-19, the Apostle clearly teaches that our assurance of salvation is to be based on the objective fact that we “love . . . with actions.” In verse 24, the proof that we “live in Him and He in” us is the objective evidence that we “obey His commands.” The Apostle then immediately states, “And this is how we know that He lives in us: We know it by the Spirit He gave us,” because it is by the Spirit that we can love others and obey God. And if someone wishes to interpret the Apostle as saying that this work of the Spirit is direct, subjective and sufficient, he goes on to warn us about trusting any spirit without objective evidence. It is simply inexcusable exegesis to insert a subjective work of the Spirit in the immediate context of objective works of the Spirit. ^[17]

Accordingly, Dr. Stott adds concerning 1 John 3:24:

It may at first sight seem that this reference to the Holy Spirit within us introduces a subjective criterion of assurance . . . which is inconsistent with what has gone before. But this is not so.

The Spirit whose presence is the test of Christ’s living in us, manifests himself objectively in our life and conduct. It is he who inspires us to confess Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh, as John immediately proceeds to show (4:1ff.; Cf. 2:20, 27). It is also he who empowers us to live righteously and to love our brothers and sisters (cf. 4:13; Gal. 5: 16, 22).

So if we would set our hearts at rest, when they accuse and condemn us, we must look for evidence of the Spirit’s working, and particularly whether he is enabling us to believe in Christ, to obey God’s commands and to love our brothers; for the condition of Christ dwelling in us and of our dwelling in him is this comprehensive obedience (24a), and the evidence of the indwelling is the gift of the Spirit (24b). ^[18]

Another verse that could be misinterpreted on this topic is 1 John 4:13 where we read, “We know that we live in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.” Again, we would insist that in the context, the Apostle points to objective evidence in our lives for proof that “He has given us of His Spirit.” Again, Dr. Stott writes:

This, then, is the sequence of thought [in 1 John 4:12-16]: we know that we live in God and God in us ‘because he has given us of his Spirit’ (13), and we know he has given us of his Spirit because we have come to ‘acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God’ (15), and to live ‘in love’ (16). ^[19]

Finally, some have derived a subjective, mystical operation of the Spirit from the following as well: ^[20]

This is the One Who came by water and blood–Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit Who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which He has given about His Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made Him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about His Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. (1 John 5:6-11)

First, we should notice that “the testimony God has given about His Son” (v. 10) is that “God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son” (v. 11). Therefore, “the testimony” relates to our assurance of salvation.

How is this “testimony” communicated and authenticated? The Apostle says, “there are three that testify” to this: “the Spirit, the water and the blood” (vs. 7-8). What do these mean?

While there are various interpretations as to what the Apostle meant by the “water and blood,” we agree with Dr. Stott who remarks:

We need . . . to find an interpretation of the phrase which makes water and blood both historical experiences ‘through’ which he passed and witnesses in some sense to his divine-human person.” ^[21]

We would suggest that John’s statement that Christ, “came by water and blood” is a reference to his physical birth and death. Accordingly, Jesus Himself referred to natural birth as being “born of water” (John 3:15 ^[22]). Christ’s “natural” birth would testify to his humanity, and precisely against what the false teachers that John was concerned about were denying: The incarnation of God. Likewise, the fact that Christ bled on the cross was a demonstration of His humanity. But Christ was not only human but God. How was this proven? By “the Spirit.” How did this occur? Throughout the Gospels the authentication of Christ’s divinity through the Spirit occurred through His miracle working and resurrection (cf. John 20:30-31; 10:24-26, 38; 14:11; 15:24; Acts 2:22).

How then is this “testimony in” our “heart”? Obviously these things are simply the belief of every Christian. We are reminded of Paul’s promise that: “If you confess with your mouth ‘Jesus is Lord’ [deity], and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9). Remembering that the biblical concept of “heart” is virtually synonymous with the cognitive reasoning functions that produce our beliefs, desires, and decisions, we recognize that the Apostle is stressing objective evidence for our faith.

While the testimony of coming to Earth “by water and blood” clearly proved Christ’s humanity, the testimony of the Spirit working through Him and even raising Him from the dead proved His deity. There is no need here to find some obscure, mystical testimony of the Spirit to Who Christ was. ^[23]

B.2) Jesus’ Support of Objective Assurance

And this was not only the teaching of the Apostle John. The King had made the same claim in His Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matt 7:21-27). He described people doing all sorts of things even in His “name” including prophesying, exorcisms, and miracles. And yet, “many” of these very kind of people were unsaved “evil doers.” It was in this context that Christ said, “Not everyone who [merely] says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the [moral] will of My Father Who is in Heaven.”

Christ went on to compare two kinds of people. There are those who “hear these words of mine and put them into practice,” and therefore, have a saving faith that will “not fall.” But there are those who “hear these words of mine and do not put them into practice” and therefore have a “faith” “built . . . on sand” which will, at some point, “fall with a great crash.” For Christ, it was obedience to His word that tested the legitimacy of a person’s salvation (cf. Matt 13:18-23; John 15:1-8).

B.3) The Apostle Paul’s Support of Objective Assurance

In addition, we may note here that this was precisely the Apostle Paul’s point in relating the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5. In verse six he states clearly that, “The only thing that counts [for possessing and claiming salvation] is faith expressing itself through love.” As Dr. Stott puts it here, “the faith which saves is a faith which works, a faith which issues in love,” ^[24] and a love that can be objectively observed.

While throughout Galatians 5 the Apostle is certainly speaking of the internal moral battle that occurs between the “sinful nature” and “the Spirit” (Gal. 5:17) in the life of the believer, he also makes it clear in the passage that the objective “fruit” of the Spirit is the evidence that a person is “not under law” (v. 18, i.e. saved) and that they “belong to Christ Jesus” (v. 24).

On the other hand, those who do not bear the fruit of the Spirit, but by default, exhibit the “acts of the sinful nature” (v. 19) prove their damned state because, as the Apostle says, “I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (v. 21). ^[25] No amount of subjective, peaceful, self-affirming feelings about one’s relationship and standing with God can, or should, make up for a lack of the objective moral evidence of one’s life.

Accordingly, the Apostle Paul testifies in Acts, “First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds” (Acts 26:20). This is why he told the Romans: “Through Him and for His name’s sake, we received grace and Apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the [moral] obedience that comes from [saving] faith” (Rom 1:5). Saving faith will result in obedience to God and prove our salvation.

Having Christ in us is to be saved, and the Christ in us will show Himself. Paul wrote the Corinthians: “You show that you are a letter from Christ . . . known and read by everybody . . . written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” (2 Cor 3:2-3).

