#08 ✓ Consider: Is the confirmation of the Holy Spirit distinguishable from an evil demon or psychological self-deception?

Considerations

November 6, 2024

Consider the Following:

Summary: This article critically examines whether subjective experiences of the Holy Spirit’s confirmation can be distinguished from psychological self-deception or deceptive spiritual influences, arguing that such experiences lack reliable objective validation. It suggests that without an external standard to verify these feelings, believers risk overconfidence in potentially unfounded beliefs.

Imagine a warm and welcoming small-town church where Sarah, a devoted believer, experiences an overwhelming sense of joy and peace during a worship service accompanied by evocative music and fellowship. She interprets this emotional surge as the Holy Spirit’s confirmation, assuring her that she is on the right spiritual path. This feeling deepens her faith, solidifying her belief that she truly has a personal connection with God. However, during a conversation with a Muslim friend named Afifa, Sarah learns that Afifa has experienced similar feelings of peace and divine assurance, but attributes them to a completely different deity.

Puzzled, Sarah begins to question the source of her own experience. Could her feeling of peace truly be unique to the Holy Spirit, or is it simply an emotional response to the communal and suggestive environment of the worship service? Reflecting on the intensity of the group setting, she realizes how the music, shared beliefs, and uplifting messages may have influenced her emotions.

Further complicating Sarah’s introspection is a sermon she remembers, which warned of deceptive spirits that could mimic divine confirmation. How could she be sure that her sense of peace came from the Holy Spirit and not from a deceptive entity, as her theology acknowledges such a possibility? Sarah considers pastoral advice to rely on scripture to differentiate between spirits. However, her own pastor’s views of scripture often conflict with those of other Christians.

Seeking clarity, Sarah surns to a rational analysis. This analysis does not validate her internal feelings of a connection to God, leaving her perplexed. As Sarah reflects on her past unwavering confidence in these spiritual experiences, she wonders if her faith has blinded her to the fallibility of subjective feelings, realizing that her certainty may be more about her desire for assurance than actual evidence.

Ultimately, Sarah faces the profound question: Is her spiritual experience truly divine, or is it a product of her mind, shaped by her environment and beliefs? This realization prompts her to adopt a more skeptical and reflective approach, seeking external validation and embracing the possibility that her feelings may not be as reliable as she once believed.

The experience of feeling a divine presence or sensing the guidance of the Holy Spirit is central to many religious beliefs, especially within Christianity. Believers often cite this inner confirmation as a profound assurance of their faith, grounding their conviction in what feels like a direct, personal connection with God. However, a critical issue arises: How can one be certain that this sense of divine confirmation is genuinely from the Holy Spirit and not from an alternative, possibly deceptive, source?

This question holds substantial weight for believers who want to ensure the authenticity of their spiritual experiences. By exploring potential sources of confusion—whether an evil demon, psychological self-deception, or even a complex blend of emotional projection—we delve into whether the subjective feeling of the Holy Spirit is indeed a reliable foundation for faith.

1. Subjective Experience: Is It Truly Reliable?

The foundation of a believer’s certainty often lies in subjective experience—a personal, inward feeling or “confirmation” that they attribute to the Holy Spirit. However, subjective experiences are notoriously unreliable as indicators of objective truth. Humans are known to experience powerful emotions and intuitions that, while deeply felt, may not correspond to any external reality. This psychological phenomenon has been documented in various contexts, where individuals report feeling certain about situations, people, or events that turn out to be mistaken. Confirmation bias, for example, can lead individuals to interpret ambiguous experiences as validation of their existing beliefs.

Adults older that 30 may sheepishly remember a time in which they were certain their feelings toward a certain individual reflected the “objective” truth that they had found their soulmate…only to later realize the individual was far from a good match. This is a good hint that our emotional response in emotionally charged contexts is a poor reflection of reality.

In religious contexts, a person may interpret feelings of peace or joy as confirmation of the Holy Spirit’s presence. Yet, these emotions are not exclusive to any particular belief system. People from different religions and spiritual traditions report similar inner confirmations—whether they identify this feeling as divine, spiritual, or simply an emotional response. This raises a crucial question: If subjective confirmation can vary across different religions, can it be a trustworthy guide to spiritual truth?

“I think that the fundamental way in which we know Christianity is true is through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. I do not think that arguments and evidence are necessary in order for faith to be rational, or for you to know that God exists and has revealed himself in Christ.”

— William Lane Craig
Source

“We’ve already said that it’s the Holy Spirit who gives us the ultimate assurance of Christianity’s truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role. I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel… Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.”

— Christian Apologist William Lane Craig:
Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (1994), p. 36.

The Logical Incoherence of Craig’s Statements

William Lane Craig’s argument for knowing Christianity’s truth through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit rather than through argument and evidence raises several logical concerns, particularly in epistemology and circular reasoning.

1. Circular Reasoning (Petitio Principii)

Craig asserts that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is the fundamental way to know Christianity is true. However, this claim presupposes that:

The Holy Spirit exists.
The Holy Spirit communicates truth reliably.
This inner witness is not a product of human psychology or external influences.

If someone questions the truth of Christianity, appealing to the Holy Spirit’s witness as the proof is circular because it assumes the very thing it seeks to prove.

Circular formulation:

Christianity is true because the Holy Spirit reveals it.
We know the Holy Spirit’s witness is true because Christianity is true.

This fails as a justification because it does not provide independent support for the claim—just self-validation.

2. Fideism & The Rejection of Reason as a Justification

Craig explicitly states:

“I do not think that arguments and evidence are necessary in order for faith to be rational.”

This suggests a fideistic stance, where faith is considered rational without external justification. However, rational belief typically requires justification that is accessible beyond personal experience.

His distinction between magisterial and ministerial uses of reason further reinforces this fideism:

Magisterial reason (where reason judges religious claims) is rejected.
Ministerial reason (where reason submits to religious belief) is acceptable.

This creates an epistemic asymmetry, where any evidence contradicting Christianity is dismissed, while any supporting evidence is accepted—this undermines intellectual rigor and makes the belief system unfalsifiable.

3. Confirmation Bias & Unfalsifiability

Craig states:

“Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit … and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.”

This is problematic because:

It makes Christianity immune to counter-evidence, meaning no amount of contrary reasoning or data could ever falsify it.
It introduces confirmation bias, where only supporting evidence is considered valid while contradictory evidence is dismissed.
If this method were applied to other religions (e.g., a Muslim claiming the inner witness of Allah proves Islam), there would be no rational way to adjudicate between conflicting claims.

If all religious believers used this method, then every religion would be “true” based on subjective internal conviction—making Craig’s standard epistemically indiscriminate.

4. Special Pleading

Craig applies different epistemic standards to Christianity compared to other domains of knowledge. In most fields (science, history, law), evidence and reason are required for justified belief. However, Craig argues that Christianity is an exception where subjective experience overrides rational critique.

If we applied this logic elsewhere:

Someone claiming to hear the voice of Zeus could dismiss counterarguments by saying reason must submit to the gods.
A flat-earther could claim their intuition of a flat Earth is more reliable than physics.

By exempting Christianity from rational scrutiny, Craig engages in special pleading, which weakens his argument’s coherence.

Conclusion: Logical Problems in Craig’s Argument

Craig’s position is problematic because:
✅ It relies on circular reasoning (presupposing the Holy Spirit’s validity to prove Christianity).
✅ It dismisses argument and evidence as necessary for rational belief, which contradicts epistemic standards.
✅ It creates an unfalsifiable belief system immune to counter-evidence.
✅ It applies inconsistent reasoning (special pleading) by allowing Christianity a privileged epistemic status over other belief systems.

Ultimately, Craig’s framework prioritizes subjective experience over reason, making it logically incoherent as a defense of Christianity’s truth.

2. Psychological Self-Deception: An Often Overlooked Influence

One compelling explanation for the feeling of the Holy Spirit lies in something no one likes to admit; psychological self-deception. The human mind has a remarkable capacity to create narratives and interpretations that fit desired beliefs. In situations of stress, existential questioning, or intense group settings, individuals might experience heightened emotions that they attribute to a higher power. Studies in psychology reveal that people can persuade themselves to feel what they expect to feel, especially in environments that reinforce particular beliefs.

Belief in the Holy Spirit often coincides with strong communal reinforcement. Church gatherings, sermons, and group prayers are environments ripe for creating and sustaining intense emotional experiences. This communal aspect can amplify a sense of divine presence. The mind, eager to find comfort and certainty, can interpret these feelings as confirmation of the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

It is informative to consider the clear correlation between the typical religious adornments of music, architectural majesty, and communal harmony in a given religion and the intense sensation of the presence of the corresponding God.

3. The Potential for a Deceptive Spirit

While psychological self-deception provides one explanation, Christian theology itself acknowledges the possibility of deceptive spiritual forces. Numerous passages in the Bible warn believers of “false prophets” and deceptive spirits, cautioning that even Satan can appear as “an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14). If such deception is indeed possible, believers are faced with a profound dilemma: How can one differentiate between the Holy Spirit and a deceptive spirit posing as divine confirmation?

The very fact that the Bible acknowledges deceptive spirits undermines the reliability of subjective confirmation as proof of the Holy Spirit’s presence. If a powerful, malevolent being can mimic divine confirmation convincingly, then any feeling attributed to the Holy Spirit could potentially be a well-crafted illusion by such a being. Without an objective standard to verify this confirmation, believers are left vulnerable to the possibility of spiritual deception.

I feel that my feeling that my feelings that my feelings that my feelings I have a relationship with God are from God.

Logical Formulation of the Circularity

The reasoning behind the notion that the Holy Spirit provides confirmation of God’s presence is a self-referential loop where the justification for the belief relies on itself, making it a vicious circle (circular reasoning). Let’s break it down symbolically to demonstrate the issue.

Let:

$G$ = “I have a relationship with God.”
$F_x$ = “I feel that $x$ is from God.”

The statement can be rewritten as:
“I feel that my feeling that my feelings that my feelings that my feelings $G$ is from God are from God.”

