*Editor’s Note: The following material is the nineteenth of Dr. Sam Waldron’s 20-part series on Presuppositional Apologetics. Click on the following numbers to read the accompanying parts of this series:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
The Testimony of the Holy Spirit to the Self-Authenticating Scripture
I. The Self‑Authenticating Character of the Scriptures
We have seen to some extent the background of why the Scriptures authenticate themselves to men. Now we need to see that the Scriptures indeed teach the self-authentication of Scripture. Here we come to the true heart of the Reformed solution to the problem of the authentication of the Scriptures. Holy Scripture may not be attested finally by man, history, or the church; it must be self‑attested. The Scriptures are self-authenticating.
(1) The Bible everywhere asserts that the Scriptures are never to be viewed as a dead letter, but as the living Word of God (Jer. 23:28, 29; Luke 16:27‑31;[1] John 6:63; Acts 7:38, I Pet. 1:23‑25, and Heb. 4:12, 13).[2] As the living Word of God, the Bible confronts men with the voice of the one they know to be their Creator. Thus, the Scriptures in and of themselves demand to be believed and oblige all to whom they are ministered to believe.
(2) Without closely reasoned lengthy arguments about them or external evidence being added to them, the Scriptures are sufficient to warrant the infallible confidence in their truthfulness required for saving faith (Deut. 31:11‑13; John 20:31; Gal. 1:8, 9; Mark 16:15, 16).
(3) If one does not assign to the Scriptures the ability to compel belief in and of themselves, one raises serious questions about the doctrine of the sufficiency of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). If the Scriptures are not sufficient for this most fundamental of spiritual issues, are they sufficient for anything? If they need to be supplemented by lists of evidences, then why should we deny that they need to be supplemented by works on worship and psychology, etc.
Calvin’s historically important statement of the self-authentication of Scripture is found in 1:7:2 and 1:7:5 of the Institutes. Parts of it deserve quotation here: “But with regard to the question, How shall we be persuaded of its divine original, unless we have recourse to the decree of the church? This is just as if anyone should inquire, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? For the Scripture exhibits as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things of their taste.”[3]
Calvin’s statement and the biblical teaching regarding its self-authentication naturally raise the question: What should we think of the external arguments for the Scriptures which perhaps some of you have been taught? Some of the common external arguments often used are that Scripture is the all-time best-seller and that its prophecies are true. The biblical teaching does not mean that such arguments are without usefulness. It does mean that they are secondary to and dependent upon the self-authentication of Scripture.
The Scripture, then, is self-authenticating. This means that the best way to show that it is true is simply to preach and teach its message boldly. Spurgeon somewhere says that he was sometimes asked how he defended the Scriptures. He responds that he does not believe that he needs to defend Scripture. Scripture is like a lion, says Spurgeon. If we let it out of its cage, it will defend itself well enough.[4] Another interesting testimony to the self-authenticating power of Scripture comes from the pen of Archibald Alexander. This testimony is particularly interesting when it is remembered that Alexander was the father of a school of apologetics which did not properly understand the self-authentication of the Scriptures.
