The Self-Authenticating Witness Of The Spirit Of God

Among questions I receive are those seeking direction from individuals pondering issues pertaining to how one knows or perceives God's presence in the world and how one comes to salvation.

While there are some poignant theological differences and debate in this area within Christian circles, I don't know of anyone who doesn't believe that salvation is a work of God wrought or performed in the life of the believer.  In other words, under most constructs, Christians would contend that salvation is not a mere product of intellect, or arguments rooted in evidentialism. However, one could make the case that in many instances intellect, arguments and evidence play a significant role in the entire process of salvation and certainly spiritual growth.

Reaffirming many of the primary principles within teachings such as those of Henry Dodwell (1700-1784) and Alvin Plantinga, Dr. William L Craig points to what is called the "self-authenticating witness of God's Spirit" in the life of the believer, in the following statement:

Dr. William L Craig & Pastor H. Burnett

"Therefore when a person refuses to come to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God. But anyone who responds to the drawing of God's Spirit with and open mind and an open heart can know with assurance that Christianity is true, because God's Spirit will convict him that it is. Jesus said, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me: if any man's will is to do his will he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority." (John 7:16-17 RSV) Jesus affirms that if anyone is truly seeking God then he will know that Jesus teaching is truly from God."

So then for the unbeliever as well as for the believer, it is the testimony of God's Spirit that ultimately assures him of the truth of Christianity. The unbeliever who is truly seeking God will be convinced of the truth of the Christian message." {Craig, William L. Reasonable faith Christian Truth and Apologetics Third Edition 2008 Pg. 47}

In my opinion this is certainly true. I don't know of anyone who came to Christ initially because an argument, whatever that argument was. [I don't consider the Gospel to be an argument. It is the preached word of God and as such the Good News. Not an argument in the sense that I am proposing here] I know of no argument that is so absolutely compelling or overwhelming that one has to be saved on the basis of it. I don't know of too many individuals who's intellectual assent, no matter how steep, was the sole or singular motivating factor in accepting Christ for salvation. 

However, there is ample testimony from people, even former atheists such as C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel, who were not saved by the evidences of Christianity, but drawn by the power of the Spirit of the Lord to salvation through the self-authenticating witness of God's Spirit. In other words, faith, for these men and I would venture to say the majority of Christians, was not and is not merely a matter of the head, it is a matter of the heart. It is that tug on the reigns of the heart by God that defines and often boggles the mind and or intellect, which leads to salvation. In theological terms this could be called regeneration. 

That Which Is Seen

Now, if this is true, that it is not the church, the individuals in the church or anything else associated with the church that either causes one to accept or reject God, then each individual is truly accountable for their own response to God. No matter the situation, it is not one's family, family history or upbringing that can be fully blamed for how the individual responds to the Spirit of God.

I'm sure that we have all witnessed individuals raised in the church, given great teaching or nurturing, but who have turned from all of that to lifestyles of sin, and shame. On the other hand, and please don't get me wrong, some situations are more conducive to salvation than others...So realizing that there are situations in which persons are driven away from or drawn to the church is not the whole question here, however, at the end of the day, every person is responsible for their own response to God and either their acceptance of union with him or their rejection of HIS grace, mercy and ultimately forgiveness. 

The facts are these: It was not Jesus who failed. It was not God who came up short or who mishandled issues. It was the individual(s) some known as part of the church or maybe institutions associated with the church or maybe other parochial institutions claiming to be built upon "biblical and Christian principles" who may have failed. 

From an individual standpoint, although we may not always intellectually comprehend or apprehend God, invariably it is flesh that always fails and not HIM nor his Spirit that woos us. But even in that  failure of the flesh in no way negates or stops the self-authenticating witness of the Spirit" from speaking and revealing the glory of God to each and every individual, from those that reject him to those that will receive him. 

Ps. 19:1 ~ To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

His works and majesty can be perceived by all. His mystery is known to all the universe. In response the impetus of all scientific study and discovery is an attempt to comprehend his works. The unfortunate part is that many of them engaged in the study of pursuing the understanding of his works (science) because they (the works of God through creation) are seen, are oblivious to and rejecting of the wooing of HIS Spirit, even though the only reason that they are curious is because of the works they see. The works of God are HIS works and not the works of a man or some blind force. They are the evidence of his manifest presence.

Consequences Of "The Light"

At the end of the day, an individual is where they are, believing what they believe and doing what they do, because they WANT to. Not because they are fatalistically determined to be in the spiritual condition that they are. 