Like the Apostle John in his epistle, the apostle Paul reminds us that supernatural virtue is what the confidence of our salvation is based on when he says, “Those [deacons] who have served well gain . . . great assurance [parrēsian] in their [saving] faith in Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 3:13). ^[26]

Nonetheless, the chief texts for supporting a mystical testimony of the Spirit to our salvation come from Paul’s writings. He writes in Romans 8:15-16:

For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by Him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit Himself testifies with [symmartyrei] our spirit that we are God’s children. (Rom 8:15-16)

Dr. Bruce reflects a common interpretation of this statement when he writes this “is the New Testament basis of the doctrine of the ‘inward witness of the Holy Spirit.’” ^[27] Likewise, mega church Pastor Bill Hybels writes regarding this Scripture:

In other words, the Holy Spirit whispers and tugs and nudges and makes impressions on the spirits of true believers, and this is what he says: “Rejoice! You’ve trusted Christ, and now you’re a member of the family. Relax! The agonizing is over; you’re on the flight to heaven.” ^[28]

First, we should notice the Greek text here. The Apostle uses the word martyr (“testify”) with the prefix sym (“together with”). In other words, the Apostle is saying that the Holy Spirit testifies along with “our spirit,” not to it. The Apostle is saying nothing here about the Holy Spirit communicating something to our spirit, which is erroneously reflected in the NLT which says, “For His Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts and tells us that we are God’s children.” To the contrary, what the Apostle is saying is that both the Spirit and “our spirit” are simultaneously testifying to something else, namely that we are God’s children. ^[29]

More specifically, the text is saying that the Spirit and “our spirit” are together proclaiming something. The “testimony” is the audible “cry” of the Holy Spirit, through our human spirit that God is our Father. Accordingly, the Apostle explicitly says we, “received the Spirit of sonship. And by Him we [audibly] cry, “Abba, Father.” This is what “the Spirit of sonship” is doing when, “The Spirit Himself testifies . . . that we are God’s children.” He is making a public proclamation, not an inward, silent, private, mystical communication to ourselves. The reason this audible proclamation is also made “with our spirit” is that the Spirit-prompted proclamation must go through our mind to be audibly expressed. It is our voice that makes the “cry, “Abba, Father,” not the Spirit’s voice.

The parallel statement in Galatians 4:6 seems to explicitly describe this when the Apostle writes: “Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts [i.e. “spirits”], the Spirit Who calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’” It is again the Spirit indwelling our heart/spirit prompting us then to audibly “call out” by the Spirit through our heart/spirit “Abba, Father.”

This would seem to be similar to what the Apostle describes elsewhere when He writes: “Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3). Again, when we “say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’” we can be understood as “speaking by the Spirit of God.” Therefore, it is by virtue of being indwelled with the Holy Spirit that our spirits can proclaim that God is our Father and Jesus is Lord.

Accordingly, we believe the sense of Romans 8:15-16 is best translated in the RSV, NRSV, and NEB translations. The latter renders the passage:

The Spirit you have received is not a spirit of slavery leading you back into a life of fear, but a Spirit that makes us sons, enabling us to cry ‘Abba! Father!’ In that cry the Spirit of God joins with our spirit in testifying [i.e. publicly proclaiming] that we are God’s children.

We see then that after the Apostle says the Spirit has relieved us of the fear of God and enables us to call out to God as our Father, he simply restates the same thing in the next sentence. The statements are not saying two entirely different things such as 1) The Spirit enables us to acknowledge God as our Father, and 2) the Spirit tells our spirit that God is our Father. Rather, both statements are saying the same thing: the Spirit enables us to acknowledge God as our Father and does this through an exclamation made from our spirit/mind.

If one wishes to reject this interpretation and insist that the Holy Spirit is communicating something to our spirit instead of with it, they still encounter difficulties in suggesting this is some sort of immediate, subjective, revelatory action of the Spirit. Accordingly, John MacArthur comments: “Paul does not have in mind just some mystical small voice saying we are saved,” and goes on to suggest that the Apostle is referring to the objective evidence that the Spirit produces. ^[30]

Likewise, Dr. Stott helps us to notice the context of these verses, which certainly points to objective evidence, rather than the subjective kind:

[T]he whole paragraph concerns the witness he bears us, that is, the assurance he gives us. The question is: precisely how is the Spirit’s witness borne? Paul assembles four pieces of evidence. First, the Spirit leads us into [objective] holiness (verse 14 being linked to verse 13 by the conjunction because). Secondly, in our relationship to God he replaces fear with freedom (15a). Thirdly, in our prayers he prompts us to call God ‘Father’ (15b-16). Fourthly, he is the firstfruits of our heavenly inheritance (17, 23). Thus radical holiness, fearless freedom, filial prayerfulness and the hope of glory are four [objective] characteristics of the children of God who are indwelt and led by the Spirit of God. It is by these [objective] evidences that he witnesses to us that we are God’s children. ^[31]

Likewise, if the Apostle is speaking of a testimony from the Holy Spirit to our spirit we would suggest that the Apostle is referring to the objective evidence that the Holy Spirit creates in transforming our lives and giving us a new and consistent power over sin, all of which the Apostle wrote a great deal about in Romans chapters 6-8 leading up to the verse in question. ^[32] His statement should be understood in this context, instead of as an isolated statement, separated from what the Apostle has been teaching in this section of Scripture.

The Apostle is not implying that the Spirit provides a subjective assurance of our salvation that is apart from, and in spite of, the objective fruit that the Apostle John continually points to in his teaching.

Accordingly, Edwards wrote of Romans 8:15-17:

There are two kinds of spirits the apostle speaks of, the spirit of a slave or the spirit of bondage, that is fear; and the spirit of a child, or spirit of adoption, and that is love. The apostle says, we have not received the spirit of bondage, or of slaves, which is a spirit of fear; but we have received the more ingenuous noble spirit of children, a spirit of love, which naturally disposes us to go to God as children to a father, and behave towards God as children. And this is the evidence or witness which the Spirit of God gives us that we are his children. . .

So that it appears that the witness of the Spirit the apostle speaks of, is far from being any whisper, or immediate suggestion or revelation; but that gracious holy effect of the Spirit of God in the hearts of the saints, the disposition and temper of children, appearing in sweet childlike love to God, which casts out fear, or a spirit of a slave. ^[33]

Likewise, the nineteenth century Bible scholar, Albert Barnes (1798–1870) would appear to understand the Apostle here better than many twentieth century commentators when he remarks concerning Romans 8:16:

[I]t means that the Holy Spirit furnishes evidence to our minds that we are adopted into the family of God . . . If it be asked how this is done, I answer, it is not by any revelation of new truth; it is not by inspiration; it is not always by assurance; it is not by a mere persuasion that we are elected to eternal life; but it is by producing in us the appropriate [objective] effects of his influence.

It is his to renew the heart; to sanctify the soul; to produce “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance,” Gal. 5:22-23. If a man has these, he has evidence of the witnessing of the Spirit with his spirit. If not, he has no such evidence.

And the way, therefore, to ascertain whether we have this witnessing of the Spirit, is by an honest and prayerful inquiry whether these [objective] fruits of the Spirit actually exist in our minds. If they do, the evidence is clear. If not, all vain confidence of good estate; all visions, and raptures, and fancied revelations, [and some supposed “inner testimony” of the Spirit] will be mere delusions. ^[34]

And the Pentecostal NT scholar Gordon Fee agrees concerning Romans 8:16:

This means that those who make much out of the concept of “the inner witness of the Spirit” are probably also missing Paul’s point. One need not doubt that such an “inner witness” results, as it were; but Paul is almost certainly not speaking to some deep, interior witness that the Spirit makes within us. Rather, as already suggested, he is simply elaborating on the significance of the Abba-cry, that by our crying out to God the Spirit thus bears witness with [not to] our spirits that we are God’s children. ^[35]

C) Historical Support for Assurance through Objective Virtue

While there has been considerable support for Calvin’s rather mystical view of the testimony of the Spirit, we would suggest there is equal or greater historical support for the more objective view that Spirit-produced virtue is the true testimony of the Spirit to our salvation. St. Augustine (354-430) put it this way, in the context of what proves we have received the Holy Spirit:

When we laid the hand on these infants, did each one of you look to see whether they would speak with tongues, and, when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so wrong-minded as to say, “These have not received the Holy Ghost.” . . . If then the witness of the presence of the Holy Ghost be not now given through these miracles, by what is it given, by what does one get to know that he has received the Holy Ghost? Let him question his own heart. If he love his brother, the Spirit of God dwelleth in him. ^[36]

Elsewhere Augustine said, “Now whosoever has not charity is wicked, because this gift alone of the Holy Ghost distinguishes the children of the kingdom from the children of perdition.” ^[37]

From there, as with a lot of theology, we fast-forward to Martin Luther (1483-1546) who wrote:

Faith . . . is a divine work in us which changes us and makes us to be born anew of God, John 1[:12-13]. It kills the old Adam and makes us altogether different men, in heart and spirit and mind and powers; and it brings with it the Holy Spirit. It is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing good works incessantly. It does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is asked, it has already done them, and is constantly doing them. Whoever does not do such works, however, is an unbeliever. ^[38]

Even for Luther, then, it would seem no subjective “witness of the Spirit” could make up for a lack of objective fruit of the Spirit when it came to an assurance of salvation. Accordingly, he described the “testimony of the Spirit” in objective ways when he wrote:

By this Holy Spirit, as a living, eternal, divine gift and endowment, all believers are adorned with faith and other spiritual gifts, raised from the dead, freed from sin, and made joyful and confident, free and secure in their conscience. For this is our assurance if we feel this witness of the Spirit in our hearts, that God wishes to be our Father, forgive our sin, and bestow everlasting life on us. ^[39]

Here, Luther equated the “witness of the Spirit in our hearts” to things that could be objectively recognized such as “spiritual gifts,” power over sin, joy and confidence, and a conscience free from guilt. Accordingly, we wish to suggest again that the “testimony” of the Spirit to our salvation that the Scriptures speak of is not so much an internal, subjective, and mystical communication, but rather, it is the external, objective, and practical evidence provided by His obvious fruit working in our lives.

Likewise, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) completely rejected John Calvin’s idea of a mystical, subjective testimony of the Spirit to our salvation. As Dr. Bloesch relates, “For Jonathan Edwards Christian [moral] practice is the cardinal sign that we have been endowed with the Spirit,” ^[40] in distinction from some subjective action of the Spirit. Accordingly, in the conclusion of Edwards’ massive study on this very subject, Religious Affections, and after rejecting many other approaches to the assurance of salvation, including the subjective doctrine of a “testimony of the Spirit,” he writes:

I shall consider Christian practice and holy life, as a manifestation and sign of the sincerity of a professing Christian, to the eye of his neighbors and brethren. . . . And that this is the chief sign of grace in this respect, is very evident from the word of God. [Christ taught] men’s fruits must be the chief evidence of what sort they are . . . so it is the evidence that Christ has mainly directed us to give to others, whereby they may judge of us: Matt. 5:16. . . . Doubtless, when Christ gives us a rule how to make our light shine, that others may have evidence of it, his rule is the best that is to be found. . . . Thus it is plain, that Christian practice is the best sign or manifestation of the true godliness of a professing Christian, to the eye of his neighbors. . . .

Christian practice is plainly spoken of in the word of God, as the main evidence of the truth of grace, not only to others, but to men’s own consciences. It is not only more spoken of and insisted on than other signs, but in many places where it is spoken of, it is represented as the chief of all evidences. . . .

Another thing which makes it evident, that holy practice is the chief of all the signs of the sincerity of professors, not only to the world, but to their own consciences, is, that this is the grand evidence which will hereafter be made use of, before the judgment seat of God; according to which his judgment will be regulated, and the state of every professor of religion unalterably determined [cf. Matt 25:31-46]. . . .

Now from all that has been said, I think it to be abundantly manifest, that Christian practice is the most proper evidence of the gracious sincerity of professors, to themselves and others; and the chief of all the marks of grace, the sign of signs, and evidence of evidences, that which seals and crowns all other signs. . . .

Another thing which makes it evident, that holy practice is the principal evidence that we ought to make use of in judging both of our own and others’ sincerity [in claiming to be a Christian], is, that this evidence is above all others insisted on in Scripture. A common acquaintance with the Scripture, together with a little attention and observation, will be sufficient to show to anyone that this is ten times more insisted on as a note of true piety, throughout the Scripture, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelations, than anything else. . . .

And for us to make that great which the Scripture makes little, and that little which the Scripture makes great, tends to give us a monstrous idea of religion; and (at least indirectly and gradually) to lead us wholly away from the right rule, and from a right opinion of ourselves, and to establish delusion and hypocrisy. . . . Christian practice is plainly spoken of in the word of God, as the main evidence of the truth of grace, not only to others, but to men’s own consciences. ^[41]

Because of Edwards’ strong stand against Calvin’s more subjective “testimony,” we read the following rather interesting account from Edwards’ brother-in-law:

Samuel Hopkins records a rather curious conversation that he had with George Whitefield [1714–1770] about Jonathan Edwards in 1770. After a few comments about the tendencies of New England ministers, Whitefield quipped, “Is it not surprising, and much to be regretted, that good Mr. Edwards should deny the witness of the Spirit?”

Hopkins replied, “I did not know that he had. What do you understand sir by the witness of the Spirit?” Whitefield’s pause caused Hopkins to surmise that he was searching, unfruitfully, for an answer, so Hopkins advanced one: “Do you mean by it an impression upon the imagination, by some immediate communication from the Spirit, that your sins are forgiven and that you are a child of God?”

“No,” said Whitefield, “that does not express my opinion.”

Hopkins then advanced another option: “Do you then mean an influence of the Spirit of God, exciting such a love for God and Jesus Christ, such clear views of their character, as that the subject of it knows from experience and from Scripture, that he is a child of God and an heir of salvation?”

Whitefield declared that this “accords more with [my] views.”

Hopkins concluded the exchange by exclaiming, “This is that witness of the Spirit for which Mr. Edwards pleads, in distinction from the former, which he represents as a form of enthusiasm [i.e. mysticism].” ^[42]

Edwards was a champion of the need to see the objective virtue of the Holy Spirit as the biblical means by which we gain assurance of our salvation, and he disdained the idea of a subjective “testimony” of the Spirit which was and is a cornerstone of the Reformed theology he otherwise embraced. Edwards’ disdain for the doctrine, makes it all the more distasteful that some, apparently out of a blind desire to preserve their precious doctrine of the “testimony,” have actually enlisted Edwards as a supporter of it.

For example, Stephen J. Nichols in his book, An Absolute Sort of Certainty: The Holy Spirit and the Apologetics of Jonathan Edwards, consistently downplays, disregards, and confuses the theologian’s clear conviction on the objective fruits of the Spirit proving salvation, and manages to make him a great champion of the mystical “testimony” of the Spirit, which is the author’s own conviction. Accordingly, he writes:

However, [Ava] Chamberlain’s understanding of Edwards’s doctrine of assurance is too narrow. “According to Edwards,” she asserts, “Christian practice was the locus of assurance.” By treating assurance simply as a human [but also supernaturally moral, virtuous] response to the work of God in one’s life, she fails to see that assurance is produced by the Spirit, as the equivalent to Calvin’s internum testimonium Spiritus Sancti‘. ^[43]

On the contrary, it is Dr. Nichols who “fails to see” Edwards’ approach to assurance correctly, and he rejected the subjective approach of Calvin, which was precisely what prompted George Whitefield’s concern. While Edwards occasionally mentions Calvin’s doctrine, he was a Puritan in thinking and a Pietist at heart, and in agreement with them, the objective moral fruit produced by the Holy Spirit was the ultimate apologetic for Christian faith.