The nested structure suggests a recursive definition of feelings validating themselves:

$F(F(F(F(G))))$

Since each level of feeling is justified by another feeling, the argument lacks an external, independent basis. The truth of $G$ is ultimately based on itself, leading to a logical vicious circle where:

$G \rightarrow F(G) \rightarrow F(F(G)) \rightarrow F(F(F(G))) \rightarrow \dots$

This is an infinite regress, where no foundational premise is independent or justified outside of the loop.

Conclusion

Because the justification never escapes the loop of subjective feelings, the argument is illogical and self-referential, making it an instance of circular reasoning.

4. An Appeal to Objective Standards

If the feeling of the Holy Spirit cannot be confirmed solely by subjective experience, an alternative method is necessary. An objective standard, such as scriptural consistency, empirical evidence, or rational coherence, is often suggested as a means of verifying divine encounters. However, each of these methods faces its own limitations:

Scriptural Consistency: Some argue that true experiences of the Holy Spirit align with biblical teachings. Yet, interpretations of scripture vary widely, even among devout Christians. This diversity of interpretations complicates the task of verifying personal experiences against scripture, as one person’s reading may starkly contrast with another’s.
Empirical Evidence: Unlike natural phenomena, spiritual experiences are inherently non-empirical and cannot be measured or observed externally. Science, therefore, cannot verify the subjective feeling of the Holy Spirit, which remains an internal conviction inaccessible to objective analysis.
Rational Coherence: While rationality can help identify logical inconsistencies, it may not conclusively affirm spiritual experiences. Rational inquiry can question the basis of a subjective feeling, but it cannot access or validate the internal sense of confirmation attributed to the Holy Spirit.

5. The Risk of Overconfidence in Subjective Confirmation

A significant risk lies in the overconfidence that believers might place in their subjective experiences. Many believers view their feeling of the Holy Spirit as irrefutable evidence of their faith, yet history shows numerous examples of individuals who have been utterly convinced of false beliefs. People have been certain of mystical visions, alien encounters, or false prophecies, only to later recognize these as illusions or psychological phenomena. Overconfidence in subjective feelings, without external validation, can be misleading and even dangerous.

Conclusion: Seeking a Path to Certainty

The question of whether the Holy Spirit’s confirmation is distinguishable from deception or self-delusion is a critical one for those who seek a rational basis for their faith. Given the susceptibility of human psychology to error, suggestion, and even manipulation, relying solely on subjective experience as a foundation for faith is fraught with risk. Without an objective standard to verify the source of these feelings, believers must consider the possibility that their experiences may not be divinely inspired.

In conclusion, the challenge remains: Is there a reliable way to discern the true source of spiritual confirmation? Until this question is satisfactorily answered, believers cannot claim to know that they have a relationship with the God they subjectively experience. To conclude, the emotions generated within religious contexts the world over logically cannot provide objective certainty of the existence of the associated God.

◉ Addressing Four Counterarguments

A Companion Technical Paper:

FF_08_DONE_Inner_Witness_of_the_Holy_Spirit Download

A relevant discussion:

The Logical Form

Argument 1: Subjective Experience and Reliability

Premise 1: Subjective experiences are unreliable indicators of objective truth, as human emotions and intuitions can be misleading.
Premise 2: The confirmation of the Holy Spirit is fundamentally a subjective experience, relying on personal feelings of divine presence.
Conclusion: Therefore, the confirmation of the Holy Spirit is not a reliable indicator of objective truth, given the general unreliability of subjective experiences.

Argument 2: Psychological Self-Deception

Premise 1: Human beings are capable of psychological self-deception, especially when they desire to confirm pre-existing beliefs.
Premise 2: Experiences attributed to the Holy Spirit often occur in environments, like religious gatherings, that reinforce beliefs and intensify emotional experiences.
Conclusion: Consequently, the feeling of the Holy Spirit’s presence often result from psychological self-deception rather than an actual divine encounter.

Argument 3: Possibility of Deceptive Spirits

Premise 1: Christian theology acknowledges the existence of deceptive spiritual forces, which can appear as good and benevolent entities.
Premise 2: If deceptive spirits can imitate the confirmation believers associate with the Holy Spirit, it becomes challenging to discern between divine and deceptive sources.
Conclusion: Therefore, any subjective confirmation of the Holy Spirit may potentially be from a deceptive spirit, undermining the certainty of divine confirmation.

Argument 4: Lack of Objective Standards

Premise 1: To verify subjective experiences like the Holy Spirit’s confirmation, an objective standard (such as scriptural consistency, empirical evidence, or rational coherence) is necessary.
Premise 2: Each proposed standard—scriptural consistency, empirical evidence, and rational coherence—faces limitations in verifying subjective spiritual experiences.
Conclusion: As a result, no objective standard reliably verifies the Holy Spirit’s confirmation, logically requiring doubt that the feelings are of the Holy Spirit.

Argument 5: Overconfidence in Subjective Confirmation

Premise 1: History demonstrates that individuals can be overconfident in their subjective beliefs, even when those beliefs are ultimately shown to be mistaken.
Premise 2: Relying on the subjective confirmation of the Holy Spirit instead of external and objective validation leads to overconfidence in potentially false beliefs.
Conclusion: Therefore, overconfidence in subjective confirmation without external validation is dangerous and may lead believers to hold erroneous beliefs.

#08 Formalization

^{(Scan to view post on mobile devices.)}

A Dialogue

Can the Holy Spirit’s Confirmation Be Trusted?

CHRIS: I believe that my experience of the Holy Spirit’s confirmation is real and direct. This feeling gives me a deep assurance that my faith is grounded in truth.

CLARUS: But how can you be sure that this feeling of confirmation truly comes from the Holy Spirit and not from something else, like self-deception or even a deceptive spirit? Human experiences are often unreliable when used as evidence of objective truth.

CHRIS: I understand, but I know this feeling is special—it’s a peace and joy that’s different from anything else. Surely, that’s evidence that it’s divine?

CLARUS: That peace and joy could be very powerful, but similar emotions are reported across various religions and even in non-religious settings. Subjective experiences don’t necessarily confirm objective truth; people feel deeply assured about many things that turn out to be mistaken. How do you distinguish this experience from something you might simply want to believe?

CHRIS: Maybe my belief is influenced by my faith community, but that doesn’t make it false. Being in a church setting could amplify the Holy Spirit’s presence.

CLARUS: Or it could amplify psychological self-deception. Environments that reinforce beliefs can make people feel they’re experiencing something divine when it’s really social and psychological influence at play. How do you rule out the possibility that this experience is something you’re psychologically inclined to feel?

CHRIS: Well, if I rely on scripture, that could be my guide. If my experience aligns with the Bible, then that should confirm it’s from the Holy Spirit.

CLARUS: Yet interpretations of scripture vary so widely that almost any experience can seem to “align” with it. Scriptural consistency is hard to establish when people read the same passages differently. Without a clearer, objective standard, you’re still left with personal interpretation.

CHRIS: You raise a fair point, but isn’t it unlikely that God would allow a deceptive spirit to mislead believers so convincingly?

CLARUS: According to your own theology, deceptive spirits do exist and can appear as “angels of light,” right? If that’s true, then any feeling you attribute to the Holy Spirit could, in theory, come from a deceptive source. This possibility makes it essential to have something beyond personal conviction to verify the experience.

CHRIS: So, you’re suggesting that without some external validation, my experience of the Holy Spirit’s confirmation could be mistaken?

CLARUS: Precisely. Subjective confirmation alone is risky because people can be deeply confident in false beliefs. History is full of cases where individuals were utterly convinced of things that later proved to be illusions or errors. Wouldn’t you agree that relying solely on personal conviction could make you overconfident in something that might not be true?

CHRIS: I see the challenge here. So, are you saying that without objective evidence, I should doubt my experience?

CLARUS: I’m saying that an experience—no matter how profound—needs objective validation to be reliable. Without that, you’re left with a feeling that could be divine, deceptive, or purely psychological. The rational seeker will benefit from cautious reflection, especially when experiences like these are difficult to verify beyond personal conviction.

◉ The Companion #09 Video

◉ The Companion #09 Podcasts

Notes:

Helpful Analogies

Analogy 1: The Mirage in the Desert

Imagine a traveler in the desert who sees what appears to be an oasis in the distance. Driven by thirst and hope, the traveler is convinced the oasis is real, only to find it’s a mirage created by heat and hope. Similarly, a person’s subjective feeling of the Holy Spirit’s confirmation might feel real and urgent, but without objective evidence, it could be a psychological phenomenon rather than a divine encounter.

Analogy 2: A Trusty Compass That May Be Faulty

Consider a sailor navigating with a compass that he believes is accurate. Unknown to him, the compass has a slight defect, causing it to deviate by a few degrees. Even though he’s confident in his direction, he’s gradually led off course. In the same way, subjective experiences—like feelings attributed to the Holy Spirit—may seem trustworthy, but if they lack external validation, they could be misleading or inaccurate. The notion of a validating Holy Spirit itself lacks this external validation.

Analogy 3: A Movie That Feels Real

Think of watching a virtual reality movie that’s so immersive it feels like you’re genuinely in another world. Your emotions respond intensely, and the scenes feel real, even though you’re aware it’s an illusion. Likewise, a profound feeling of divine confirmation could be deeply convincing, yet without an objective anchor, it may be an emotional response or self-deception rather than a true divine experience.

Addressing Theological Responses

Theological Responses

1. The Role of Faith in Confirming Belief

Theologians might argue that faith itself is not meant to be validated by objective evidence alone but is an act of trust beyond what is seen or proven. According to this view, subjective confirmation by the Holy Spirit serves as a unique spiritual assurance that surpasses intellectual or empirical analysis, aligning with passages like Hebrews 11:1, which describes faith as the “substance of things hoped for” and a means to connect with the divine beyond ordinary evidence.

2. The Uniqueness of the Holy Spirit’s Witness

Some theologians may contend that the Holy Spirit’s confirmation is uniquely distinguishable from psychological self-deception because it produces lasting transformation in the believer’s life. Unlike fleeting emotional experiences, the Holy Spirit’s influence is said to lead to genuine moral and spiritual change, fostering qualities like love, peace, and self-control that self-deception would unlikely sustain over time, thus differentiating it from mere emotional or psychological phenomena.

