# WCF and Fideism



## B.J. (Aug 8, 2007)

I am going through a course offered by my pastor in which he goes through the WCF. Tonight we went over this part of the WCF and he said that this causes problems for some people. I think it sounds like Fideism. Can someone help me out here?

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 8, 2007)

Which part seems fideistic?

Notice the evidences they give for the Word:
- heavenliness of the matter
- efficacy of the doctrine
- majesty of the style
- the consent of all the parts
- the scope of the whole
- the full discover it makes of the only way of man's slvation
- other incomparable excellencies
- entire perfection thereof

In this first sense, one can almost see an external apologetic. If you compare the above to other "pretenders" to Divine Inspiration you find them all severely wanting in the above. The Book of Mormon reads like a bad novel. The Koran is full of so many contradictions that its proponents gave up trying to use logic to make it cohere.

But, at the very end, it simply acknowledges that all those evidences are not going to persuade a man. It takes the Holy Spirit to cause a man to be convinced fully of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Word. He otherwise suppresses that truth in unrighteousness.


----------



## turmeric (Aug 8, 2007)

B.J. I don't think your quote meets this definition.


----------



## B.J. (Aug 9, 2007)

> But, at the very end, it simply acknowledges that all those evidences are not going to persuade a man. It takes the Holy Spirit to cause a man to be convinced fully of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Word. He otherwise suppresses that truth in unrighteousness.
> __________________



What is refered to in the first part is only intelligible given the the validity of last part. Unbelievers reject the first part because they don't have the last part.




> 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.




This is the part that seems fideistic. For instance, if someone asks me why I believe the Bible to be ultimate truth, ultimately I must answer by saying, "Becasue the Holy Spirit tells me so" per the Confession. Thats not an argument, it is rather a subjective appeal to something that that person might not believe.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 9, 2007)

> This is the part that seems fideistic. For instance, if someone asks me why I believe the Bible to be ultimate truth, ultimately I must answer by saying, "Becasue the Holy Spirit tells me so" per the Confession. Thats not an argument, it is rather a subjective appeal to something that that person might not believe.



It is an argument, it is just circular  

I kid, I kid. Whenever we prove an "ultimate authority," it is going to be circular by definition. It is contradictory to prove an ultimate authority (e.g., God) by something less ultimate (e.g., right reason, evidences, lines from Bill Gaither songs, etc).


----------



## B.J. (Aug 9, 2007)

> B.J. I don't think your quote meets this definition.



I think it might fall under Kierkegaard's model actually. I am still thinking about it though.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 9, 2007)

B.J. said:


> What is refered to in the first part is only intelligible given the the validity of last part. Unbelievers reject the first part because they don't have the last part.


I think a more apt way of putting it would be to say that they _suppress_ the evidence. The evidences noted are objectively valid but that doesn't mean that everyone is going to accept good evidence.



> This is the part that seems fideistic. For instance, if someone asks me why I believe the Bible to be ultimate truth, ultimately I must answer by saying, "Becasue the Holy Spirit tells me so" per the Confession. Thats not an argument, it is rather a subjective appeal to something that that person might not believe.


I disagree. Fideism is accepting something without a logical reason. There are reasons given. A person can be given a valid, logical argument and, for their own reasons, remain unpersuaded. Ever seen _A Beautiful Mind_? His wife kept telling him there was nobody there and that he wasn't part of a Government intel effort but Nash would not be persuaded by the evidence.

The evidence for the Christian faith remains the same for the unbeliever and the believer. The difference is the disposition toward the evidence.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 9, 2007)

There's nothing fideistic about that passage at all. Rather, that's one of the best descriptions of the Word of God in print.


----------



## MW (Aug 9, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> The evidence for the Christian faith remains the same for the unbeliever and the believer. The difference is the disposition toward the evidence.