Accordingly, John Gerstner, a much better authority on Edwards remarks:

It runs as a refrain through Edwards’ preaching that actions speak louder than words. Indeed, in his most famous treatise on the subject, Religious Affections, with respect to others and to oneself, the greatest test of religious experience is clearly this one [i.e. virtue]. ^[44]

Dr. Bloesch also notes that elements of Puritanism and Pietism rejected the subjective view of the Spirit’s testimony to our salvation:

[O]ne of the major debates in Puritanism revolved around the assurance of salvation. Whereas the Reformers taught that faith itself brings assurance, the Puritans . . . encouraged believers to look for signs and evidences that attest the genuineness of their commitment to Christ. . . .

While orthodox Lutherans gained their security by looking back to their baptism, the Pietists underlined the need for a new experience, a new regeneration. . . . [They insisted that] our salvation is meaningless unless it produces fruits of obedience that attest whether we belong to Christ. . . . In contrast to Lutheran orthodoxy Zinzendorf [1700–1760, a foremost leader of Pietism] held that saving faith includes the impetus to love. “Even if one believes, yet he will not be saved, if he does not love. . . . There is no saving faith which is not simultaneously love for Him who laid down His life for us.” ^[45]

We think Scripture proves Zinzendorf right.

D) Practical Problems & Dangers with an Assurance through a “Testimony of the Spirit”

The first problem with making some subjective action of the Spirit the bedrock assurance of our salvation is that it is just that: subjective. NT scholar Thomas Schreiner, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes that this supposed action of the Spirit is:

a religious experience that is ineffable, for the witness of the Holy Spirit with the human spirit that one is a child of God is mystical in the best sense of the word. ^[46]

While we have a great deal of respect for Dr. Schreiner, we must confess that calling something “mystical” is often simply an attempt to put a spiritual spin on nothing more than a feelings-oriented, and therefore, unreliable experience. As we have discussed thoroughly throughout Knowing Our God, we were created to trust facts, not feelings, or even spirits.

Accordingly, we read in 1 John: “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (4:1). And how else can we test such things except by objective means, rather than subjective ones? And this is precisely what the Apostle prescribes when he writes: “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” (4:2). ^[47]

Secondly, an emphasis on some sort of subjective assurance of our salvation has given some an excuse to ignore a lack of objective evidence, leading to a false assurance. For example, the NT scholar Everett F. Harrison writes in the popular Expositor’s Bible Commentary:

A comparison of [Romans 8:]15 and 16 will bring out an important truth concerning the assurance of salvation. All too often a believer may come to the point of doubting his salvation because his sanctification has proceeded so slowly and so lamely. The Spirit, however, does not base his assuring testimony on progress or the lack of it in the Christian life. ^[48]

Dr. Harrison and others seem to forget that it was this very lack of holiness that prompted the Apostle to exhort the Corinthians: “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves” (2 Cor 13:5). And the test was not to see whether or not they felt like they were Christians, but whether or not they were acting like Christians (cf. 2 Cor 12:20-13:11). Such an approach to the work of the Spirit in assuring us of our salvation can serve to give many a false assurance.

Here we are reminded of the King’s sobering words when He said:

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father Who is in Heaven.  ²²Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’  ²³Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from Me, you evildoers!’ (Matt 7:21-23)

There is little doubt that such people could have professed to an internal, reassuring sense in their spirit that they had a personal relationship with Christ. What is also certain is that they did not possess the fruits of the Spirit in a sincere and supernatural manner. It is just this kind of horrible deception that can be encouraged by the teaching of the “testimony of the Spirit” to our salvation.

One wonders if the reason for commonly suggesting our assurance of salvation depends on something other than objective evidence, is to give a sorry excuse for the multitude of people who claim to be born-again Christians but do not live like it. It is unfortunate that such a doctrine has given such people warrant to muster up their own internal and faulty confidence and ignore the real evidence exhibited in the way they love, talk, and think. Such a position is not only unbiblical, but also not helpful for the Christian, and dangerous to the Church.

The perspective of Edwards and Augustine is so desperately needed in a world in which so many claim to be Christians, and then stain the name of Christ by being sinful. The result is that the high and holy calling of Christian means nothing because a multitude of obviously unregenerated people are claiming it and being allowed to do so. The Church is so eager to add to its numbers, make it easy to become a “Christian,” and not offend, that it is reluctant to promote supernatural virtue as the real sign of being worthy to call oneself a Christian. The result is perhaps the world likes us more, but we have abandoned the example of our Savior Who called His followers to radical virtue, cared much for spiritual maturity, and very little about numerical quantity, and reserved His strongest rebukes for those who claimed a relationship with God but did not live like it. ^[49]

Accordingly, John Wesley (1703–1791) warned of such self-deceit when he wrote: “How many have mistaken the voice of their own imagination for the witness of the Spirit of God, and then idly presumed they were the children of God while they were doing the works of the devil.” ^[50]

Likewise, Wesley’s contemporary during the Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards wrote:

Here it may be proper to observe, that it is exceedingly manifest from what has been said, that what many persons call the witness of the Spirit, that they are the children of God, has nothing in it spiritual and divine; and consequently that the affections built upon it are vain and delusive. That which many call the witness of the Spirit, is no other than an immediate suggestion and impression of that fact, otherwise secret, that they are converted, or made the children of God, and so that their sins are pardoned, and that God has given them a title to heaven. . . .

What has misled many in their notion of that influence of the Spirit of God we are speaking of, is the word witness, its being called the witness of the Spirit. Hence they have taken it, not to be any effect or work of the Spirit upon the heart, giving [objective] evidence, from whence men may argue that they are the children of God; but an inward immediate suggestion, as though God inwardly spoke to the man, and testified to him, and told him that he was his child, by a kind of a secret voice, or impression: not observing the manner in which the word witness, or testimony, is often used in the New Testament, where such terms often signify, not only a mere declaring and asserting a thing to be true, but holding forth evidence from whence a thing may be argued, and proved to be true.

Thus Heb. 2:4, God is said to “bear witness, with signs and wonders and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost.” Now these miracles, here spoken of, are called God’s witness, not because they are of the nature of assertions, but evidences and proofs. . . .

Many have been the mischiefs that have arisen from that false and delusive notion of the witness of the Spirit, that it is a kind of inward voice, suggestion, or declaration from God to man, that he is beloved of him, and pardoned, elected, or the like, sometimes with, and sometimes without a text of Scripture; and many have been the false and vain (though very high) affections that have arisen from hence. And it is to be feared that multitudes of souls have been eternally undone by it. ^[51]

Those are true and sobering words that would not seem to be heeded enough by those who promote the doctrine of the “testimony of the Spirit” to the assurance of our salvation.