3. Discernment Through Scriptural Consistency

A theological response could emphasize the role of scriptural discernment as a method to verify spiritual experiences. While interpretations vary, theologians argue that consistent scriptural principles can serve as a guide to determine whether experiences align with God’s character as depicted in the Bible. They might maintain that believers are encouraged to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) and that spiritual discernment combined with scripture can help distinguish divine encounters from deceptive spirits or psychological influences.

4. The Transformational Power of the Holy Spirit as Evidence

Theologians might also argue that the transformative power of the Holy Spirit provides indirect evidence of its authenticity. They could point out that believers who feel confirmed by the Holy Spirit often experience profound changes in values, lifestyle, and worldview that are uncommon without such experiences. This kind of inner transformation is presented as a powerful indicator that the experience is more than self-deception or suggestion but rather evidence of genuine spiritual influence.

5. Acknowledgment of Mystery in Faith

Lastly, theologians may accept that some aspects of divine confirmation will remain mysterious and unknowable by human standards. They might argue that faith, by nature, embraces an element of mystery and the unknown, requiring trust in God rather than reliance on empirical standards. From this perspective, believers are encouraged to accept that subjective experience is a legitimate part of their faith journey, not needing exhaustive validation by external standards.

Counter-Responses

Response to 1: The Role of Faith in Confirming Belief

Faith, when detached from objective verification, is a poor foundation for discerning truth. It permits any belief to feel justified, regardless of accuracy, leading believers to hold convictions based solely on internal feelings or desires rather than actual evidence. Without reliable evidence, faith is easily manipulated to affirm illusions, deceptive practices, or contradictory claims. In short, faith as a method is inappropriate for rational minds because it lacks safeguards against error, offering no reliable means to distinguish truth from fiction.

Response to 2: The Uniqueness of the Holy Spirit’s Witness

The claim that the Holy Spirit uniquely transforms lives is indistinguishable from the effects of self-delusion or social influence. Transformation, no matter how profound, can be achieved through a variety of psychological and communal mechanisms, from secular therapy to meditation practices in non-Christian religions. If transformation can be equally attributed to secular or psychological sources, then it cannot logically serve as evidence of divine influence, making the Holy Spirit’s “witness” no more reliable than personal bias or social conditioning.

Response to 3: Discernment Through Scriptural Consistency

Reliance on scriptural consistency for discernment fails to provide any objective standard because scriptures are subject to wide-ranging interpretations as evidenced in the many Christian denominations. Believers are left with little more than personal or communal preferences, none of which can be tested or validated beyond their own circles. This approach is weak in its circularity—aligning a feeling with one’s own interpretation of scripture does not prove divine truth; it simply confirms bias and fails to establish any consistent or universal criteria for verification.

Response to 4: The Transformational Power of the Holy Spirit as Evidence

The assertion that transformation validates divine influence ignores the fact that similar changes occur in countless secular or non-Christian contexts. Believers attribute change to the Holy Spirit, but people in all walks of life, including atheists, undergo profound personal development without invoking supernatural explanations. If transformation can equally be produced through secular or psychological means, then it is inadequate as proof of divine activity, showing faith-based validation to be unreliable.

Response to 5: Acknowledgment of Mystery in Faith

Appealing to mystery is often a tactic to evade rational scrutiny and justify unverified beliefs. Invoking mystery as a defense for faith leaves believers with no standard to distinguish between real and imagined experiences, offering no reliable path to knowledge. Far from being an acceptable approach, embracing mystery without question hinders the search for truth, as it discourages critical inquiry and allows for any belief to be held with equal conviction, regardless of its foundation in reality. This makes faith an inferior and dangerous way of knowing, as it rests on unverifiable assumptions rather than concrete evidence.

Clarifications

This section will highlight the intrinsic circularity in believing one can reliably distinguish between an honest spirit (e.g., the Holy Spirit) and a deceptive spirit through subjective or mental means.

1. Basic Assumptions and Variables

Define the key terms and symbols:

$H$ = Honest spirit (e.g., the Holy Spirit)
$D$ = Deceptive spirit (a spirit capable of presenting itself as honest)
$C$ = Personal subjective confirmation or feeling (belief in the honest nature of the spirit)
$R$ = Reliable discernment, an ability to distinguish honest from deceptive spirits accurately

2. The Circularity in Subjective Confirmation

Premise 1: An individual trusts that their confirmation ( $C$ ) of the spirit’s honesty is reliable, which they believe indicates $R$ .

In symbolic terms:

$C \rightarrow R$ (If personal confirmation occurs, then reliable discernment is assumed.)

Premise 2: However, $D$ is defined as a deceptive entity that can induce the same confirmation $C$ as $H$ .

In symbolic terms:

$D \rightarrow C$ (A deceptive spirit can also produce the feeling of confirmation.)

3. Conflicting Confirmation Sources

Premise 3: If both $H$ and $D$ can produce $C$ , then $C$ does not guarantee that $R$ exists.

In symbolic terms:

$(H \vee D) \rightarrow C$ (Either an honest or deceptive spirit can lead to confirmation.)

Conclusion 1: Therefore, $C$ is insufficient to establish $R$ .

4. Circularity of Assumed Reliable Discernment

Premise 4: To distinguish $H$ from $D$ , one must already possess $R$ .

In symbolic terms:

$R \rightarrow (C \land \neg D)$ (Reliable discernment would mean that one’s confirmation is not influenced by a deceptive spirit.)

Premise 5: However, $R$ is only assumed based on $C$ , which is already vulnerable to deception.

$C \rightarrow R$ (Subjective confirmation is assumed to imply reliable discernment.)

5. Intrinsic Circularity

From the premises:

Premise 4 requires $R$ to reliably conclude $H$ rather than $D$ .
Premise 5 assumes $C$ implies $R$ .

This creates circular reasoning because $R$ (the very thing needed to confirm the spirit’s honesty) is assumed based on $C$ without independent verification.

6. Final Conclusion

Since $C$ can equally result from $H$ or $D$ , subjective confirmation ( $C$ ) cannot confirm $R$ or accurately distinguish $H$ from $D$ .

In symbolic terms:

$(C \rightarrow R) \land ((H \vee D) \rightarrow C) \Rightarrow C \text{ does not confirm } R$

This demonstrates that relying on $C$ for $R$ inherently fails, as $C$ cannot confirm whether $R$ is genuine or just an effect of $D$ , exposing the circularity of subjective discernment in distinguishing an honest spirit from a deceptive one.

A Comprehensive Critique of Biblical Methods to “Test the Spirits”

The Bible, in 1 John 4:1, commands believers to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God,” presenting the need for discernment in spiritual matters. Various biblical criteria are offered for this process, including the following:

Confession of Jesus Christ
Consistency with Scripture
Guidance from the Holy Spirit
Fruits of the Spirit.

While these methods aim to provide believers with reliable tools for discernment, a closer critical examination reveals significant logical flaws, circular reasoning, and internal contradictions that undermine their epistemic validity.

1. The Flaws in “Confession of Jesus Christ” as a Test

1 John 4:2-3 posits that “every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,” suggesting that confession of Christ is the litmus test for spiritual authenticity. At first glance, this seems like a clear and simple standard. However, this criterion collapses under scrutiny due to its insufficiency and inconsistency.

Matthew 7:21-23 starkly undermines this test. In this passage, Jesus declares that not everyone who calls Him “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, even if they perform miracles and prophesy in His name. This directly contradicts the idea that mere verbal confession is enough to validate a spirit’s authenticity. If individuals can openly confess Jesus and still be deceived or rejected, then confession alone becomes an unreliable and misleading metric.

Furthermore, this test fails to account for insincerity or deceptive confessions. False teachers and manipulators can easily profess Christ while promoting harmful ideologies. The reliance on verbal affirmation ignores deeper epistemic questions about the truthfulness or intent behind such confessions, rendering the method both shallow and susceptible to exploitation.

Logical Formulation

Let’s define the following propositions:

C(x): x confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.
T(x): x is a true spirit (from God).
F(x): x is a false spirit (not from God).
A(x): x performs acts in Jesus’ name (e.g., prophesying, miracles).
R(x): x is rejected by Jesus.

1. The Confession Criterion (as per 1 John 4:2-3):

This criterion suggests:

P1: $\forall x [C(x) \rightarrow T(x)]$
If any entity confesses Jesus Christ, then it is a true spirit.

2. The Contradiction from Matthew 7:21-23:

However, Matthew 7:21-23 presents cases where entities confess Jesus and even perform acts in His name but are still rejected:

P2: $\exists x [C(x) \land A(x) \land R(x)]$
There exists at least one entity that confesses Jesus, performs acts in His name, yet is rejected.
P3: $\forall x [R(x) \rightarrow F(x)]$
If an entity is rejected by Jesus, it is a false spirit.

3. The Logical Inconsistency:

Combining P1, P2, and P3 leads to a contradiction:

From P2, we have an entity x where $C(x)$ is true, but $R(x)$ is also true.
From P3, $R(x) \rightarrow F(x)$ , so this entity is a false spirit.
From P1, $C(x) \rightarrow T(x)$ , indicating the same entity is a true spirit.

This leads to:

$C(x) \rightarrow T(x)$ (from P1)
$R(x) \rightarrow F(x)$ and $R(x)$ holds (from P2 and P3)
Therefore, x is both and , which violates the Law of Non-Contradiction:
- $\neg \exists x [T(x) \land F(x)]$ (No entity can be both a true and a false spirit simultaneously.)

4. Conclusion:

Since P1 (the confession test) leads to a contradiction when considered alongside P2 and P3, the logical conclusion is:

¬P1: $\neg \forall x [C(x) \rightarrow T(x)]$
It is not true that all who confess Jesus are necessarily true spirits.

This formalizes the flaw in the “Confession of Jesus Christ” test, demonstrating that it cannot serve as a consistent or reliable criterion for discerning true spirits.

2. The Circularity of “Consistency with Scripture”

Another common method to test the spirits is to measure their message against Scripture. This seems logical on the surface, offering an external standard. Yet this criterion suffers from a crippling circularity problem, especially when interpreted within the broader Christian framework that relies on the Holy Spirit for proper scriptural understanding.

Believers are often taught that the Holy Spirit guides them in interpreting Scripture correctly. But this raises an epistemic dilemma: if one must depend on the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture, how can one then use Scripture to test whether the guiding spirit is indeed the Holy Spirit? This forms a hermeneutic circle, where the interpreter depends on the very thing being tested to validate the test itself.