John 3:19 ~ And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Sin born into the hearts of men and embraced intellectually and spiritually is what destroys the man. The wages of sin is death but the penalty of sin is more sin. Notice the nature of sin. It takes men to what we describe as "dark places". Many, if not all sin behaviors, have a self destructive basis. For example, many alcoholics drink to the pace that the alcoholism destroys their bodies. First, many controlled by the substance refuse to admit it, and secondly it is often some tragedy or threat of loss that causes the individual to seek help and eventually turn away from the behavior associated with the substance. One hardly ever simply decides to walk away from such addiction on their own and do so successfully.

Drug addicts are similar as well. The illicit and illegal use of drugs, such as opioids, which have

Then there is the adulterer, molester and those who commit sexual sin. Usually these individuals go from a stage of personal, private, hidden and even recreational pursuit of sin, to a stage of addiction or life changing actions which causes multiplied grief, heartache and confusion sometimes for generations enveloped some whole communities within America, has proven to be virulently destructive. According to a recent NBC Nightly News report, one particular city in West Virginia, with a population of 3200 persons, received over 20 million pain pills by prescription over the last 10 years. I believe drug use along these lines, are not so much a display of illness as it is a display of a heart and mind desperate in seeking to relieve itself from the burden of sin. Relief being illusive the sin nature of man finds it much more easy to embrace more sin as a remedy instead of embracing the light.

Sin ADDS to itself until in the end, it is out of control. The rejection of light and ultimately truth always leads to greater darkness.

The key here is that the Light is seen and amply available, but men find it too challenging to draw themselves away from darkness. Why so challenging? The acceptance of light has a consequence and that consequence is that darkness, which pervades every fiber of this creation, is rejected and at that point a new path must be taken because the Light has come! Therefore to accept the Light of Jesus means to reject the thought patterns, systems, and social and spiritual norms that men have embraced to comfort themselves in darkness.

Critique

The critic asserts, how then is this "self-authenticating witness of the Spirit" any different from a Mormon's "burning in the bosom" or a Hindu's state of "nirvana" or Buddhist moment of enlightenment?

First, I believe that it may be a mistake to attempt to de-authenticate the experience of them claiming to have had one. There are many experiences, but not all of them lead to the Lord or HIS throne. John was aware of this as he encourages the believer to "not believe" every spirit, but to "try the spirits, whether they be of God". (1 John 4:1). The experience is to be "tried" or weighed or judged as to its authenticity and is always subject to Christ. In measuring that, one can tell whether the experience points to Christ or points away from him by adding another measure whereby men can be saved or blessed. Therefore the experience itself is also self-authenticating.

Secondly, the best witnesses to this are those who have converted from those systems to Christianity or those who have "found" Christ. As stated, other experiences certainly may have occurred, but there should be no assumption that those alternate experiences and the experience of Christianity and the exercise of faith are the same or even equivalent. The messages are certainly not the same, so why would anyone expect the experiences themselves to be the same? Those who come from non-Christian systems of belief will be the first to assert that the witness of the Holy Spirit upon and in their lives is wholly different than anything received under former systems or channels of belief.  So these are distinctions that make all the difference. 

Next the critic would assert, then why aren't all saved since the self authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit is so unique?

Because something is unique does not mean that all people yield or avail themselves to it. First, do all people desire the same thing? For example, Tesla has a good and some say the world's best electric car. Their new version has a multi-thousand preorders. However, do all individuals stop driving their current cars and start driving Tesla? Does everyone want a Tesla because it is "unique"? Just because someone can do something, does it mean that they always do? Free will is the issue and the key here. Everyone has it and can exercise it as they see fit.  Once again, the exercise of free will to reject the self-authenticating witness of the Spirit does not diminish or negate the role, majesty or uniqueness of the Spirit in the process. 

Conclusion

The self-authenticating witness of the Spirit has been played out throughout the Bible. From something as simple as a man named Moses going up to see a bush that burned with fire, and coming down the deliverer of a nation (Exodus 3), to Pilate as Jesus stood before him asking "what is truth" (John 18:38) to Paul preaching so convincingly that Agrippa, says "you almost persuade me to become a Christian" (Acts 26:28)...The Spirit of God has been and will always be active because HE is God. 

One will not be able to leave this world and certainly not the presence of God without having been presented with compelling evidence of the self-authenticating witness of the Spirit...Argument or no argument, intellectual fulfillment or none, God speaks and HIS sheep do hear him!

