LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

a dual-sense word meaning both authority and power. These two ideas are closely related” (Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, VI:24). Exousi,a, however, is almost always translated “authority” or “right” (NASB).

      2

      The Authority of the Holy Spirit and Historical Theology: Assessing Historical Debates

In this chapter I will examine and compare various perspectives on “the authority of the Holy Spirit” that emerge from critical debates in theological history. Then I will propose provisional definitions of the Spirit’s authority that emerge from the debates. These debated center around five periods of historical theology: (1) Patristic theology: First through Fourth Centuries (including both “early” and “late” Patristics), (2) Medieval theology: Fifth Century to the Reformation (including Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology), (3) Protestant theology: Reformation to Twentieth Century, (4) Modern theology, and (5) Postmodern and Contemporary theology.1 In each period I will consider the arguments and contributions of those theologians who (1) sought to provide significant clarification of the doctrine of pneumatology, and (2) did so within the context of the discussion of divine authority.

      Assumptions

      In the last chapter, we defined the “principle of authority” in Christianity along with its corresponding “pattern of authority.” Our principle of authority revealed the possibility of the Spirit’s “divine authority” as a divine Person within the Triune God. The pattern of authority (incorporating Christ, the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit) revealed the possibility of the Spirit’s “executive authority.” So, we can assume that since the Spirit is an essential partner in both our principle of authority and our pattern of authority, the authority of the Holy Spirit should be evaluated in relation to the authority of the Triune God (who possesses divine authority over the world) as well as in relation to the authority of Christ and the authority of Scripture. In addition, since this work is concerned with the implications of the Spirit’s authority in the Church, such a relation should be evaluated as well.

      The Progressive Development of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Theological History

      As we can evaluate these critical debates in Church history, we will begin to observe a progressive development of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. In fact, each major period of theological history contained a critical debate that focused on one of the “relations” mentioned above. Thus, each debate seemed to result in further clarification of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Since each debate revolved around a very significant ecclesiastical problem of the time (i.e., a heresy or conflicting views of sanctification) each served to shape and define that theological period in a significant way. As a result, the “storyline” development of the doctrine of the Spirit’s authority, though often unnoticed, emerges as a hidden theme in the storyline of the Church itself. The doctrine progressively unfolds—unwittingly and covertly—on the pages of theological history.

According to Oden, the history of the doctrine of the Spirit can be traced in parallel to the earthly history of Christ. Whereas the story of Christ in the New Testament is available for historical inquiry, the earthly “story” of the Spirit is open to investigation in the form of Church history.2 The Spirit has “a history that can be narrated by remembered events.”3 In the Church age, these events include the substantive debates that arise between orthodoxy and “heterodoxy.”

The councils thought that the Spirit was providentially allowing heterodoxy to challenge the truth of Scripture in order that the Spirit would lead the Church to search Scripture more deliberately to consider a more cohesive reflection upon the triunity of God.4

Therefore, we must not only acknowledge the Spirit’s role in the authorship of Scripture, but also in the historical development of orthodox theology. Ramm notes that the interpreter of revelation must pay due regard to the Spirit in the history of theology. “The Holy Spirit is the Teacher of the Church, and surely in some manner the history of theology reflects this teaching ministry.”5 Ramm warns that “every generation of Christian theologians must be prepared to take seriously the history of theology (broadly interpreted to include symbols, councils, theologians, treatises) as possessing manifestations of the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit.”6 This teaching ministry of the Spirit, of course, manifests the progressive “story” of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as well!

      The Discernment of “The Authority of the Holy Spirit” in Theological History

We must admit that most theologians in Church history do not specifically refer to “the authority of the Holy Spirit” in their writings (though there are exceptions7). Rather than attempting to “force” such language into the writings of these theologians, I will examine their writings within the context of the particular theological debates, looking to discern notions of the Spirit’s authority in relation to the triune God, to Christ, to Scripture (both its inspiration and illumination), and to the Church. In other words, though most theologians do not use the word “authority” in discussing or debating the Holy Spirit, we can analyze these debates in an attempt to gather information for discerning provisional definitions of the Spirit’s authority. Of course, any information gathered or conclusions drawn will need to be confirmed (or disaffirmed) by an exegetical study of the Scriptures (which will be the task of chapters three and four).

      Historical Methodology

      An overview of the five debates is as follows:

      1. Patristic theology. In the period marked by the development of Patristic theology we find a critical debate over the divinity of the Spirit. The question here is essentially, “Is the Spirit a divine Being or merely a creature?” Two significant figures in this debate are Arius and Athanasius. While Arius argues for a “creature” view of the Spirit, Athanasius argues for the Spirit’s divinity based on an analysis of the Spirit’s relationship with the world.

      2. Medieval theology. In this period a debate ensues regarding the relationship between the Spirit and the authority of Christ. The crucial question in this debate is: “Does the Spirit have an authority ‘independent’ of the authority of Christ (i.e., a purely ‘executive authority’ of his own), or does the Spirit always act ‘under’ the authority of Christ (i.e., an ‘executorial authority’)?” This debate begins with Augustine and the Cappadocians, continues through medieval and orthodox theology and persists to this very day.

      3. Reformation theology. In the period a debate concerning the relationship between the Spirit and the Scriptures ensues. The question here is: “Does the Spirit authorize the Church to serve as authoritative interpreter of Scripture, or does this ‘interpretive authority’ ultimately lie with the Spirit alone, speaking through Scripture?” This debate begins with Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic Church and continues its development through John Calvin and subsequent theological movements.

      4. Modern Theology. In this period, which arguably begins with nineteenth-century liberal theology (i.e., Friedrich Schleiermacher) and continues through twentieth century Protestant Evangelicalism (i.e., Carl Henry), we find a continuous debate brewing with regard to the Spirit’s relationship to the individual believer interpreting the Word of God. “How does the Holy Spirit execute his authority in the life—and particularly the mind—of the believer attempting to interpret Scripture?” The “debate” in this period might indeed be drafted between Schleiermacher, who took an experiential tack to the question of the Spirit’s authority with respect to the believer, versus Henry, who opted for a rationalistic approach.

      5. Postmodern theology. Finally, in postmodern theology we discover yet another critical debate—this time concerning

Скачать книгу