A third problem with such an approach to assurance is that it becomes difficult to explain why many Christians do not have it. If it is a universal work of the Spirit on behalf of Christians then why doesn’t the Spirit assure all Christians of their salvation? Is it because they lose the Spirit, or it somehow stops “talking” to them? If it is suggested that sin can hinder the assurance of the Spirit, then we would suggest we are right back to the objective tests of salvation that we support. Which would seem to be exactly what William Craig, a proponent of the “testimony” to our assurance, is saying when he remarks, “Only as we walk in the fullness of the Spirit can we be guaranteed the assurance of which Paul speaks.” ^[52]

Fourthly, this approach to assurance can lead to dividing God’s people into the “haves” and “have-nots” in terms of some special spiritual experience. Our Pentecostal brothers and sisters, of course, do this in a number of ways, including their teaching on the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Unfortunately, the great Evangelical D. M. Lloyd-Jones fell into similar error regarding the “testimony of the Spirit” to salvation. His friend and contemporary, John Stott wrote concerning Romans 8:15-16:

I do not feel able to leave these verses without alluding to an interpretation of them to which Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has given currency. He devoted four chapters to the expression ‘you received the Spirit of adoption’ (Rom 8:15) and eight more to ‘the witness of the Spirit’ (v. 16). Following Thomas Goodwin and other Puritans, he understood the former as ‘a very special form or type of assurance’ more emotional than intellectual, given subsequent to conversion though not essential for salvation, and conveying a profound feeling of security in our father’s love. Similarly he interpreted the witness of the Spirit (which he identified with the ‘baptism’ and the ‘sealing’ of the Spirit) as a distinctive and overwhelming experience which confers ‘an absolute assurance.’ ^[53]

Dr. Lloyd-Jones offered several examples of some famous Christians who described a special, spiritual experience of God in support of his interpretation. In response, Dr. Stott writes:

I have no wish whatever to call in question the authenticity of the experiences described. Nor do I doubt that many Christian people continue to be granted similar profound encounters with God today. Nor is there any problem in affirming that the ministry of the Spirit of adoption (Rom 8:15) and the inner witness of the Spirit (v. 16) are designed to bring us assurance. My anxiety is whether the biblical texts have been rightly interpreted. I have the uneasy feeling that it is the experiences which have determined the exposition.

For the natural reading of Romans 8:14-17 is surely that all believers are ‘led by the Spirit’ (v. 14), have ‘received a Spirit of adoption’ (v. 15, REB), and cry ‘Abba, Father’ as the Spirit himself bears witness to them that they are God’s children (v. 16) and therefore also his heirs (v. 17). There is no indication in these four verses that a special, distinctive or overwhelming experience is in mind, which needs to be sought by all although it is given only to some. On the contrary, the whole paragraph appears to be descriptive of what is, or should be, common to all believers. Though doubtless in differing degrees of intensity, all who have the Spirit’s indwelling (v. 9) are given the Spirit’s witness too (vs. 15-16). ^[54]

Suggesting that some mystical, revelatory experience of the Spirit is needed in order to reach the “the zenith of assurance and certainty of salvation,” as Dr. Lloyd-Jones claimed ^[55] is ominously close to the Roman Catholic teaching that only a special revelation from God can provide such assurance. ^[56]

Fifthly, basing the assurance of our faith on a subjective “testimony of the Spirit” is essentially indistinguishable from the feelings based epistemology of the founder of liberal theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), whose views have been rightly rejected by conservative Evangelical theologians. This becomes evident in Gordon Spykman’s description of Schleiermacher’s approach to epistemology:

Schleiermacher [is] . . . the undisputed father of modern theology. His great achievement lies in this, that he adapted Kant’s philosophical vision to theology. It is no exaggeration to say that “the entire nineteenth century belongs to Schleiermacher” (Karl Barth). After Kant, modern theology was destined never to be the same again. He had demolished the long-standing rational arguments on which theology had traditionally rested its case. How then could theology still be rescued? That was the Herculean challenge to which Schleiermacher addressed himself. What new substructure could be laid as a prolegomenal base of support for a systematic exposition of the Christian faith?

Schleiermacher attacked this problem by accepting the Kantian conclusion that the objects of religious belief have no “objective” status. They are postulates of the human mind. Christian doctrine must therefore rest on some “subjective” basis. The idea of Gefühl (“feeling”) filled this need. It became the hermeneutic key to doing theology . . .

Schleiermacher believed that he had offered new grounds on which to construct a Christian theology. His approach was, however, just as man-centered and subjectivist as Kant’s. True to Kant, however, Schleiermacher refused to justify it on the basis of rational argumentation. He appealed rather to the phenomena of religious experience. The result was Christian faith rooted in finely attuned spiritual feeling. The task of theology is to offer a systematic exposition of this universal Gefühl. Its base of support is the scientific study of the phenomena of human religions, which serves then as the prolegomena for a study of the Christian religion. ^[57]

Therefore, a subjective, feelings-oriented ground for our faith is both what Schleiermacher and a mystical “testimony of the Spirit” promote, and the latter should be rejected by Evangelical theologians as they have the former.

Finally, resting the epistemological foundation of the genuineness and exclusivity of our Christian faith on something as elusive, subjective, mystical, and private as some “testimony of the Spirit,” guts the Christian faith from its most important proof for its superiority over other faiths. What would keep anyone from claiming the same “testimony,” when objective virtue is deliberately excluded as a test of it, and it is defined as merely a subjective, mystical “feeling” of assurance that one is in a right relationship with God? This is yet another reason we promote virtue apologetics and the claim that the objective, supernatural virtue of the indwelling Spirit is the ultimate and universal proof of the exclusivity of salvation through Christ. ^[58]

Pastoral Practices

Because many in the Corinthian church were not living up to the moral standards of authentic Christianity, Paul instructed them at the end of 2 Corinthians to, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you–unless, of course, you fail the test? (2 Cor 13:5). Paul was exhorting them to evaluate the spiritual fruit in their lives to demonstrate that Christ was indeed living in them. We would like to suggest that you do the same for a moment. Not because the authenticity of your Christianity is in question, but rather, to really experience virtue apologetics for yourself.

Compare yourself to who you were before the time you believe your spiritual rebirth occurred. Or consider the life of the typical unbeliever in your neighborhood, classroom, or work place. Are you more loving? Are your motives different? Do you demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit more than you did before, and more than your relatives, co-workers, and friends who do not have the Holy Spirit? We believe such an exercise will prove our point, and be a helpful reminder that you have in fact been regenerated and sealed with the Holy Spirit for eternal life.

• It is important to teach our people a biblical perspective on assurance of salvation. This was the Apostle John’s purpose in 1 John and it should be one of our purposes as well. Teaching the biblical perspective of the Apostle can help those real Christians who are unnecessarily struggling with assurance, and help merely religious people in your congregation realize they do not have the Holy Spirit or the Savior. Challenging people to more honestly look at the objective fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives will be a good thing.