Moreover, the reliance on Scripture is further weakened by the plurality of interpretations among Christian denominations. Each claims the guidance of the Holy Spirit, yet they arrive at vastly different conclusions on essential doctrines—from salvation and baptism to eschatology. This doctrinal fragmentation exposes the subjectivity inherent in using Scripture as a test, especially when the interpretive key (the Holy Spirit) is unverifiable.

Logical Formulation

Let’s define the following propositions:

S(x): x is consistent with Scripture.
T(x): x is a true spirit (from God).
H(y): y is guided by the Holy Spirit.
I(y, x): y interprets Scripture x.
V(y): y is a valid interpretation of Scripture.

1. The Consistency with Scripture Criterion:

The biblical model suggests that to test a spirit, one must evaluate whether it aligns with Scripture:

P1: $\forall x [S(x) \rightarrow T(x)]$
If a spirit is consistent with Scripture, then it is a true spirit.

However, Scripture itself must be interpreted correctly, and Christians claim that the Holy Spirit guides this interpretation:

P2: $\forall y \forall x [H(y) \land I(y, x) \rightarrow V(y)]$
If a person y is guided by the Holy Spirit and interprets Scripture x, then the interpretation is valid.

2. The Circularity Problem:

To evaluate whether a spirit is consistent with Scripture, the interpreter must rely on an accurate understanding of Scripture. But that understanding is, by doctrine, only possible through the Holy Spirit’s guidance. This creates a circular dependency:

To test a spirit ( $T(x)$ ), one needs an interpretation ( $V(y)$ ).
To have a valid interpretation ( $V(y)$ ), one must be guided by the Holy Spirit ( $H(y)$ ).
To verify the guidance of the Holy Spirit ( $H(y)$ ), one must test the spirit ( $T(x)$ ).

This leads to a logical loop:

P3: $T(x) \leftrightarrow H(y)$
A true spirit is verified only through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which itself needs validation.

3. Logical Inconsistency:

This creates epistemic circularity, where the validation of a spirit depends on itself:

From P1: $S(x) \rightarrow T(x)$
From P2: $H(y) \land I(y, x) \rightarrow V(y)$
From P3: $T(x) \leftrightarrow H(y)$

This results in:

To validate $T(x)$ , you need $H(y)$ .
To validate $H(y)$ , you need $T(x)$ .

This circular reasoning violates the principle of epistemic independence, which requires that the validity of a test should not depend on the outcome it seeks to verify.

4. Conclusion:

The “Consistency with Scripture” criterion is undermined by its circular logic:

¬P1: $\neg \forall x [S(x) \rightarrow T(x)]$
It is not true that consistency with Scripture alone reliably identifies true spirits.

Since proper interpretation of Scripture depends on the very guidance it seeks to validate, the process becomes self-referential and logically flawed, invalidating it as a reliable method for testing the spirits.

3. The Self-Referential Problem in “Guidance from the Holy Spirit”

Appealing directly to the Holy Spirit for discernment in testing the spirits introduces one of the most profound epistemic flaws: circular reasoning. The premise here is that the Holy Spirit will guide believers into all truth (John 16:13), ensuring they can accurately identify false spirits. But this method is deeply self-referential and lacks any external verification.

The core issue is this: How does one know the spirit guiding them is indeed the Holy Spirit? If the answer is that the Holy Spirit confirms His own presence, the argument becomes viciously circular. It is akin to trusting a stranger simply because they claim to be trustworthy. Without an independent, falsifiable means of verification, the guidance of the Holy Spirit remains an unprovable assumption rather than a reliable method of discernment.

This issue becomes even more problematic when considering that countless individuals from conflicting religious traditions claim spiritual guidance—Muslims may claim the guidance of Allah, Hindus might speak of divine intuition, and New Age adherents may refer to spiritual energies. Without a way to objectively distinguish the Holy Spirit’s guidance from other spiritual or psychological experiences, the method collapses into subjectivity and personal bias.

Logical Formulation

Let’s define the following propositions:

H(x): x is guided by the Holy Spirit.
T(x): x is a true spirit (from God).
V(H(x)): The guidance by the Holy Spirit in x is valid.
G(x): x is able to discern spirits correctly.

1. The Guidance from the Holy Spirit Criterion:

The biblical model suggests that discernment of spirits relies on guidance from the Holy Spirit:

P1: $\forall x [H(x) \rightarrow G(x)]$
If someone is guided by the Holy Spirit, then they can correctly discern spirits.

To discern whether a spirit is true, the person relies on their capacity to discern:

P2: $\forall x [G(x) \rightarrow T(x)]$
If someone can correctly discern spirits, then they can identify a true spirit.

2. The Self-Referential Problem:

The core issue arises when trying to verify whether the guidance one receives is indeed from the Holy Spirit:

To know that one is guided by the Holy Spirit ( $H(x)$ ), one must have the ability to correctly discern ( $G(x)$ ).
To have the ability to discern ( $G(x)$ ), one must already be guided by the Holy Spirit ( $H(x)$ ).

This creates a self-referential loop:

P3: $H(x) \leftrightarrow G(x)]$
One is guided by the Holy Spirit if and only if they can correctly discern spirits.

3. Logical Inconsistency:

Combining P1, P2, and P3 leads to a vicious circle:

From P1: $H(x) \rightarrow G(x)]$
From P2: $G(x) \rightarrow T(x)]$
From P3: $H(x) \leftrightarrow G(x)]$

This results in the following dependency:

To confirm $H(x)]$ , one needs $G(x)]$ .
To confirm $G(x)]$ , one needs $H(x)]$ .

This is an example of epistemic circularity, where the truth of a proposition depends on itself for validation, violating the principle of non-circular justification.

4. Conclusion:

The “Guidance from the Holy Spirit” criterion fails due to its self-referential nature:

¬P1: $\neg \forall x [H(x) \rightarrow G(x)]$
It is not necessarily true that guidance by the Holy Spirit leads to correct discernment of spirits.

Without an external, falsifiable means to verify whether guidance is genuinely from the Holy Spirit, this method becomes epistemically invalid, rendering it unreliable for testing the spirits.

4. The Non-Exclusivity Problem in “Fruits of the Spirit”

The final commonly proposed test involves evaluating whether a spirit produces the Fruits of the Spirit—traits like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and self-control as outlined in Galatians 5:22-23. The assumption is that only the Holy Spirit can cultivate these virtues in a person’s life, thereby serving as a sign of authenticity.

However, this criterion falters due to its non-exclusivity and subjectivity. Non-believers, including atheists and adherents of other religions, frequently display these very same virtues—often without any belief in the Holy Spirit. Acts of kindness, self-control, and patience are common human behaviors not confined to Christianity. If these fruits are observable in people who do not claim the Holy Spirit, then they cannot serve as definitive evidence of His influence.

Additionally, assessing the presence of these fruits is highly subjective. People may differ in their evaluations of what constitutes “true” love or “genuine” kindness. Some might argue that a Christian’s love is superior because it’s divinely inspired, but this is an unfalsifiable claim. Moreover, Matthew 7:15-20 warns that false prophets may appear righteous but can be identified by their fruits—yet this only deepens the confusion. If false prophets can display seemingly good fruits, then the reliability of this test is further compromised.

Logical Formulation

Let’s define the following propositions:

F(x): x exhibits the Fruits of the Spirit (e.g., love, joy, peace, etc.).
T(x): x is a true spirit (from God).
N(x): x is a non-believer (does not follow or acknowledge the Holy Spirit).
B(x): x is a believer (guided by the Holy Spirit).
E(F(x)): x exhibits ethical or virtuous behavior.

1. The Fruits of the Spirit Criterion:

The biblical model suggests that exhibiting the Fruits of the Spirit is evidence of a true spirit:

P1: $\forall x [F(x) \rightarrow T(x)]$
If someone exhibits the Fruits of the Spirit, then they are guided by a true spirit.

This assumes that such fruits are exclusive to those influenced by the Holy Spirit.

2. The Non-Exclusivity Problem:

However, non-believers often exhibit the same virtues listed as the Fruits of the Spirit, leading to the following propositions:

P2: $\exists x [N(x) \land F(x)]$
There exists at least one non-believer who exhibits the Fruits of the Spirit.
P3: $\forall x [B(x) \rightarrow F(x)]$
All believers should exhibit the Fruits of the Spirit.

The issue arises when non-believers also exhibit these fruits, undermining the exclusivity implied by P1.

3. Logical Inconsistency:

Combining P1 and P2 results in a contradiction:

From P1, if $F(x)$ holds, then $T(x)$ must also hold.
From P2, there exists an $x$ such that $N(x) \land F(x)]$ is true, meaning a non-believer exhibits the fruits.
Therefore, by P1, this non-believer would be considered a true spirit ( $T(x)]$ ), contradicting the definition that only those guided by the Holy Spirit can be true spirits.

This violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, as it leads to:

$N(x) \land T(x)]$ (A non-believer is also considered a true spirit), which is logically inconsistent.

4. Conclusion:

The “Fruits of the Spirit” criterion fails due to its lack of exclusivity:

¬P1: $\neg \forall x [F(x) \rightarrow T(x)]$
It is not true that exhibiting the Fruits of the Spirit necessarily indicates a true spirit.

Since non-believers can and do exhibit these virtues, the Fruits of the Spirit cannot serve as a reliable or exclusive method for testing the spirits, rendering the criterion epistemically weak and logically inconsistent.

Conclusion: The Inadequacy of Biblical Tests for Spiritual Discernment

Upon rigorous analysis, each of the four proposed biblical methods for “testing the spirits”—Confession of Jesus Christ, Consistency with Scripture, Guidance from the Holy Spirit, and Fruits of the Spirit—fails to provide a logically coherent, objective, and non-circular standard for discernment.

Confession is undermined by scriptural contradictions and the potential for deceptive or insincere professions.
Consistency with Scripture collapses under the weight of circular reasoning and interpretive subjectivity.
Guidance from the Holy Spirit relies on unverifiable internal experiences, creating a self-referential loop.
Fruits of the Spirit fail due to their non-exclusivity and the subjective nature of evaluating virtues.