John 10: 27 ~ My sheep hear my voice, and I know them,
and they follow me:

Blessed!

Read more!

The Morality Campaign Against God Pt. 1

In the good ole USA religious freedom and tolerance is never more celebrated than when we are confronted with messages against religion and against Christianity in particular. Freedom of religious expression is a good thing even when that expression is against God. However, on the underside of this "freedom" it would seem that almost all messages of some sort of religion are tolerated except the message of Christianity. Christianity has been the target of hate and dissension in the religious and anti-religious world for decades and it would seem that such efforts are only increasing in scope and fervor. Enter atheism and it's bigger brother humanism. (almost a rose by any other name...) At either rate, both terms are descriptive of what I consider to be metaphysically natural religions and world views suited for those who do not wish to believe in a non-materialistic or supernatural God. I have discussed this antisupernaturalism stance on my article Antisupernaturalism, Miracles and Historical Critical Method. In the comments section of that article, you will find a mini-debate with a leading atheist regarding the assertion of the "atheist bus campaign". That assertion is that belief in God can be dismissed based on "probability". Thus the deception and flaw of historical critical method is revealed, as it is not given to true empirical science in the evaluation of religious and supernatural matters.

Both atheism and humanism come with it's complete set of codes, affirmations and a primary objectives...In short, those objectives are simply aimed at discarding all religions and Christianity in particular. The manipulation and reinvention of Christianity is the atheist/humanist greatest goal as exemplified through the efforts of Dan Brown in his NY Times Bestselling book and eventual movie "The Da Vinci Code" In that book, conspiracy and secrecy and not actual history became the birth and impetus of modern Christianity. Others such as the late comedian George Carlin, who was an avowed atheist, feel that they must fight the good fight of naturalism at every opportunity. Then there are academicians who undertake the cause, such as leading scientific microbiologist, and what has been described as a staunch evangelical atheist, and author of the book "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins. Dr. Dawkins has been said to "preach atheism" with the same fervor that a revivalistic evangelist preaches Christianity. He is also know as the "Rottweiler of Darwinism" for his adherence to the Origin of the species with common descent. It should be noted that Darwinian Evolution is one of the most flawed and unscientific theories ever presented as such in human history. Then there are flat out idiots producing unresearched and fallacious movies hailed as "common sense" such as Bill Maher's "Religulous" where Christianity is especially marked as being out of touch with modern society and unnecessary for personal growth.

Just as the CROSS is a symbol of Christianity, atheism also bears it's own symbol. For the American Atheists, a group formed by American Atheism's missing Queen Madalyn Murray O'Hair in 1963, the symbol is said to be "a contemporary scientific symbol" which "acknowledges that only through the use of scientific analysis and free, open inquiry can humankind reach out for a better life."

In essence the atheist god is a god of science, intellect and what can be empirically experienced through the 5 senses. Therefore, there can be no consideration of additional information that is not quantifiable by material or naturalistic means.

You can even check the Celebrity Atheist List to see if your favorite actor or actress is an atheist, agnostic, or a so-called freethinker. Similar to religions there are degrees or denominations of atheism and Pantheistic Atheists who hold that the universe and all creation should be viewed with a "religious reverence" and should be viewed apart from any religious construct or experience, are every bit if not more dogmatic about their beliefs as the Christians and other religious folk they criticize. I have to admit, I kinda always knew what the creator of "Star Trek" really felt about the future...Too bad for all the "Trekies"

This holiday season the American Humanist Association has launched an aggressive campaign as a part of an ongoing strategy to address the Moral Argument for God's Existence. The Association, offering "Humanist Communities" that operate "much like a congregation" simply asks"Why Believe In God? Be good for goodness sake." One of the popular questions they pose to Christians and other religious folk is "Who said you and your religion had a corner on morality?" Also saying that humans can be "morally good" without religion and or God in particular.


Now, to those who have never thought critical toward their faith, these questions and assertions may pose some significant challenges to your understanding of God, morality and the bible. However, for those who have observed "good people" who never given their lives to Christ and subsequently lost their souls, we are reminded that the real object of Christianity was not to create a morally good person, but to redeem man from his defunct position of total depravity and the unrighteous condition of the heart, by providing salvation through means that man could not provide or attain on his own. The ability to be moral happens to be one of those communicable traits of God given to man at man's creation. It is one of those ways in which man has received the "image" or "likeness" of God.