Publications & Particulars

1. Calvin’s Bible Commentaries, 2 Cor 1:22; online at http://www.ccel.org.

   Such a clear statement concerning a supposed subjective and direct revelation of the Spirit makes the following remark from Stephen J. Nichols rather absurd:

   Calvin argued against the idea that assurance is subjective. To be sure, the Spirit’s witness is internal, but that internal witness has an external ground. It is the testimony of the Spirit to the individual, not the testimony of the individual to himself. (An Absolute Sort of Certainty: The Holy Spirit and the Apologetics of Jonathan Edwards [Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003], 111). ↑

2. Quoted by Donald Bloesch, The Holy Spirit (Intervarsity, 2000), 110. Underlining added. ↑

3. Westminster Confession of Faith, XVIII.1. Underlining added. ↑

4. Bloesch, 55. The Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof reports that in addition to himself, such Reformed theologians as Kuyper, Bavinck, and Vos: “correctly hold that true [saving] faith . . . carries with it a [subjective] sense of security, which may vary in degree.” (Systematic Theology [Banner of Truth Trust, 1958, repr. 1998], 508) ↑

5. Quoted by John Stott in The Message of Romans (Intervarsity, 1994), 235. Lloyd-Jones makes a similar statement in his God the Holy Spirit ([Crossway, 1997], 162). But then a few paragraphs later he says, “The characteristics of a true assurance are these: first and last and always—humility” (163), which would seem to reflect the objective virtue apologetics we advocate. ↑

6. William Lane Craig in Five Views on Apologetics Cowan, Steven Cowan, ed. (Zondervan, 2000), 29. ↑

7. Nonetheless, no less a Christian scholar than William Craig writes:

   John repeatedly emphasizes that it is the Holy Spirit who imparts to the believer the knowledge that his Christian beliefs are true. In John’s gospel Jesus tells his disciples that the Holy Spirit will teach them all things (John 14:26), and in his first epistle John underscores this fact by rejoicing that his readers have no need that anyone should teach them, since the anointing they received from God, which abides in them, teaches them about all things (1 John 2:20, 26-27).

   Similarly, in John’s gospel, Jesus promises to send the Spirit of truth to abide in the disciples so that they might know that they are in Christ and Christ in them (John 14:16-17, 20). And in his first epistle John again underlines the reality of this promise: “This is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us…. We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (1 John 3:24; 4:13). John uses his characteristic phrase “we know” to emphasize the confidence Christian believers have that our faith is true, that we really do abide in God and he in us. (Craig, 32)

   Unfortunately, Dr. Craig is using these scattered references to support the doctrine of a subjective “testimony” of the Spirit to salvation. However, we believe a reading of chapters 14.13-14.15 will demonstrate these verses have a different interpretation and application. ↑

8. For further discussion specifically regarding the revelatory work of the Spirit described in 1 John 2:20, 27 see chapters 14.13 and 14.15. ↑

9. Dr. Stott remarks regarding the central subject of John’s epistles:

   The predominant theme of these letters is Christian certainty. Their characteristic verbs are ginōskein, ‘to perceive’ (twenty-five times) and eidenai, ‘to know’ (fifteen times), while a characteristic noun is parrisia, ‘confidence of attitude’ or ‘boldness of speech’. The certainty of Christian people is twofold – objective (that the Christian religion is true) and subjective (that they themselves have been born of God and possess eternal life). Both are expounded by John, who takes it for granted that this double assurance is right and healthy.

   His teaching about these certainties, their nature and the grounds on which they are built, urgently needs to be heard and heeded today. . . . A fresh certainty about Christ and about eternal life, based upon the grounds which John gives, can still lead Christian people into that boldness of approach to God and of testimony to the world which is as sorely needed as it is sadly missing in the church today. (Letters of John, (TNTC) [Eerdmans, 1988], 56, 60) ↑

10. Stott, Letters, 95. ↑

11. Ibid., 149. ↑

12. For a discussion of 1 John 3:18-4:2; 4:13; and 5:6-11, which some claim would support a subjective, mystical “testimony of the Spirit” see section 5.5.A.1. ↑

13. F. F. Bruce dates the Apostle’s conversion in A. D. 33 and the writing of Romans in A. D. 57. (“Paul the Apostle,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), Geoffrey W. Bromiley ed., 4 vols., [Eerdmans, 1988], III:699, 709) ↑

14. There is a great deal of debate regarding whether or not the Apostle is speaking of a regenerated believer in Romans 7:15-23. In the end, identical language in Galatians 5:16-17, which seems most clearly to refer to the internal moral struggle of believers, provides strong evidence for our position that the Apostle is speaking of the same thing in Romans. ↑

15. Many will feel that the Apostle John’s rather dogmatic and unqualified statements must be balanced with the honest warning of the Apostle Paul:

    What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each His task. ⁶ I planted the seed [the church in Corinth], Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. ⁷ So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, Who makes things grow. ⁸ The man who plants and the man who waters [the local church] have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. ⁹ For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building [a local church].

    By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation [planted the local church in Corinth] as an expert builder, and someone else [another pastor/teacher] is building on it. But each one [pastor/teacher] should be careful how he builds [the local church]. ¹¹ For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

    ¹² If any man [pastor/teacher] builds [the local church] on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, ¹³ his [pastoral/teaching] work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s [pastoral/teaching] work. ¹⁴ If what he has built [specifically regarding the local church] survives, he will receive his reward. ¹⁵ If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor 3:10-15)

    First, it is important to notice that the context here specifically regards those involved in ministry, like a Paul or Apollos (vs. 5-9), and the “work” being evaluated is specifically their efforts to “build” the local church. As NT scholar Gordon Fee puts it:

    This text . . . is neither a challenge to the individual believer to build his or her life well on the foundation of Christ, nor is it grist for theological debate [e.g. a proof text for purgatory]. Rather, it is one of the most significant passages in the NT that warn–and encourage–those responsible for “building” the church of Christ. In the final analysis, of course, this includes all believers, but it has particular relevance, following so closely as it does vv. 5-9, to those with teaching/leadership responsibilities. (The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT) [Eerdmans, 1987], 145)

    Likewise, Charles Hodge wrote concerning 1 Corinthians 3:15:

    The apostle is here speaking of those teachers who, although they retain the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, yet combine them with error. This is plain from v. 12, “If any man shall build on this foundation.” It is not enough, therefore, that a minister hold fast to fundamental truth; he must take heed what he teaches in connection with that truth. If he mingles with it the wood, hay and stubble of his own philosophy, he will find himself a loser on the day of judgment. (Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, online at ccel.org; cf. Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Findex.Com, 1999]; Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Eerdmans, 2000], 296; contra Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians [Eerdmans, 1985], and John MacArthur (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Parsons Technology, 1997]). C. K. Barrett apparently has no specific opinion, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Henddrickson, 2000])

    Accordingly, we are reminded of the warning in James: “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly (James 3:1). Evidently, the King will more rigorously evaluate the work of Pastors and Teachers on that Day, specifically how Christ-centered their philosophy of ministry was.

    Nonetheless, such a truth need not be seen as a correction of the biblical expectation that all born again Christians will bear significant and recognizable amounts of virtuous fruit. In other words, isn’t it possible for a minister to exhibit the fruits of love and holiness in his personal life, but allow false doctrine and worldly wisdom to influence how he proceeds to teach, grow and lead the local church? We think so, and this is specifically what the Apostle Paul is speaking of.