While spending a summer in Germantown, near Philadelphia, I was sent for to visit a young man whom I had often seen. He did not belong to my charge, but two pious ladies who did, were his friends, and had come out of the city to nurse him. He had a hemorrhage of the lungs, which left little room to hope for recovery. As he was a mild and moral man, I did not know but that he might be a professor of religion; but upon asking him a question respecting his hope, he frankly told me that he had been skeptical for many years, and had not belief that the Gospel was divine. I never felt more at a loss. The man was too weak to attend to argument, and if I could by reasoning convince him of his error, it would not be a saving faith, and he must die before this process could be gone through. I found that his infidelity afforded him no comfort in a dying hour, and that he wished he could believe in Christ. It occurred to me that the Word of God contained light and energy in itself, and that if he could not attend to the external evidences, the beams of truth might shine in upon his soul, and thus generate a saving faith by the efficient aid of the Spirit. After pointing out the probable sources of his skepticism, I requested the ladies who were attending on him to read certain portions of the Gospel to him, as he could bear it–for he was very low. This was done; and next day, when I came to see him, he declared that his doubts were all scattered, and that he had hope in Christ. Afterwards, he was never able to converse; but as far as is known he died in hope.[5]
II. The Testimony of the Holy Spirit to the Scriptures
A. The Basis of the Testimony of the Holy Spirit
It is now possible to understand the true meaning of the Reformed doctrine called the testimony of the Holy Spirit. It has an objective, rational basis in the self-authentication of Scripture. Calvin saw this clearly: “Let it be considered then as an undeniable truth, that they who have been inwardly taught by the Spirit, feel an entire acquiescence in the Scripture, and that it is self‑authenticated, carrying with it its own evidence, and ought not to be made the subject of demonstration and arguments from reason; but it obtains the credit which it deserves with us by the testimony of the Spirit.”[6]
The question may arise, however, If the Scriptures are self‑authenticating what is the need of additional testimony? Further, if they are self‑authenticating, how do we explain the unbelief and denial by which they are met by so many? This brings us to discuss the necessity of the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
B. The Necessity of the Testimony of the Holy Spirit
The cause or necessity of the testimony is in one word, sin. Human depravity has its noetic or intellectual effects. It perverts human intellectual endeavor. It causes men to suppress the truth and so spiritually blinds them to the light of divine revelation (Rom. 1:21; Eph. 4:17‑21; 2 Cor. 4:3, 4).
A conclusion may be drawn from what has just been said about what makes the testimony of the Holy Spirit necessary. There is nothing wrong with the self-attesting Scriptures. There is nothing wrong with man’s mental capacity to respond to the Scriptures properly. The problem is with man’s heart. His heart makes his intellect suppress the truth of the Scriptures in unrighteousness. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is, therefore, simply the removal of that evil heart. He takes away the evil, ethical disposition which makes men suppress the truth and, thus, blinds men to the light of divine revelation. The testimony results in an ethical transformation and not merely an intellectual operation. It does something to men’s hearts before it does something to their minds. But this brings us to …
C. The Demonstration of the Testimony of the Holy Spirit
The reality of the testimony of the Spirit to the Scriptures may be demonstrated along two lines of biblical argument.
i. From the Ethical Starting Point of All Proper Thinking (Including Our Thinking about Scripture)
The Bible teaches that if man is to think rightly, he must be right ethically. The following passages teach that the ability to think right and by that means see the self‑evidencing light of special revelation is dependent on a proper ethical disposition (Ps. 111:10; Prov. 9:10, 1:7, 15:33; John 3:19‑21, 7:16, 17; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Tim. 3:7; Jn. 10:26, 27). Faith, fear, doing God’s will, repentance, all these are spiritual and moral qualities without which we cannot think right. These qualities are necessary to make the sinner stop suppressing the truth of God and stop being blind spiritually to the light of divine revelation. The Bible teaches that they are produced in sinners by means of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. All those passages, therefore, which bear upon the regenerating work of the Spirit demonstrate or prove indirectly the doctrine of the testimony. The passages which speak of the Spirit’s saving work are well known and need not be cited here.
ii. From the Direct Statement of Scripture
As I just stated all those passages which teach that the Spirit changes a man’s heart and imparts to it those ethical qualities necessary to think right indirectly support the doctrine of the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Some passages dealing with the work of the Spirit, however, plainly mention how by His testimony He imparts the light of truth to men. The following passages make clear that it is the Spirit that creates faith in the Scriptures through His attesting work in the soul of man (Matt. 16:17; 1 Cor. 2:14f; John 3:3; 1 Cor. 2:4, 5; 1 Thess. 1:5; 2:13, 1 John 2:20, 21, 27).[7]
