The Lord Is the Spirit. John A. Studebaker
Читать онлайн книгу.
should understand the Spirit’s authority to govern the Church. Here we discover that “evangelical” theologians generally want to retain an understanding of the Spirit’s authority within the Church that corresponds with our principle and pattern of divine authority (i.e., his authority over the world, under the authority of Christ, and speaking through the Word of God), while postmodern or contemporary theologians, in general, seem to be more concerned with the Spirit’s power and function within the Church. Since the discernment of postmodern theology is such a critical part of this entire study, I will survey several theologians (whom we might more or less consider “postmodern”) in order to investigate the general “landscape” of this debate in contemporary theology. This will allow me to develop an initial understanding of some critical “dialogue partners” that will need to be addressed in the remainder of this study.
In evaluating these debates I will follow a specific pattern of investigation. At the beginning of each section I will briefly investigate the various conceptions of “authority” that predominate within that particular historical period (including political, philosophical, and/or theological conceptions). Then I will identify two or more prominent theologians within that period who emerged as primary contributors to the specific debate. I will examine their arguments, paying particular attention to any discussion regarding the Spirit’s place in relation to the Triune God (and to the world), to Christ, to the Scriptures and to the Church. After this I will briefly examine other theologians within that period that provided significant contribution to the debate. Finally, I will attempt to answer the question, “What provisional definition of the Holy Spirit’s authority might evangelicals infer from this specific defense?”8 I will conclude by attempting to account for the impact of that particular debate upon the developing “storyline” of the Spirit’s authority in historical theology.
The goal of this chapter, therefore, is to attempt to find within historical theology initial confirmation that the Holy Spirit does indeed have an important place in our Christian “principle of authority” and our “pattern of authority” and to make initial discernment regarding the nature of the Spirit’s authority within this principle and pattern. Such discernment will provide parameters for our exegetical analysis in chapters three and four. These insights will also allow us to grasp the significant contributions made by previous theologians, to avoid some of their exegetical mistakes, and to know what sort of questions to address in subsequent chapters.
Significant Resources
Three kinds of works are of crucial importance for this chapter. The first are those that discuss historical approaches to the “problem” of authority in the Church throughout her history. One of the most helpful works in this category is Harold J. Berman’s Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (which examines the interaction between political authority, Church authority, and theology through the patristic and medieval ages). Other important works include Gregory Bolich’s Authority and the Church (which defines the witness of the Spirit to the Word of God in terms of a functional authority), Hans von Campenhausen’s Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power (which investigates the Spirit’s authority in the first three centuries), Rupert Davies’ Religious Authority in an Age of Doubt (which examines issues of authority from Schleiermacher to today), P.T. Forsyth’s The Principle of Authority (which views all authority in terms of the soul’s relation to God), John Frame’s The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (with an excellent model of divine Lordship), Francis Hall’s Authority: Ecclesiastical and Biblical (apologetics for a “modern” evangelical authority), Robert Johnson’s Authority in Protestant Theology (especially helpful for understanding Luther, Calvin, and Schleiermacher), Karl Morrison’s Tradition and Authority in the Western Church: 300–1140, and Bruce Shelley’s By What Authority (which examines standards of truth in the early Church).
The second kind of works includes those that provide a “storyline” analysis of the historic doctrine of pneumatology and that occasionally relate this discussion to issues of divine authority. These include Gary Badcock’s Light of Truth and Fire of Love (which attempts a “storyline” of pneumatology through the analysis of crucial episodes and debates; especially helpful on Moltmann), Yves Congar’s I Believe in the Holy Spirit, volumes 1 and 3 (which provides technical analysis of pneumatological debates in the context of pneumatological history; especially helpful on Augustine), Alasdair Heron’s The Holy Spirit (which presents the “story” in terms of key pneumatologists in Church history), Brian Gaybba’s The Spirit of Love (a general history of pneumatology from a Catholic perspective), Thomas Oden’s Life in the Spirit (which systematically analyses pneumatology in the Patristic period), Griffith Thomas’ The Holy Spirit of God (which contains a very helpful section on “Historical Interpretation” that attempts to isolate the “essence” of pneumatology into specific Church “epochs”), and Morris Inch’s Saga of the Spirit (which attempts to provides an “update of Griffith Thomas’ volume”).
The third kind of helpful works are those that examine the pneumatology of specific theologians. These include Regin Prenter’s Spiritus Creator (on Martin Luther), Philip Rosato’s The Spirit as Lord (on Karl Barth), Lycurgus Starkey’s The Work of the Holy Spirit (on John Wesley), and John Thompson’s The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Karl Barth. Articles include Eugene Osterhaven’s “John Calvin: Order and the Holy Spirit” and Emilio Brito’s “Hermeneutique et Pneumatologie Selon Schleiermacher.”
The Development of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s Authority in Historical Theology
Now we shall examine the five periods of historical theology from the perspective of the development of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s authority.
Patristic Theology
In the Patristic period (ca. 100–450), divine authority was understood in terms of Hebrew (i.e., Old Testament) understandings. The word exousiva occurs fifty times in the LXX, with the book of Daniel providing important background material for understanding the New Testament use of the word. Daniel’s usages imply dominion or power, and often refer to the whole world. The authority of the human world-rulers always originates from the supernatural realm; it is delegated by God, the Lord of history, whose rule is eternal (4:31), who installs and removes kings (2:21), and who can remove their dominion at any time (7:12). The “Son of Man” is invested with sovereign authority to rule all nations, and his dominion will never pass away (7:14). Old Testament authority was often conceived of in terms of Word and Spirit, two closely related “authorities” (i.e., Isa 59:21). Clement of Rome refers to the role of the Spirit in the inspiration of the Old Testament, saying “Look closely into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Ghost.”9 Clement also reported that the Apostles appointed bishops and deacons by the leading of the Spirit to govern the Church and that the gift of apostleship was given to continue the apostolic tradition into the patristic period (i.e., through inspired writings). According to Nielsen, Clement viewed the Spirit as “a reality connected with the . . . governmental structure of the Church.”10 Nielsen adds,
It is significant, is it not, that the Holy Spirit is interested enough in the tradition of ecclesiastical succession to help guarantee it. According to Clement, one must keep contact with apostolic tradition simply because the Apostles had unique authority.11
The institutional Church eventually tried to gain political authority through symbiotic union with the Empire. Athanasius said that Constantius had attempted to make the Church a “civil senate” by “mingling Roman sovereignty with the constitution of the Church” and had led the Arians to consider “the Holy Place a house of merchandise and a house of juridical business for themselves.”12 Constantine’s Rome not only began to guard against persecution but against the Empire’s intrusion into the Church. The Church was given free reign to develop its tradition for preserving its own integrity. After Constantine, however, a “hostile separateness” between