    Accordingly, NT scholar Anthony Thiselton writes:

    The argument [of 1 Cor 3:5-17] flows on from what has been established in 1:18-3:4 [the dichotomy between Christ-centered wisdom and worldly wisdom]. . . . The background contrast between “two wisdoms” . . . provide two evaluative frames of reference within which assessments of ministers, the ministry, and ministerial activity appear in very different lights. (296)

    Along the same lines, Dr. Fee explains:

    It is unfortunately possible for people to attempt to build the church out of every imaginable human system predicated on merely worldly wisdom, be it philosophy, “pop” psychology, managerial techniques, relational “good feelings,” or what have you. But at the final judgment, all such building (and perhaps countless other forms, where systems have become more important than the gospel itself) will be shown for what it is: something merely human, with no character of Christ or his gospel in it. Often, of course, the test may come this side of the final one, and in such an hour of stress that which has been built of modem forms of sophia [wisdom] usually comes tumbling down. (144)

    Therefore, 1 Corinthians 3:5-15 is not a clear statement that we can expect genuine believers in general to live a life that bears so little fruit of the Holy Spirit living in them, that in the end, they have virtually nothing to show for it. On the contrary, the Apostle’s focus here is on one particular type of Christian work, that of pastors and teachers building the local church. Even the imagery of “escaping from the flames” seems to refer to the metaphorical building, which is the local church, being spoken of throughout the passage, and what specifically is burning then is that work, or the building (as a noun and verb), of a local church. ↑

16. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John (Eerdmans, 1970), 90, 92. ↑

17. Which makes it difficult to explain why John MacArthur in his commentary on Romans 8:15-16 claims that 1 John 3:18-21 includes “subjective evidence” that sets, “our hearts at rest” in God’s presence when we question our standing before Him. (Commentary) ↑

18. John Stott, The Letters of John (TNTC), (Eerdmans, 1988, repr. 1999), 154-5. ↑

19. Ibid., 168-9. ↑

20. For example, William Craig writes concerning this passage:

    In fact, in a remarkable passage, John actually appears to compare the degree of certainty generated by the inner witness of the Spirit with that furnished by the historical testimony of the ministry of Jesus. . . . The “water and the blood” in this passage probably refer to the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus as marking the beginning and end of his earthly ministry, and “man’s testimony” to the apostolic witness to the events of that ministry.’ John, who in his gospel lays such weight on the apostolic testimony to the signs of Jesus’ ministry in order “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31), now says that the testimony of the Spirit is even greater than the apostolic testimony. As Christian believers we have the testimony of God living within us, assuring us of the veracity of our faith. Although John is eager to present evidences for the truth of Christ’s claims, it is apparent that he does not consider such evidence necessary for knowledge of those claims. (Craig, 32)

    We would suggest that Dr. Craig is right in saying that the testimony of “water and blood” concerning Christ point to objective, historical evidences. However, he is wrong to assert that the accompanying testimony of the “Spirit” is subjective, mystical, and even more assuring than physical, historical, objective evidence. ↑

21. Ibid., 180. (See Stott, John, 46-7). ↑

22. Some contend that when Christ says “born of water,” (John 3:5) He means Christian water baptism. And then they conclude that water baptism is essential to being “born again.” However, although water baptism and the baptism of the Spirit are at times mentioned together (Matt 3:11; Acts 1:5; Rom 6:1-11), Christ makes it clear that He is speaking of a person’s physical birth as a baby, not water baptism.

    His statement that “Flesh gives birth to flesh” in John 3:6 is synonymous with being “born of water” in verse 5, just as the “Spirit giv(ing) birth to the spirit” is synonymous with being “born of . . . the Spirit.” So the meaning of being “born of water” is defined by the meaning of the statement, “Flesh gives birth to flesh.” And the clearest understanding of that is that Christ is talking about a person’s physical birth.

    This interpretation is strengthened by Nicodemus’s statement that a person, “cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” All Christ is saying is that only people who are physically created by God and then spiritually born again by the Spirit of God, will be saved. ↑

23. For further discussion of the Holy Spirit’s objective testimony of authenticating Christ see sections 3.1.C and 6.14.B. Some will suggest the 1 John 2:20-27 is biblical support for a subjective “testimony of the Spirit” to our salvation. This passage is dealt with in section 14.15.B. ↑

24. John Stott, The Message of Galatians (Intervarsity, 1994), 134. ↑

25. Unfortunately, Dr. Stott would seem to take the view that Paul’s discussion in Galatians 5 only regards those Christians who are in bondage to sin and those living in liberty, and their internal struggle between the Spirit and the flesh (145-54). Accordingly, he does not even address the meaning of Paul’s references to being “under the law” (v. 18, cf. v. 23). Dr. Cole takes the same position, suggesting that “under the law” does not even apply to the Mosaic law. (209) The internal moral struggle of the Christian is obviously part of Paul’s thought (cf. 5:17), but the Apostle goes beyond that to claim that those who “are led by the Spirit . . . are not under law” (v. 18) and that those who really live in the flesh, “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (v. 21). The bondage that Paul is most concerned about in this chapter and throughout the epistle is to the Mosaic law, which leaves one “under a curse” (3:10) and “alienated from Christ” (5:4). It is living in the power of the Spirit, producing His fruits, that proves we are no longer under that law and are saved.

    R. N. Longenecker seems to recognize that Paul is addressing two issues in this passage when he comments:

    Paul sets out his lists of vices and virtues in order to highlight his two conclusions: (1) that “those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (v 24), and so cannot live in a libertine fashion; and (2) that “since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step wit the Spirit” (v 25), thereby expressing “the fruit of the Spirit” in our lives. (Galatians (WBC) [Nelson, 1990], 249; cf. 246-7) ↑

26. There is a great deal of debate as to what Paul meant regarding a “great assurance [parrēsian] in their faith in Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 3:13). While we relate it to a confidence before God, most others apply it to a boldness in speech (cf. TEV, Calvin, MacArthur). Some allow for both meanings rather simultaneously (cf. George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC) [Eerdmans, 1992], 174; John Stott, Guard the Truth: The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus [Intervarsity, 1996], 102).

    NT scholar Gordon Fee relates the options and leans toward our own view when he writes:

    The meaning of this last phrase [in 1 Timothy 3] is not entirely clear. The word for great assurance often conveys the sense of having boldness or openness toward others (cf. 2 Cor. 3:12; Phil. 1:20; Philem. 8; cf. also GNB). But the word can also refer to one’s “confidence” before God, as in Ephesians 3:12 (cf. Heb. 10:19, 35). Hence the NIV translates great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

    This is not an easy decision. On the one hand, it would add a further dimension to what it means to have good standing, namely, the confidence in speech that comes from soundness in life and work. On the other hand, it could refer to the double nature of the “reward;” namely, a good reputation with other people and confidence before God. On the whole, the latter is to be preferred, because the qualifying prepositional phrase says “in faith” (not in the faith), implying, as throughout 1 Timothy, one’s own faith in Christ. (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (NIBC) [Hendrickson, 1988], 89-90)

    The primary support for interpreting Paul here as referring to a boldness in speech is that this is what parrēsia literally means (pan, all, rhēsis, speech: “freedom of speech”). Accordingly, this is how it is used throughout Acts (cf. noun: 2:29; 4:13, 29, 31; 28:31; verb: 9:27f.; 13:46; 14:3; 18:26; 19:8; 26:26).

    However, as with any language, it was common for the literal meanings of classical Greek words to change to more popular meanings over the centuries, and these may not have much relationship to the word’s original etymology. Thus, throughout the NT, parrēsia is used in ways that have nothing to do with speech at all (cf. 1 John 2:28; 3:21; 4:17; 5:14; Eph 3:12; Heb 3:6; 4:16; 10:18-19, 35; Job 22:26; 27:10 in LXX).

    Finally, we believe the context of Paul’s statement favors our view that he is speaking of an assurance of salvation, rather than a boldness of speech. First, Paul clearly says this confidence relates to a deacon’s personal “faith in Christ,” and says nothing here about boldness of speech at all. Secondly, public speaking as in evangelism or teaching would not seem to be a primary expectation of first century deacons, but rather practical service. Finally, Paul is stating the rewards of service and assurance of salvation would certainly be more valuable than boldness of speech.