Collectively, these flaws reveal that the biblical framework for spiritual discernment is epistemically unsound. It offers no reliable means for believers to confidently “test the spirits” without falling into logical fallacies, circular reasoning, and subjective interpretation. In the end, this framework leaves adherents vulnerable to self-deception, confirmation bias, and doctrinal fragmentation, ultimately undermining the very purpose it seeks to serve.

Other Considerations:

10 responses to “#08 ✓ Consider: Is the confirmation of the Holy Spirit distinguishable from an evil demon or psychological self-deception?”

Andrew Bernhardt

April 25, 2025

You can tell if something is of the Holy Spirit by testing it on a case-by-case basis, comparing it to the character and results of the Spirit’s work in the Bible. The Spirit works to glorify Christ, grant repentance and faith to sinners, and make believers more like Christ in character. The Spirit does not draw attention to itself.

I wrote a somewhat lengthy blog post on this years ago. It’s at: https://dtjsoft.com/the-work-of-the-holy-spirit/.

Reply
1. Phil Stilwell
  
  April 25, 2025
  Your article, “The Work of the Holy Spirit,” is thoughtful and well-structured, aiming to guide believers in distinguishing the Spirit’s work from human emotion or deception. However, if your goal is to offer a reliable method for discerning the divine, then the framework you propose deserves much more scrutiny. You offer criteria like alignment with Scripture, the production of spiritual fruit, and character resemblance to Jesus as tests for authenticity. But these criteria rest on assumptions and epistemic structures that are neither objective nor logically defensible.
  
  Let me offer you some questions and reflections that might help expose the limits of the approach you’ve taken—and challenge you to assess whether the methods you recommend are truly up to the task of distinguishing between the Holy Spirit, an evil spirit, or psychological self-deception.
  
  ◉ 1. You Rely on Subjective Feelings to Confirm Reliable Discernment
  
  You assume that personal conviction—what you call the “inner witness” of the Spirit—is a valid guide to truth. But you don’t seem to recognize that this is the exact tool deceptive spirits or psychological projections would use to imitate confirmation. If both God and a deceiver can produce the exact same inner conviction, then that feeling can’t distinguish one from the other.
  
  Ask yourself:
  If a deceptive spirit can produce the same sense of certainty as the Holy Spirit, how can you ever know which you’re experiencing?
  Are you not assuming your own ability to detect deception without any test that could independently confirm it?
  
  ◉ 2. You Ignore the Cross-Religious Equivalence Problem
  
  You cite feelings of peace, conviction, and spiritual transformation as evidence of the Holy Spirit’s work. But Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even New Age adherents report identical experiences. They too feel divine peace, guidance, and conviction—yet they attribute it to different gods or forces.
  
  Ask yourself:
  If members of conflicting religions feel the same emotional confirmation, are they all experiencing God? Or are you privileging your feelings simply because they affirm your beliefs?
  What makes your subjective experience of the Holy Spirit more reliable than someone else’s experience of Krishna, Allah, or universal consciousness?
  
  ◉ 3. Your Use of Scripture as a Discernment Tool Collapses into Circularity
  
  You suggest we test spirits by comparing their messages to Scripture. But how are we to interpret Scripture? You say the Holy Spirit helps us understand it. So now, your discernment of the Spirit depends on Scripture, and your interpretation of Scripture depends on the Spirit. That’s a closed loop with no independent anchor.
  
  Ask yourself:
  How do you escape circularity when you use Scripture to verify the Spirit, and the Spirit to interpret Scripture?
  How can you claim this method works when thousands of Christian denominations, each guided by the same Spirit and Bible, arrive at contradictory conclusions?
  
  ◉ 4. Fruits Are Non-Exclusive and Subjective
  
  You propose that the fruits of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, etc.—demonstrate the Spirit’s presence. But atheists and people of every faith tradition regularly exhibit these traits. And when you invoke bad fruit as proof that someone is not Spirit-led, that simply confirms what you already believe about them.
  
  Ask yourself:
  If moral and emotional fruit is found equally in non-Christians, why treat it as a divine fingerprint?
  Are you using “fruit” as a genuine test, or as a post hoc confirmation of what you already suspect?
  
  ◉ 5. You Avoid the Implications of Circular Confirmation
  
  When you say things like “the Spirit will never contradict the character of God,” how do you know what God’s character is? You cite Scripture, but again, it is your interpretation of that Scripture, allegedly guided by the Spirit, that defines what is or isn’t of God. This is a textbook case of epistemic circularity.
  
  Ask yourself:
  If you’re using the Spirit to verify itself, how is this any different from someone saying, “I know I’m right because I feel right”?
  If the Spirit confirms itself subjectively, and the only confirmation you have is internal, then how do you know you’re not being deceived?
  
  ◉ 6. Your Tests Cannot Falsify False Positives
  
  In your article, there’s no method offered that could falsify a belief about the Spirit. Everything—from emotions to doctrinal alignment to spiritual fruit—can be interpreted in ways that keep your belief intact no matter what happens.
  
  Ask yourself:
  If you’re never open to the possibility that your spiritual conviction could be wrong, then are you genuinely testing—or merely reaffirming?
  What would a falsifiable test look like, one that could demonstrate that what you experienced was not the Holy Spirit?
  
  ◉ 7. You Underestimate the Psychological Power of Suggestion
  
  You mention people falling over, laughing uncontrollably, or experiencing visions. You note that not all of this is from God. But you don’t seriously entertain that all of it could be human psychology, shaped by expectancy, suggestion, and cultural context. Studies show that humans can be made to feel “spiritual” or “connected to God” in purely secular settings. This is an essential challenge—yet you largely bypass it.
  
  Ask yourself:
  If identical religious experiences can be triggered by suggestion, communal reinforcement, or neurochemical responses, how do you determine yours is supernatural?
  Would you be willing to doubt the supernatural nature of your experience if a non-supernatural explanation accounted for it more parsimoniously?
  
  ◉ Final Challenge
  
  You repeatedly urge your readers to “test the spirits,” yet your method does not permit meaningful failure. The tests are either subjective (feelings), circular (scripture interpreted by the spirit), or non-exclusive (fruit found in non-believers). If your approach cannot rule out deceptive spirits, psychological projection, or cultural conditioning, then it cannot confirm the Holy Spirit either.
  
  Until you address these epistemic vulnerabilities head-on, your framework encourages believers to confuse certainty with truth, and personal conviction with divine revelation. You owe it to your audience—and to yourself—to ask the harder questions:
  
  Can your method ever produce the conclusion that the voice you’re hearing or the conviction you feel is not from God?
  
  If not, is it truly a “test” or just a self-reinforcing belief loop?
  
  And if an evil spirit wanted to pass as the Holy Spirit, would your current methods be able to catch it?
  
  Because if the answer is no, then your system is not a path to truth—it’s a recipe for confusion, misattribution, and spiritual vulnerability.
  Reply
  1. Andrew Bernhardt
    
    April 28, 2025
    
    Thank you for responding quickly and in an orderly way. My somewhat autistic side appreciates that.
    
    (1) I never said personal conviction is a guide to truth. That’s a very poor guide. Truth is objective and must be discovered, not felt. Biblical truth can only be discovered through careful study of the scriptures. That means paying close attention to the meanings of words and the context, while identifying and avoiding personal biases, assumptions, and desires for a particular meaning as much as possible. Many or most Christians don’t study the Bible in this way, and hence there are many subjective interpretations. But just because there are many subjective interpretations doesn’t mean there is no real objective meaning (just as many wrong answers to “2 + 2” doesn’t mean there’s no right answer). Bible study is about finding the objective truth, independent of what I or someone else wants the scriptures to mean.
    
    Once the truth is known, the Spirit applies the meaning to the heart, sometimes resulting in conviction. Conviction is not about determining the meaning of scripture, but about the Spirit’s application of that meaning (once it is known) to one’s own life. For example, in Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus said lusting after a woman is the same as adultery. That’s a direct statement that does not allow me to interpret it any way I like. But knowing what Jesus meant is not conviction. Conviction is when the Spirit applies what Jesus said to my life, saying “You just committed adultery because you lusted after a woman,” making me aware of my guilt. Conviction describes my response to the truth, not how I determine what is the truth.
    
    (2) Feelings of peace (or any other emotion) is not evidence of the Holy Spirit. I said the opposite. I said “the Holy Spirit’s work is not identified through a particular feeling or emotion. Satan can produce in us convincing feelings of closeness with God.”
    
    As I said in (1), conviction has to do with personal conviction of sin, not conviction of what is true.
    
    “Spiritual transformation” can be good or bad. The kind of transformation is what makes the difference. Biblical sanctification is developing a greater likeness to Jesus Christ (as His eyewitnesses described Him in the New Testament). I don’t doubt people of other religions have improved their lives in some way: they are more loving, they have more inner peace, and so on. But it means nothing without a greater likeness to Christ and a closer walk with Him. An improved life is not the goal. A closer personal relationship and fellowship with Jesus Christ is the goal.
    
    (3) Interpretation of scripture is accomplished the same as interpretation of any other book: read it in context and understand the meanings of words.
    
    Context includes literary context (what is said before and after a passage, what the theme of the book is, etc), historical and cultural context (what were the current events or issues the people were dealing with? what kind of idioms did they use? etc), who is being written or spoken to (an individual? a specific people? man in general? the righteous? the wicked? etc), and which covenant the passage is written under/about (i.e. the old covenant through Moses? the new covenant through Jesus? etc). Most errors of interpretation come about by ignoring one or more of these contextual elements.
    
    The meanings of words are important and must be what the original language words mean. There is not a one-for-one correspondence between all Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek and English words, so translations don’t always carry the full original meanings across. This is where lexicons and context come in handy.
    
    It’s also important to recognize it’s easy to allow foreign ideas from other religions and popular culture to influence your understanding of the Bible. A word can have one meaning in one religion, and another meaning in another religion. For example, in the Bible “meditation” means thinking about something: analyzing it with your mind so you can understand it. In eastern religions it has the opposite meaning. In most religions, faith is belief without evidence. In Christianity, it is trust in God because one has seen the evidence. (God never demands faith without evidence. He provides evidence, and it’s our responsibility to investigate it without prejudice one way or the other.)
    