III. A Clarification of the Common Misconceptions or Misunderstandings about the Self‑Authentication of the Scripture.
A. The Misconception of Subjectivism
What do I mean by the misconception of subjectivism? Those who reject the doctrine of the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the authenticity of the Scriptures will often object to it by saying that it is completely subjective. They think that we are saying that we know that the Bible is the Word of God because we feel it to be so in our hearts. They often go on to ask, What kind of argument is it that is based on a feeling or something the Spirit tells you in your heart? Two answers may be given to this objection: (1) This objection does not take into account the basis of the testimony of the Holy Spirit. This is the objective, self‑authenticating character of the Scriptures as the Word of God.[8] It must be remembered that the self-authentication of the Scriptures is not to be divorced or withdrawn from the actual quality of the Scriptures. The self-authentication of the Scriptures is rooted in the divine perfections of Scripture, its claims, content, and attributes. C. W. Hodge summarizes its objective character when he says:
The Witness of the Holy Spirit to the Bible, then, is not objective in the sense of being the mystical communication to the mind of a truth or proposition, nor is it a subjective inference from Christian experience. It is simply the saving work of the Holy Spirit on the heart removing the spiritual blindness produced by sin, so that the marks of God’s hand in the Bible can be clearly seen and appreciated …Those who are born of the Spirit have their minds enlightened so that they are enabled and persuaded to accept the objective testimony which God gives the Bible, and to recognize immediately or behold intuitively the marks of God’s hand in the Scripture.[9]
Our Confession also makes plain that the self-authentication of Scripture is closely related to the actual quality of Scripture. Notice how the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith treats these qualities in Chapter 1, paragraphs 4 and 5:
4 The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
5 We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
Plainly, the Confession sees the excellencies of Scripture as the way in which it abundantly evidences itself to be the Word of God. All the Holy Spirit does is to enable us to accept this evidence. Notice how paragraph 5 ends by saying that this testimony or witness is borne to our hearts “by and with the Word.”
(2) This objection does not take into account the unique position of God and His Word. We cannot and may not argue for the genuineness of the Bible, God’s Word, in the same way as we would for other historical events. To assume that we should and can is to commit the religious blunder of thinking God is altogether such a one as we are. The knowledge of God which general revelation imparts is of the same character. It cannot be proven like we prove other things. Those who charge the doctrine of the testimony of the Holy Spirit with subjectivism are guilty of rationalism, attaching too much and the wrong kind of importance to human reason.
B. The Misconception of New Revelation
Both the professed friends and enemies of this doctrine sometimes speak as if the testimony provides men with new revelation in addition to the revelation given in the Scriptures. But the testimony of the Holy Spirit is not a new revelation. It does not add to the words of Scripture. We must not conceive of this testimony as a new revelation to the effect that “the Bible is the Word of God.” Kuyper comments:
It has often, however, been wrongly represented that this witness was meant in a magic sense of certain “ecstasy” or “enthusiasm,” and that it consisted of a super‑natural communication from the side of God, in which it was said to us, “This Scripture is my Word.” Thus it has been represented by some who were less well informed, but never by our theologians.[10]
The testimony of the Holy Spirit is not, therefore, akin to “the burning in the bosom” by which some Mormons are said to have defended their devotion to the Book of Mormon. Views like this have never been the teaching of the Bible or Reformed theology. For example, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith clearly speaks of the “inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word.” (1:5) The texts cited in support of this doctrine clearly distinguish between the gospel and the power by which men were persuaded to accept its claims (1 Thess. 1:5, 2:13; 1 Jn. 2:20, 21, 27). Admittedly, it may seem strange to speak of a testimony of the Spirit to the Scriptures which adds no words to it. This does not mean that this testimony is word‑less, but as was noted above, it comes in the very words of Scripture.
Here it will help us to remember that the testimony of the Spirit is primarily an ethical change He brings about in our hearts. When we remember that the testimony is primarily an ethical, rather than an intellectual, operation, then it becomes clear that the testimony does not consist in any new revelation. It is simply the removal of the evil, ethical attitude which hinders the proper reception of divine revelation. The testimony does not impart new light to the sinner, but new eyes.
C. The Misconception of the Warrant of Faith
The testimony of the Holy Spirit is not the basis of faith. Nor is it our final authority. We must always make a distinction between the basis of faith and the source of faith. The basis of faith is the self-authenticating Word of God. The source of faith is the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Before the theologians who wrote the Westminster Confession ever came to deal with the witness of the Spirit as that by which faith is produced in the heart of sinners (1:5), they made it very clear that the reason the Bible is to be believed is “because it is the Word of God.” (1:4) The Bible distinguishes clearly between the basis and source of faith (1 Thess. 1:5; 2:13).