    Accordingly, Albert Barnes commented:

    As it is here connected with “faith” . . . it means, evidently, not so much public speaking, [but] as a manly and independent exercise of faith in Christ. The sense is, that by the faithful performance of the duties of the office of a deacon, and by the kind of experience which a man would have in that office, he would establish a character of firmness in the faith, which would show that he was a decided Christian. This passage, therefore, cannot be fairly used to prove that the deacon was “a preacher,” or that he belonged to a grade of ministerial office from which he was regularly to rise to that of a presbyter. (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Findex.Com, 1999], in loc.). ↑

27. F. F. Bruce, Romans, (TNTC) (Eerdmans, 1985, repr. 1999), 158. ↑

28. Bill Hybels, Too Busy Not to Pray (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, 1998), 140. ↑

29. There is some debate on the meaning of symmartyrie in Romans 8:16 and some commentators suggest that with the Apostle really is saying that the Holy Spirit is testifying to our spirit instead of with it, against all English translations that we are aware of. The respected Reformed theologian John Murray (1898-1975) argued that the Apostle meant the Spirit witnesses to us, not with us (cf. The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. [Eerdmans, 1959, 1965; reprint 1997], 297).

    Likewise Dr. Stott, for example, even though he prefers the RSV and NEB translations of 8:15-16 writes:

    How is his witness borne, then, and what is implied by the prefix sym in the verb symmartyre? Normally sym is translated ‘together with’, in which case there would be two witnesses here, the Holy Spirit confirming and endorsing our own spirit’s consciousness of God’s fatherhood. So NEB . . . This would be readily understandable, since the Old Testament required two witnesses to establish a testimony.

    On the other hand, is it really possible in experience to distinguish between the Holy Spirit and our human spirit? More important, would not these two witnesses be inappropriately matched? Surely we cannot stand alongside the Holy Spirit and give testimony for what standing has our spirit in this matter? Of itself it surely has no right at all to testify to our being sons of God. In this case the prefix sym is simply intensive, and Paul meant that the Holy Spirit bears a strong inward witness to our spirit that we are God’s children. (1 John, 234)

    We would suggest that Dr. Stott does not write with his normal helpfulness here. First, Scripture itself distinguishes between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit. Secondly, as we will suggest, we have interpreted the Apostle as stating that the Holy Spirit enables us to acknowledge God as our Father and does this through an exclamation made from our spirit (i.e. mind), and so in essence, both provide it.

    Accordingly, we believe Dr. Schreiner is more accurate when he writes:

    The Holy Spirit confirms that we are God’s children by bearing witness with our spirit. Some construe the verb (symmartyrei, bears witness together) to mean simply “testify” or “assure,” and the prefix [sym] loses its force (e.g., Cranfield 1975: 403). More likely, however, the prepositional prefix retains its meaning, as it does in Rom. 2:15 and 9:1 (see the exegesis of those verses [p. 123, 479), and the intention is to say that the witness derives both from the Holy Spirit and from our human spirit (so Dunn 1988a: 454; Moo 1991: 540; Fee 1994: 568-69). (Romans, BECNT [Baker, 1998], 426). ↑

30. MacArthur, Commentary. ↑

31. Stott, Romans, 230. ↑

32. Millard Erickson agrees when he writes:

    In the earlier part of Romans 8, Paul dwells on this work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has liberated us from the law (v. 2). Henceforth believers do not walk and live according to the flesh, their old nature, but according to the Spirit (v. 4), having their minds set on the Spirit (v. 5). Christians are in the Spirit (v. 9), and the Spirit dwells in them, a thought that is repeated three times (vv. 9, 11 twice). As the Spirit indwells believers, he guides and leads them, and the deeds of the flesh are, accordingly, put to death (v. 13). All those who are thus “led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (v. 14). The Spirit is now at work giving them life, [objectively] witnessing that they are sons rather than slaves, and thus supplying clear [objective] evidence that they are truly in Christ (vv. 15-17). (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., [Baker, 1998], 890. ↑

33. Jonathan Edwards, Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, II.1.11; online at http://www.ccel.org ↑

34. Barnes, Rom 8:16. Commentators whom we would suggest miss the mark would include John Murray who simply states concerning this passage that the “witness of the Spirit” to our salvation is a very subjective, feelings oriented communication that is:

    made manifest in sealing to the hearts of believers the promises which are theirs as heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ and the generating in them of the assurance of the great love the Father has bestowed upon them that they should be called children of God. (Romans, 297-8)

    With all due respect to a great theologian, such an assurance is meaningless. ↑

35. Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Hendrickson, 1994), 569. ↑

36. Augustine, Homily on the Epistle of St. John, 6.10; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

37. Augustine, The Trinity, xv, 18; online at http://www.ccel.org ↑

38. Martin Luther, “Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans,” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Timothy Lull ed., (Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 101. ↑

39. Martin Luther, “Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper,” in Lull, 66. ↑

40. Bloesch, 55. ↑

41. Edwards, II.12. ↑

42. Nichols, 124. Nichols is referencing, The Works of Samuel Hopkins, 3 vols. (Reprint, Boston Doctrinal Book and Tract Society, 1854), 1:87. For Hopkins’s further exposition on assurance, see 1:519-34. ↑

43. Nichols, 117-18. ↑

44. John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, (Berea, 1991), III.13. ↑

45. Bloesch, 115, 119. ↑

46. Schreiner, 503. ↑

47. For all of Dr. Bloesch’s support of a mystical assurance from the Spirit, he seems to end up agreeing with us that the ultimate test must be objective. He writes:

    I believe that the final authority for the Johannine writer is the paradoxical unity of Word and Spirit, since he appeals both to the witness of objective history that is mediated by church tradition and to the interior witness of the Spirit. The continuing witness and developing tradition of the apostolic church needs to be illumined by the Spirit if it is to have final or ultimate authority for faith. At the same time, John is not espousing subjectivism, for the spirits must be tested (I Jn 4:1-2). (316)

    First of all, we have argued above that the Apostle never “appeals . . . to the interior witness of the Spirit.” Secondly, it would seem even Dr. Bloesch recognizes the inadequacy of such a subjective criteria and ends up with an objective one which is the kind the Apostle prescribes in order to test the spirits. ↑

48. Everett F. Harrison, “Romans,” Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. CD-ROM (Zondervan, n.d.), loc. cit. ↑

49. For further discussion of saving faith and false faith see section chapters 6.2 and 6.6. For discussion of the denial of the need for objective fruit to claim regeneration and conversion see section 6.6.B. ↑

50. Reference unavailable. ↑

51. Edwards, II.1.10-11. ↑

52. Craig, 31. ↑

53. Stott, Romans, 235. ↑

54. Ibid., 236. Underlining added. ↑

55. Ibid., 235. ↑

56. Bruce Demarest writes:

    The Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent rejected the teaching that a Christian may be certain he is saved. Given the Roman doctrines of merit and purgatory, only a special revelation from God could provide the individual with assurance of final salvation. (“Assurance,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT), Walter Elwell, ed., [Baker, 1984], 92) ↑

57. Gordon J. Spykman, Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics (Eerdmans, 1992), 30-31. ↑

58. Such virtue apologetics is developed and defended in Book 5: Biblical Apologetics. ↑