 Persuasion is not always of God. Just as a little leaven leaventh the whole lump, so a little pride, self-conceit, ambition, fear of man, love of pleasure, etc., can cause one to adopt "reasonings" which perfectly agree with a pre-commitment to serve oneself.


----------



## B.J. (Aug 9, 2007)

> I disagree. Fideism is accepting something without a logical reason. There are reasons given. A person can be given a valid, logical argument and, for their own reasons, remain unpersuaded. Ever seen A Beautiful Mind? His wife kept telling him there was nobody there and that he wasn't part of a Government intel effort but Nash would not be persuaded by the evidence.



A great movie.....Rich, maybe I am missing something in your defense. Let me ask it another way so as to help me follow what you are saying.

Why did the writers of the Confession include the last part of the text if the first part was logical, reasonable, non-fideistic, etc..?



> 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.



Why would the Confession not read something like this? 

V. The Bible is the word of God because of these reasons________, which are logical, reasonable, and sound. If someone does not believe the Scriptures to be God's word than they are not logical, or reasonable.

Of course I know we (Chrsitians) believe unbelievers are such things, but if thats the case then why add the last part?


----------



## MW (Aug 9, 2007)

B.J. said:


> Why would the Confession not read something like this?
> 
> V. The Bible is the word of God because of these reasons________, which are logical, reasonable, and sound. If someone does not believe the Scriptures to be God's word than they are not logical, or reasonable.



Because that would omit the important fact that one can only come to a saving belief in the Scriptures through the work of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you are missing the import of the word "full." See also Larger Catechism, answer 4.


----------



## B.J. (Aug 9, 2007)

> Because that would omit the important fact that one can only come to a saving belief in the Scriptures through the work of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you are missing the import of the word "full." See also Larger Catechism, answer 4.



Matthew,
With all due respect, I am importing the word "full". That is the jist of my entire question. How can the "full" assurance be the inward work of the Holy Spirit, which is subjective? The parts mentioned in the first half of the text are suppose to be more along the lines of objective, and typically objective evidence is more assuring than something we experience on an individual basis, but the Confession says the opposite. Rather our full assurance in these matters are totally subjective.

Just for the record, I agree completly with the Confession here, it just seems to me that the first half of this portion is unnecssary given the last half. In other words when someone asks me "why" I believe these things, I have no problem in saying, "Well, without the Holy Spirit I wouldn't."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 9, 2007)

B.J. said:


> > I disagree. Fideism is accepting something without a logical reason. There are reasons given. A person can be given a valid, logical argument and, for their own reasons, remain unpersuaded. Ever seen A Beautiful Mind? His wife kept telling him there was nobody there and that he wasn't part of a Government intel effort but Nash would not be persuaded by the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know how to re-state it again. You could say that the first part contains sufficient testimony to the fact that the Scriptures are God's Word but the second part simply confirms what the Book of Romans says about the disposition of men's minds toward Truth in their fallen condition. Romans 1 clearly states the futility of men's thinking.

Thus, sufficient evidence exists but the futile mind does whatever it can to twist the evidence. One could say exactly what you're saying that they are being illogical and unreasonable for not agreeing with the first part.

The point is that they will neither be persuaded nor full assured of their illogic until their minds are fully restored by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## MW (Aug 9, 2007)

B.J. said:


> With all due respect, I am importing the word "full". That is the jist of my entire question. How can the "full" assurance be the inward work of the Holy Spirit, which is subjective?



Because the divines saw theoretical knowledge as "partial." "Full" persuasion is that which gains the consent of the will as well. Objective argument alone cannot accomplish this. The natural man might receive all the "notes" or "evidences" of Scripture, and still be an unbeliever. Under effectual calling the divines speak of the Spirit "determining the will," and thereby enabling a person to receive and embrace the grace offered in the gospel. Without this determination there cannot be a subjective acceptance of the truth. This is what is intended by the adjective "full."


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 9, 2007)

A couple of things, the first part addresses those who are truly impressed with the Bible, but don't believe. Some biblical scholars love the Bible, study it all their lives, know it through and through, yet are unbelievers.