    (4) The fruits of the Spirit go beyond their worldly or other religion equivalents. They come from God and match His character. Love, for example, is selfless love even for one’s enemies, to the point of being willing and happy if needed to die for them, even when they are still violently antagonistic to you. Joy is joy that is completely unexplainable by one’s circumstance, even in opposition to one’s personality, and nothing or no one can take it away. Peace is the calm assurance from outside yourself that you are right with God. And so on.
    
    None of these are natural, learned, or somehow worked up by yourself. They don’t come about by trying to be more loving, fostering a peaceful mindset, trying to be more patient, etc. They are not learned as they are in other religions and philosophies. They often appear suddenly in people who have a completely opposite personality. For example, while Mike Arnold was still an outspoken atheist, he noticed an immediate and significant change in his agnostic girlfriend when she became a Christian. For months he was very angry and argumentative against her, but she always responded patiently, out of her usual character. This was not something she learned or forced herself to do. It was something the Holy Spirit worked in her immediately. (https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/the-side-b-podcast-mike-arnold/)
    
    (5) God’s character is discovered through Bible study (again, context/meanings of words, etc). In some cases, God directly says what He loves or hates (Zechariah 8:17). In most cases you can easily discover His character by what He commands (don’t murder, don’t steal, obey parents, etc) and by what He does to those who obey Him or disobey Him (i.e. blesses or punishes).
    
    For example, Malachi 2:16 says God hates “putting away”. The context (in verses 14-15) shows He was speaking of divorce. By this we understand God want spouses to stay together, to get along, and to love each other. That’s a reflection of His character. (The only reason God allowed divorce in the Law was because of our hard-heartedness – Matthew 19:8.) The character of God is something that is evident through objective study, not personal interpretation.
    
    (6) What I wrote was not an apologetic on the Spirit. It wasn’t meant to convince someone that the Holy Spirit is real. It was written to believers.
    
    If you need to be convinced the Bible is true, there is plenty of evidence in that area. One way of testing and seeing the objective evidence is given in my book: Fifty-Five Questions For Skeptics (https://dtjsoft.com/other/55questions.pdf). It’s a workbook where you prove or disprove a modern-day fulfillment of prophecy on your own using whatever means you want rather than have the answers fed to you.
    
    (7) Maybe these things can be explained through human psychology or maybe through supernatural influence. The point is, whatever the source, there is no Holy Spirit explanation, as these “manifestations” do not match how the Bible records the Holy Spirit working (i.e. the character and results). The test for truth is not based on personal experience, but on whether a manifestation matches the doctrine, character and results of the work of the Holy Spirit recorded in the Bible.
    
    (Final Challenge) I gave plenty of examples of how to test if something is of the Holy Spirit in the “Character” and “Results” sections of my original link. They are not based on feelings or a subjective interpretation of the scriptures. They are based on the meaning of scriptures discovered through objective Bible study. The more familiar you are with what the Bible actually teaches, the easier it is to discern between “deceptive spirits, psychological projection, or cultural conditioning,” and the real working of the Holy Spirit. In-depth study is the key. It is by that that you learn what God has already said so you can test what you think God is saying to you at the moment. Don’t use the methods and standards other religious use to test the spirits. Everything is tested by how God has already revealed Himself in the Bible. (And what He’s already said can be tested through historical evidence and fulfilled prophecy.)
    
    Reply
Phil Stilwell

April 28, 2025
Andrew, I would like to ask you, in light of your emphasis on objective methods, to carry this further by making a clear and explicit list:

Could you please list the specific, detectable ways by which you claim the Spirit of the God of the Universe can be reliably detected and differentiated from (a) psychological phenomena and (b) lying or deceptive spirits?

Please aim to outline:
- 1. The observable criteria that would allow even a careful outsider (not relying on pre-assumed theological commitments) to distinguish a genuine case.
- 2. How each criterion can be shown to not be equally satisfied by purely psychological mechanisms or deceptive spirits skilled in mimicry.
In other words:
What specific “external signs” or “internal transformations” can be observed or tested that would be uniquely and exclusively attributable to the Holy Spirit, and not plausibly produced by
— the mind’s own emotional needs,
— cultural suggestion,
— confirmation bias,
— or malevolent supernatural deception (which your theology acknowledges is possible)?

This would go a long way toward clarifying whether the model you propose actually permits objective falsifiability, or whether it remains epistemically vulnerable to the concerns raised.

Would you be willing to create such a list?

In addition, several fundamental epistemic weaknesses still pervade your response, and I believe these deserve focused attention.

1. You Continue to Assume Objective Bible Interpretation Is Achievable Without Independent Validation

You insist that “objective” Bible interpretation can be achieved through “contextual” and “word-based” study, paralleling it with mathematical truth (e.g., 2+2=4). However, this comparison is flawed.
Mathematical propositions are universally verifiable by replicable logical operations. Biblical interpretation, by contrast, depends on understanding ancient cultures, evolving language usage, unclear authorial intent, multiple manuscript traditions, and significant gaps in historical knowledge.
Even among highly skilled scholars employing the methods you describe, enormous doctrinal variance remains.
Thus, you assume an objectivity that, in practice, fails the test of replicable independent validation — the very hallmark of objectivity.

➔ Problem: You assert objective interpretation without demonstrating that your interpretive methods consistently yield convergent, reproducible results across unbiased interpreters.
➔ Implication: Without such convergence, your method remains subjective in practice, even if well-intentioned.

2. You Redefine Fruits of the Spirit in Ways that Are Unverifiable and Non-Falsifiable

You claim that the “love” and “peace” from the Holy Spirit are categorically different — being selfless, joyfully sacrificial, and unexplainable by circumstance.
Yet there is no objective, reproducible test to verify that someone’s love or peace arises supernaturally rather than psychologically. Many non-Christians exhibit extraordinary sacrificial love, unexpected joy, and perseverance under suffering, without attributing it to your God.

➔ Problem: You make qualitative claims about the uniqueness of Christian virtues without demonstrating clear, measurable differentiators.
➔ Implication: These characterizations collapse into post hoc reinterpretations of common human virtues rather than constituting testable evidence of divine origin.

3. You Do Not Resolve the Circularity Between Bible Study and Spiritual Discernment

You repeat that proper Bible study will lead to correct understanding of God’s character, thus allowing true discernment. But how do you know when you have correctly understood the Bible?
You answer: by its match to the Spirit’s work and God’s character — which you know from the Bible.
The circle remains unbroken.

➔ Problem: You offer no way to independently verify that your interpretation is God’s interpretation rather than personal preference, psychological projection, or external deception.
➔ Implication: Your system lacks an independent external checkpoint, meaning it can neither falsify error nor protect against self-confirming bias.

4. You Do Not Seriously Address the Cross-Religious Equivalence Problem

Although you briefly acknowledge that emotional experiences occur across religions, you handwave this by emphasizing likeness to Christ as the distinguishing feature.
Yet you do not show that “likeness to Christ” cannot also be imitated by devout members of other faiths or even secular humanists who value compassion, humility, or nonviolence.

➔ Problem: You assume that Christlikeness is a reliable marker without acknowledging its cross-cultural analogues.
➔ Implication: Thus, your criteria do not actually differentiate Holy Spirit transformation from high-level moral or psychological development available across human societies.

5. You Do Not Provide a Falsifiable Model for Testing the Spirit’s Work

You say that if a manifestation does not match “the character and results” recorded in the Bible, it is not from the Spirit.
But because interpretations of “character” and “results” vary — even among biblical literalists — you have created a standard that can be flexibly reinterpreted to fit outcomes you favor.

➔ Problem: No clear falsification protocol is offered. No outcome would be allowed to decisively prove the Spirit absent.
➔ Implication: Your test is immunized against disconfirmation and therefore epistemically weak. Final Overall Assessment

In short:
- You continue to assume objectivity without demonstrating independently reproducible interpretive results.
- You redefine spiritual fruits in a way that protects your claims from falsifiability rather than exposing them to rigorous testing.
- You leave unresolved the deep circularity between Bible interpretation and discernment of the Spirit.
- You dismiss religious equivalence across cultures without seriously analyzing whether your proposed fruits and experiences are unique.
- You offer no operational criteria by which an outsider could falsify the Spirit hypothesis.
Thus, your method does not genuinely protect you or your audience from the very psychological self-deception or spiritual deception you claim to guard against.

It remains an internal belief-reinforcement system — sincere, perhaps — but epistemically circular and untestable by any neutral standard.
Reply
1. Phil Stilwell
  
  April 28, 2025
  
  (Click image to view a larger version.)
  
  Reply
2. Andrew Bernhardt
  
  May 4, 2025
  The fruit of the spirit is characterized by all of the traits listed in Galatians 5:22-23. The word “fruit” in verse 22 is singular in the original language (Greek καρπός. Plural would be καρπούς). It is not multiple fruits each with a different trait, but one fruit of which all of the traits are true. It’s like saying, “The fruit of a grapefruit tree is somewhat large, round, yellow, citrus, containing furanocoumarins, etc.” If you have some of the traits, but not all of them, then the fruit is not a grapefruit. Someone displaying some of the traits of the fruit of the Spirit but not all of them is not displaying the fruit of the Spirit.
  
  But even if someone from another religion could exhibit all of the traits to their full degree, there’s other aspects of the Holy Spirit’s work that need to be tested. Spiritual fruit’s purpose is not to prove the Holy Spirit is real but to produce the character of Jesus in someone who already believes – who isn’t seeking more evidence.
  
  Fruit used as a test, is not sufficient in itself. There’s other aspects of the Holy Spirit’s work that needs to be tested along with it. For example:
  
  John 15:26, 16:14, 1 Corinthians 12:3 – The Holy Spirit testifies about who Jesus Christ is. He is Lord (i.e. the God of the Old Testament in physical form). Any spirit that says Jesus isn’t Lord is not the Holy Spirit, regardless of the kind of fruit he has.
  
  John 14:26 – The Holy Spirit reminds Jesus’ followers of the things He said. Any spirit that says Jesus said something He didn’t, or presents a “different good news,” is not the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 11:4).
  
  John 16:8-10 – The Holy Spirit convicts non-believers of sin (described as not believing in Jesus). It’s not a message of “You’re okay, I’m okay.”
  