It is very important to have this distinction well understood because the inspiration of the Scriptures by which they are constituted the Word of God is also a work of the Holy Spirit. It is a different work, however, than the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Thus, this distinction between the basis and source of faith is really a distinction between two different phases of the Spirit’s work. Inspiration is the work of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). It is this phase of the Spirit’s work that may be in mind when the Westminster Confession speaks of the “Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures” (1:10).
It is crucial to keep this distinction between two different phases of the Spirit’s work clearly in mind in the context of modern theology.[11] For many modern theologians the Bible is merely the fallible witness to the Word of God. It becomes the Word of God when God speaks to them through it experientially. The problem is that such people if consistent will never obey the Word of God until they feel like it. Their authority is their own experience or feelings. Such a response to the Word of God is not the peculiar possession of those infected with Neo‑orthodoxy. Often Evangelicals wait till they have a feeling before obeying the Word, rather than obeying it upon its own innate authority as the Word of God.
[1]Note Owen’s comment on Luke 16:27‑31 in vol. 4 of his Works, 75-76: “But is it of this authority and efficacy in itself? See Luke 16:27-31, “Then he said” (the rich man in hell), “I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him: (Lazarus, who was dead) “to my father’s house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” The question here between Abraham and the rich man in this parable,–indeed between the wisdom of God and the superstitious contrivances of men,–is about the way and means of bringing those who are unbelievers and impenitent unto faith and repentance. He who was in hell apprehended that nothing would make them believe but a miracle, one rising from the dead and speaking unto them; which, or the like marvelous operations, many at this day think would have mighty power and influence upon them to settle their minds and change their lives. Should they see one “rise from the dead,” and come and converse with them, this would convince them of the immortality of the soul, of future rewards and punishments, as giving them sufficient evidence thereof, so that they would assuredly repent and change their lives; but as things are stated, they have no sufficient evidence of these things, so that they doubt so far about them as that they are not really influenced by them. Give them but one real miracle, and you shall have them forever. This, I say, was the opinion and judgment of him who was represented as in hell, as it is of many who are posting thither apace. He who was in heaven thought otherwise; wherein we have the immediate judgment of Jesus Christ given in this matter, determining this controversy. The question is about sufficient evidence and efficacy to cause us to believe things divine and supernatural; and this he determines to be in the written word, “Moses and the prophets.” If he that will not, on the single evidence of the written word, believe [it–SW] to be from God, or a divine revelation of his will, will never believe upon the evidence of miracles nor any other motives, then that written word contains in itself the entire formal reason of faith, or all that evidence of the authority and truth of God in it which faith divine and supernatural rests upon; that is, it is to be believed for its own sake. But saith our Lord Jesus Christ himself, “If men will not hear,” that is, believe, “Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead,” and come and preach unto them,–a greater miracle than which they could not desire. Now, this could not be spoken if the Scripture did not contain in itself the whole entire formal reason of believing; for if it have not this, something necessary unto believing would be wanting, though that were enjoyed. And this is directly affirmed,–“
[2]Note again Owen’s comment on Luke 16:27‑31 Works, 4:75-76.
[3]Jonathan Edwards echoes the thoughts of Calvin and Owen at Works, 2:16.
[5]A. Alexander, Thoughts on Religious Experience, 233.
[6]1:7:5 of the Institutes
[7]Cf. John Murray’s exposition of these passages pp. 47‑54 of The Infallible Word.
[8]Cf. the statement of Calvin cited above from Institutes 17:5
[9]Infallible Word, 170.
[10]Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, 557.
[11]John Frame, Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, 222 and 223. Frame remarks: “In modern theologians like Barth, however, this distinction loses its sharpness. For them, first, inspiration in the orthodox sense does not exist; God does not place His words on paper … Thus, in modern theology the internal testimony replaces the traditional concept of inspiration. It was the internal testimony, not inspiration, in this view, that motivated the original writing of Scripture, and it is the internal testimony (presently occurring, as we read and hear), not inspiration, that grounds our faith in Scripture.”
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