After the semicolon, it tells us what brings us to grasp the truth.

The second thing, are you using a different definition of "fideism" than the common one of irrationality? For instance, another use (although I don't like this usage) is to describe belief in a fundamental proposition that cannot be proved. Such as "the Bible is the Word of God."

If so, then, yes, in a sense it is fideistic, because you can never come up with an external proof that it is. The Bible internally says so, and the Holy Spirit allows us to believe that.


----------



## B.J. (Aug 10, 2007)

> The second thing, are you using a different definition of "fideism" than the common one of irrationality? For instance, another use (although I don't like this usage) is to describe belief in a fundamental proposition that cannot be proved. Such as "the Bible is the Word of God."





Maybe.....when I used the term "fideism" in the class you could have heard a pin drop. The sense in which I used it was simply that if a position is argued for, and ultimately God is the admitted source for what is believed anyway, why argue? I think refuting, or the casting down of arguments raised against the knowledge of God, is a little different than throwing a proposition "out there" and trying to prove it. So yes, maybe I am using the latter definition that you mentioned. Sorry for the equivocation everyone.




> I don't know how to re-state it again. You could say that the first part contains sufficient testimony to the fact that the Scriptures are God's Word but the second part simply confirms what the Book of Romans says about the disposition of men's minds toward Truth in their fallen condition. Romans 1 clearly states the futility of men's thinking.
> 
> Thus, sufficient evidence exists but the futile mind does whatever it can to twist the evidence. One could say exactly what you're saying that they are being illogical and unreasonable for not agreeing with the first part.
> 
> The point is that they will neither be persuaded nor full assured of their illogic until their minds are fully restored by the Holy Spirit.



Okay Rich....I think I am tracking with you now. I understand that presuppositionally speaking unbelievers are commited to any line of reasoning other than the method that reveals God to be who He said He is as prescribed in Scripture. All I am saying is that given that scenario, which we both agree, it sounds like fideism from _the unbelievers perspective_ to hear a Christian confess that I believe this stuff ultimately because the Holy Spirit is working in my heart. It seems like fideism because we know they dont agree with the first part, so all they hear is us saying that an invisible force is making us believe. Thats not objective to say that, its subjective. Its seems like the samething as when a Morman tells me the The Book of Morman is true because they have a burning in their bosom. I tend to think it is heartburn they are experiencing, but I dont accept that as evidence because that is subjective, and probably heartburn. Now granted I know there is a big differnece between the Bible and the Book of Morman, but that was justan example that popped into my head.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 10, 2007)

B.J. said:


> > I don't know how to re-state it again. You could say that the first part contains sufficient testimony to the fact that the Scriptures are God's Word but the second part simply confirms what the Book of Romans says about the disposition of men's minds toward Truth in their fallen condition. Romans 1 clearly states the futility of men's thinking.
> >
> > Thus, sufficient evidence exists but the futile mind does whatever it can to twist the evidence. One could say exactly what you're saying that they are being illogical and unreasonable for not agreeing with the first part.
> >
> ...



I suppose but, from where I stand, I see it as fideistic for them to butcher babies and have celebrations over "choice" and butchers who hold respectable places in society.

In the end, it's impossible to find a neutral place to stand to decide what reasonable evidence is.

I was just remarking yesterday that, after 3000 years of trying, man might get the hint that trying to find a rational world view on the basis of autonomous human reason is an utter failure.

Comparisons with other false religions don't work because it's not the Holy Spirit that is convincing them of such things and their view of the world is proved just as inane at the bar of truth.

I know it seems strange to the world when we assert that our full assurance of the Truth is on the basis of God's grace but that's the Gospel my friend. As Polycarp was willing to say before his own death, and in my own way, the Lord has been good to me for these 39 years and I can't see denying him just to make those who hate him comfortable with what I believe.


----------