  1 Thessalonians 1:6 – The Holy Spirit brings real joy to those who are persecuted for Jesus (examples in Acts 5:41, 13:50-52, 16:22-25, Hebrews 10:34, 1 Peter 1:6-8).
  
  All of these work together and can serve as tests if a work is of the Holy Spirit. Can you give an example of other religions/evil spirits where all of these are taught or practiced?
  
  You assume people who study the Bible and pay attention to context and word meanings will come up with different interpretations about anything it says. Unbiased Bible study does lead to objective meaning. This can be shown through multiple people studying independently, who then come together to compare results. For the vast majority of topics in the Bible, they will arrive at the same conclusion if only they take into account context and meanings/tenses of words. Any differences would be explainable through missed context or word meanings, or individual presuppositions influencing the study (i.e. adding things that the Bible does not say). (This is not to say that the Bible explains everything. It is always “Go only as far as the Bible says, and go no further.”) Can you give an example where different meanings are derived when paying attention solely to context and work meanings?
  
  I gave some examples in my original link on how to determine if a work is of the Holy Spirit or not. Not all such works would fit in the ‘miracle’ category. Some would be recognized by non-believers as miracles but most would not. My friend Jeff Taguchi witnessed speaking in tongues while he was on a short-term mission trip. He was with his missionary colleague as he conversed with a Korean about Jesus in his native language without having learned that language himself. Jeff didn’t expect this because he was a cessationist – he didn’t believe those kinds of miracles are for today. That would fit into the work-of-the-Holy-Spirit category, not just because it was a miracle, but because it followed the New Testament pattern, pointing the Korean to Jesus. This can’t be explained scientifically because the Korean understood the message. It can’t be explained by deceptive spirits because it works against their goal of preventing someone from believing in Jesus.
  
  Most of the Holy Spirit’s works would not be considered miracles because they don’t involve an overriding of natural laws. Many are in the areas of answered prayer and radical life changes. My stepson lost an important ID card when he left his wallet on a public bus. God absolutely convinced me the ID would be returned when he prayed for it. Normally I avoid blatant predictions like the plague, but because of God’s assurance, I confidently told my stepson to pray for it and it would be returned. I knew it would be. Shortly after, he received the ID in the mail. It didn’t surprise me, but it greatly surprised him (he said it “blew my socks off”). He didn’t realize God answered prayers like that, and it increased his faith. This kind of pre-assured answered prayer has happened to me multiple times. I don’t always get what I pray for, but I always get what I ask for 100% of the time whenever God gives me the assurance beforehand, before there is the slightest indication of the answer. While I know I can’t rely on chance, I do know from experience I can always rely on God.
  
  I don’t know what you mean by “without relying on pre-assumed theological commitments.” Since you also mentioned reproducible testing, perhaps you mean using only scientific methods. I don’t think that will work. You can’t put God in a test tube. Science can’t prove everything. It can’t prove I love my wife or she loves me. It can’t prove it’s morally wrong to molest children, burn my neighbor’s house down, or beat my slaves (if I had any). It’s not that these things can’t be proven. It’s just that other methods must be used in such cases.
  
  Ignoring the fact that he is a fictional character, how could Sherlock Holmes prove or disprove the existence of his author, Arthur Conan Doyle. How could he prove his crime solving ability is his own rather than his author’s? He can’t. However, it would be possible for Mr. Doyle to prove himself to Mr. Holmes by, for example, foretelling some event that would happen later in the story. Likewise, it’s difficult or impossible to prove the Holy Spirit’s actions or existence using some kind of reproducible science experiment. But it’s very easy for it to work the other way around, i.e. for God to prove Himself to an individual who sincerely wants to know. I’ve heard many ex-atheist testimonies, and a large number of them said they came to faith after God revealed Himself to them in an unmistakable way after sincerely they asked Him to.
  
  As far as the question of whether a work is of a deceptive spirit, again, the character and results of the work will tell. A deceptive spirit will not produce the same spiritual fruit or will present a different Jesus than that depicted in the Bible. To do otherwise would run counter to that spirit’s purpose (Matthew 12:22-28).
  Reply
  1. Phil Stilwell
    
    May 4, 2025
    
    I appreciate your effort to articulate your view with clarity, particularly your emphasis on biblical context, the singular nature of spiritual “fruit,” and your attempt to distinguish genuine experiences of the Holy Spirit from both emotionalism and deception. However, several key epistemological concerns remain unresolved or have been deepened in your latest response.
    
    1. Redefining the Problem Rather Than Solving It
    
    You now clarify that fruit is not a proof but a byproduct—yet still invoke it as a test of authenticity. You also mention additional criteria such as right Christology, correct memory of Jesus’ sayings, and transformation that aligns with the Spirit’s New Testament character.
    
    But this doesn’t address the fundamental challenge:
    
    How can these indicators—each of which requires interpretation of scripture, perception of internal change, and doctrinal agreement—be objectively verified and distinguished from psychological self-deception or malevolent mimicry?
    
    You’re no longer simply asserting emotional transformation. You’re now proposing multi-faceted theological discernment—but each facet depends on theological interpretation.
    
    So again:
    If a spirit perfectly mimics doctrinal soundness, produces Christlike character, and causes internal conviction, what is left to differentiate it from the Holy Spirit? Your entire model assumes its conclusion.
    
    2. The Sherlock Holmes Analogy Fails Epistemically
    
    You analogize God proving himself to Doyle’s ability to prove himself to Sherlock. But this analogy fails in an important way: Holmes is fictional and cannot mount an independent test. In the real world, where minds are fallible and subject to illusion, a reliable epistemology must allow for error detection.
    
    If someone claims “God revealed Himself unmistakably,” we must ask:
    
    Could their experience have been internal suggestion?
    
    Could their “unmistakable” moment resemble testimonies of people converted to other gods?
    
    Could it be manufactured by a deceptive spirit whose very skill is mimicking God?
    
    If you lack a way to test against these, your model is unfalsifiable and thus epistemically inert.
    
    3. The “Character and Results” Criterion Remains Circular
    
    You again claim that a deceptive spirit would not promote the true Jesus or exhibit proper spiritual fruit because that would violate its purpose.
    
    But here’s the issue:
    
    That’s exactly what a clever deceiver would do—mimic the very character, results, and doctrinal alignment expected of the Holy Spirit in order to be persuasive.
    
    If the bar for detection is “promotes Jesus as Lord,” then any sufficiently informed spirit (or human projection) can fake that. You’ve essentially designed a test that any competent deceiver could pass—especially when you admit the test depends on interpretive understanding of scripture, which itself is fallible and varied.
    
    4. The Tongues and ID Story Fail as Objective Evidence
    
    Your anecdote of a missionary speaking Korean without prior learning is offered as an unexplainable event, verified by a friend. However:
    
    There is no documentation of the event.
    
    There is no control against fraud, misremembering, or exaggeration.
    
    There is no independent investigation to rule out normal explanations (e.g., partial language knowledge, misunderstanding, wishful memory).
    
    You say this can’t be explained by deceptive spirits because it led to someone hearing about Jesus. But you’ve already defined promoting Jesus as the one thing a deceptive spirit can’t do—thus building a test that excludes contrary data by definition.
    
    The same problem applies to your ID card prayer story. If subjective internal assurance is indistinguishable from confirmation bias, the outcome cannot support the hypothesis of divine action. Otherwise, anyone with strong intuition followed by a positive outcome has just proven their god is real.
    
    5. You Still Do Not Offer a Neutral, Falsifiable Test
    
    You propose that interpretation based on “context and word meanings” leads to correct doctrine. But even conservative, well-trained scholars disagree on major points using exactly that method. You ask for examples. Consider just a few:
    
    Baptismal regeneration vs. symbolic baptism
    
    Calvinism vs. Arminianism
    
    Complementarianism vs. egalitarianism
    
    Cessationism vs. continuationism
    
    All of these disputes involve scholars using Greek, context, and historical analysis. No objective convergence has occurred.
    
    If your method were genuinely objective, such convergence should be observable. The lack of reproducibility among serious inquirers is evidence against your claim of interpretive objectivity.
    
    6. Final Epistemic Challenge: The No-Exit Problem
    
    What you have presented is not a method for discerning truth, but a system of internal coherence. It operates like a sealed chamber:
    
    All evidence is interpreted within the system.
    
    All anomalies are explained as either deception or user error.
    
    No outcome counts against the belief.
    
    This means:
    
    Your model can never be wrong—and that’s a problem.
    
    To have epistemic weight, a model must include a principled exit strategy: a set of conditions under which the believer would admit they are wrong or being deceived.
    
    You have not given any.
    
    ◉ ◉ ◉ In Summary
    
    Andrew, your reply reaffirms sincerity and effort, but the system you defend:
    
    Lacks an objective method for distinguishing divine from deceptive or psychological influences.
    
    Depends on interpretive frameworks that show high variance among capable readers.
    
    Protects itself from disproof by circular definitions of fruit, character, and doctrine.
    
    Offers no independent verification or falsification criteria.
    
    Until you provide a clear, testable list of externally observable criteria that cannot be satisfied by psychological or deceptive mechanisms, your framework does not guard against error—it guards against correction.
    
    Would you be willing to construct such a falsification protocol?
    
    I’d welcome that effort and would engage with it charitably and rigorously.
    
    Reply
Phil Stilwell

May 4, 2025

Reply
Andrew Bernhardt

May 11, 2025

1. An apple tree does not try to prove it is an apple tree. It just produces apples because that’s its nature. But an apple can still be used as proof the tree it came from is an apple tree. The fruit listed in Galatians 5:22-23 can be used as proof that the Holy Spirit is at work, even though that is not its purpose. Again, show examples of this fruit produced through natural or demonic influences.

You want objective verification, but you dismiss scriptural proof. That’s where the evidence lies. An evil spirit will not produce doctrinal soundness, Christ-like character, internal conviction of sin, testimony of the Lordship of Jesus, etc. If it did so, it would not be an evil spirit because it’s promoting God’s goals. (1 Corinthians 12:3, Mark 3:23-26).

By saying it’s impossible to objectively know what the Bible says, you dismiss theological proof, and hence dismiss the evidence. Unless you show examples of different interpretations that remain true to the context and word meanings, you’re just theorizing. (More on this in section 5.)