• Gen. 1:26- 27 ~ "26-And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27-So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
• Gen. 2:7 ~ "7- And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

God is a moral being and communicates that morality to mankind. What is noteworthy here is that morality IS NOT salvation. Scripture acknowledges that a person can do good things but yet not have a heart right with God.

• Luke 18:18-23 ~ "18-And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19-And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20-Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. 21-And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22-Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23-And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich."

In Luke's account of the "Rich Young Ruler" we find a person who is living a "morally good" life. This is a testimony which goes unchallenged by Jesus throughout the discourse. Although it is an argument from silence it is interesting to note that Jesus shifted his focus toward the spiritual deficiency of the young man instead of what he claimed was his moral good. His ineptitude was solidified in his confidence and adherence to materialism which was revealed in the form of money. The rich young ruler could not enter into fellowship and relationship with God because he was materialistically focused, self centered and unable to trust a non materially centered future. His problems were not a result of immorality but a result of his sin nature and miscondition of the heart.


In 1 Cor.13:3 ~ "3- And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."


Apostle Paul acknowledges and reverberates the sentiments and teachings of Jesus when he points out that moral goodness without "love" as to indicate the love of God [which is an attribute of right relationship with God] does not provide that which is necessary to fulfill the non material aspects of one's existence In other words, one can give until they hurt themselves giving or doing good and it is a mere futile effort as it pertains to absolving or rectifying their sin problem. Paul later states that there is "no good thing" within the "flesh" (Rom. 7:18) indicating the human agency that is not in accordance to or subject to the Spirit of God and HIS standards is defunct. The Prophet Isaiah also states that human righteous (IE: common morality) is as a "filthy rags" (Is. 64:6).

So the Christian world view already acknowledges that one can be good for goodness sake, but that one cannot be saved or acceptable with God no matter how much good one does or performs.


Who Holds The Standard For Morality?


As Moses dedicated the altar to the Lord calling it Jehovah-Nissi in Exodus 17:15, as to indicate that the Lord was the rallying place or standard whereby the people of God have their victory, there can be no true morality without a moral standard bearer. In other words the morality of men, which is acknowledged by God, is only a weak representation of the morality and standards of God Himself. The morality of men offers no objective standard other than man's own subjective experience and cultural commemoratives.


With that said, it is interesting to note is that the atheist/humanist even acknowledges this standard, by declaring that there is a "good" to begin with. For one to simply be "good" indicates that one is aware of a certain thing called and acknowledged as "good". If all behaviors were equally as good then the atheist/humanist would be calling for hate as well as calling for love...for violence as well as calling for unrest, for war as well as calling for peace. Since we know that the atheist/humanist is only calling for higher standards of behaviours, we can simply deduce that the atheist/humanist within those statements also makes a sterling acknowledgement that there is an objective good, and that good is not merely a subjective construct. Therefore the humanist argument opens the door wide for a declaration of God as the Moral Law Giver and standard holder of all morality because we readily observe that man's standards of "good" are only based on his subjective understanding of what he calls "morally good" which is a derivative of the objective moral standards of God the Moral Law Giver.


This becomes a dilemma for the anti-God crew from the standpoint that we can all acknowledge that objective moral values exist, and murder, crime, infidelity etc. cannot be called "good". Therefore, morality is NOT based on subjective standards, but based on objective standards. A second dilemma is that neither Dr. Dawkins nor any of his anti-God, scientific friends have been able to locate a "moral gene" within a naturalistic scope of science. Dawkins comes close when he speaks of finding a "Meme", which he admits has NEVER been observed and cannot be located within the human body with current science. (My question is how did he find it to begin with?, ooh, maybe it was a revelation!)


Let's go back to the rich young ruler in Luke again. Notice v.18 when the young man acknowledges Jesus as "Good Master" therefore acknowledging a certain level "good" which according to the culture was a term reserved for God just as Jesus indicated in his response in v.19. But later he is disappointed because his standard, while being previously based on himself and self efforts, was short sided and unacceptable with God.

Summary Of The Moral Argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values DO exist.
3. Therefore God exists.

From Dr. William Lane Craig, "Why I Believe God Exists" as found in Geisler & Hoffman, "Why I Am A Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe" (Grand Rapids Baker Books, 1999)p.75.

In Part 2 we'll go deeper into this and demonstrate the results of atheism and humanism's flawed philosophies and its impact on education, criminal justice, homosexuality and societal ills in general.

Blessed!

Read more!