2. Yes, Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character, but it serves as way of thinking about our relationship to God. God is not a part of our universe, and hence you can’t use the laws of nature to find Him out. The closest analogy to this I can think of is to view God’s relationship to the universe as Himself being the Author, and us the characters in His story. That’s why I used the Sherlock Holmes analogy. It’s not a perfect analogy (there are none), but it’s still useful as an analogy.

Since God is not a part of our universe (i.e the story world), all evidence for Him has to come from outside of the universe, from Himself. While it is impossible for us to prove Him purely from within the story, He can easily prove Himself to us by influencing the story or inserting Himself in the story. That proof must, by nature, be supernatural because He is not a part of the universe.

If you only allow for proof that follows natural laws, you either assume God is a part of the universe and subject to its laws (a common misconception), or you conveniently only allow evidence that can have alternative natural explanations. The test then becomes invalid because you have eliminated where the evidence lies. If you try to explain the miraculous apart from belief in miracles, you will always get the answer you look for instead of the truth (i.e. whether it really happened or not).

If you eliminate the validity of a first-person encounter with God that matches what the Bible says about God, you will never be able to eliminate natural explanations such as internal suggestion. If you want to test if something is of supernatural origin, you can’t eliminate the possibility of the supernatural before hand by using only natural methods.

3. God’s work cannot be undetectably faked. There will always be some aspect of a false work that will show it to be false. Faked fruit of the Spirit will not match the biblical definition (for example, love as defined in Luke 6:35, Romans 5:8-10, 1 Corinthians 13, 1 John 4:10). Again, scripture must be used to test the work. By eliminating the way to prove something is of the Holy Spirit, you say there is no way of proving it is. That’s self-deception.

4. Miraculous events cannot convince someone who only looks to natural evidence. Suppose a supernatural event really did occur. If you don’t believe in the supernatural or you have serious doubts, documentation would not convince you, no matter how strong. Independent verification would not convince you, no matter who said it happened. You would always imagine that the controls against fraud, misremembering or exaggeration failed, even if you could not think of how. You would find fault with the evidence, regardless. Even if you were there and witnessed it, you would not believe because you don’t want to (as in Acts 2:13). You would say you were hallucinating or were tricked somehow. Your bias against the supernatural would prevent you from believing what really happened.

What kind of documentation, independent verification, etc. would you accept that would convince you a supernatural event happened? I can’t think of anything that would convince someone who doesn’t want to believe.

5. In each of these theological schools of thought, one or both sides incorporate biases where meaning is added to the scripture that is not present in the original languages, one or more aspects of context or word meanings is ignored, or what is taught in scripture elsewhere is ignored.

For example, I came from a cessationist background, meaning I believed God doesn’t work sign gifts today. (Cessationists do believe God works miracles… just not the miraculous sign gift kind.) But the scriptures used to prove that position are weak. For example, cessationists use 1 Corinthians 13 to teach tongues will cease (vs 8) when the Bible is completed (vs 10). But verse 10 doesn’t mention the Bible. The context actually implies a different meaning, i.e. perfection is when our time on earth is done and these signs will no longer be need (“For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known.” – vs 12).

While I’m no longer a strict cessationist, I don’t accept everything miracle claim. I’m actually very skeptical of any report of a miracle: when I hear of one, I doubt it by default. While I believe miracles do occur occasionally today, I think the vast majority are not real. If I hear a report of a miracle I have not witnessed, I take into account the reliability of the first-hand witnesses (I prefer non-believer testimony), and whatever other evidence there is. But most importantly, even if all the other areas of evidence seem true, I test each miracle against the scriptural examples to know if it is of God or not. If you don’t accept the scriptures as a reliable means to testing, then you won’t be able to prove anything is of God.

While different theological schools disagree on some things, they agree on the majority of doctrine because the meaning is obvious through simple reading and study. But there is a tendency for people to study the Bible only to prove what they already believe. When I study a controversial doctrine, I try to set aside my biases. I search for everything the scriptures says about the doctrine, whether it fits in with what I currently believe or not. I also find out what other theological persuasions say just in case I overlooked something. Then I evaluate what I’ve found based on what the Bible actually says as a whole, in context.

6. What kind of evidence would convince you that a work of the Holy Spirit is true? If you assume Biblical criteria is invalid, only naturalistic explanations remain, and that’s inadequate. Even if there was a large amount of documentation about the miraculous event, you would dismiss it because it doesn’t fit your world view. If there was plenty of independent verification, you would dismiss it as mass hallucination or trickery. Video or audio evidence would be attributed to forgery. You would always favor your doubts no matter how strong the evidence. You would entertain theories such as chance, psychological factors, etc. because that’s all you would be left with. By dismissing the evidence without investigating it, you assume there is no evidence. You make your position unfalsifiable.

Years ago, I heard a silly example during an interview with an Christian apologist on an atheist podcast (the Infidel Guy show). A caller facetiously suggested God prove Himself by putting a giant cross on the moon visible from earth. But such a thing would not convince a skeptic because he’d formulate some kind of naturalistic theory about how it got there. No matter what kind of proof God could give, a skeptic will doubt it. He will always seek some naturalistic explanation because he doesn’t really want to find out.

Instead of starting with the assumption that the Holy Spirit is false or His work can’t be proven, it’s better to think, “I don’t know. Maybe it’s true and maybe it isn’t. I will try to avoid my biases and do whatever it takes to find out.” You can use methods similar to what a news reporter or crime scene investigator would use. But the ultimate test is the character and results of the work.

While I may not be able to convince you, God can easily do so if you ask Him. He can meet your criteria if you come to Him with the intention of sincerely wanting to find out.

This will probably be my last response. I do have other things to do, and putting my thoughts into words has never come easily to me… (that’s my autism). While I don’t agree with your position and think it somewhat inadequate, I do like how you have organized not only your website but your reasoning.

Reply
Phil Stilwell

May 12, 2025
I appreciate both the sincerity of your commitment and the effort you’ve taken to walk through your reasoning. I also acknowledge your decision to conclude the dialogue here. That said, I believe your final comments reinforce—rather than resolve—the original concerns: that the epistemic framework you defend cannot distinguish divine confirmation from psychological or deceptive sources without presupposing its own conclusions.

Let me close with a summary of why this matters—not to win a debate, but to clarify the stakes.

1. “Fruit” as Retrofitted Evidence

You return to fruit as confirmation, asserting that even if it’s not meant to prove, it can prove. But this confuses outcome consistency with causal exclusivity. The mere presence of fruit (e.g., peace, love, joy) does not point uniquely to the Holy Spirit if such traits also appear in:
- Ex-believers turned Buddhist monks
- Muslim doctors serving war-torn regions
- Atheist parents who sacrifice everything for their children
Your test does not exclude alternate explanations. This is the essence of non-falsifiability—your system can only confirm, never disconfirm, which is epistemically fatal.

2. Scripture as Sole Arbiter is Epistemically Circular

You assert that “evil spirits won’t produce doctrinal soundness or promote Jesus.” But how do you define doctrinal soundness? Through scripture. And how is scripture interpreted? Through the Spirit. Your diagnostic tool is self-referential, creating a loop where no test can fail if the interpreter is sufficiently devout.

You asked: “Can you give examples of different interpretations that respect context and word meanings?”

Certainly:
- Romans 9 has been used both to support Calvinist determinism and Arminian conditional election—both sides appeal to Greek, grammar, and context.
- 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (“women keep silent”) is interpreted by some as universal command, by others as a Corinthian-specific issue, and by still others as a later interpolation.
- Genesis 1 is read literally by young-Earth creationists and metaphorically by theistic evolutionists—again, both use “context and word study.”
Even among those committed to your standards, convergence on controversial doctrine does not occur. That’s not theory—it’s empirical observation.

3. The “Sherlock” Analogy Avoids the Verification Problem

You say supernatural truth cannot be verified “from inside the story.” But then ask us to trust alleged supernatural acts (like the Korean language story or answered prayer) without mechanisms to test if:
- They were actually supernatural
- They were not deceptive
- They were not psychological projections
This reduces to: “It’s supernatural because it aligns with what I already believe is from God.”

A system where any anomaly can be mapped onto God’s purposes or Satan’s deceptions becomes epistemically closed—impervious to correction, and indistinguishable from sincere delusion.

4. You Implicitly Shift the Burden of Proof

You repeatedly say: “What kind of evidence would convince you?” But this question presumes that skepticism is the problem rather than the absence of a rigorous method on your side.

My answer is simple:

If your God exists, and you claim He reveals Himself in knowable, testable ways, then the burden lies with you to show that the evidence is public, exclusive, and not better explained by natural causes or deception.

So far, no such evidence has met that bar—only unverifiable anecdotes, circular interpretive models, and theological assertions.

5. The “You Wouldn’t Believe Anyway” Defense Fails

You speculate that even if a cross appeared on the moon, skeptics would explain it away. But that is both cynical and self-exonerating. Many skeptics (myself included) follow a Bayesian epistemology: we update credence with evidence proportionate to its explanatory power, consistency, and exclusivity.

If amputees regrew limbs in Jesus’ name under controlled conditions, and no other religious tradition or placebo produced the same, I would update strongly. I simply ask for distinguishing evidence that is falsifiable, independently verifiable, and uniquely attributable to your God.

You have offered none.

6. The Final Problem: The System Is Insulated from Correction

Your view cannot be falsified. That’s the issue.
- All good outcomes are from God.
- All misinterpretations are human error.
- All deception is from Satan.
- All ambiguity is resolved by scripture.
- All failure of evidence is blamed on the skeptic’s heart.
This is not a truth-seeking system. It is an interpretive cocoon—coherent, sincere, even beautiful in places—but closed.

So, I respect your honesty and intentions. But a truth-seeking system must be able to fail. Yours cannot. That makes it immune to error—and therefore, unable to distinguish truth from confirmation bias.

When your test cannot tell you if you’re wrong, it cannot reliably tell you if you’re right.

If ever you return to this discussion, I’d still be open to hearing your proposed falsification conditions, or engaging with an evidence-based framework that can distinguish the Holy Spirit from a clever imposter—or from the mind itself.
Reply