both. The abyss of the divine nature overflows doubly in the begetting of the Son and the sending forth of the Spirit, the Lord, the Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father” (Heron, The Holy Spirit, 85, emphasis his).
76. This term provides balance to the Eastern conception of the Trinity. Eastern theology argues that the Nicene Creed speaks of the Spirit as a distinct Person within the trinitarian Godhead, rather than as a subordinate agent of the Son. Eastern Churches have particularly emphasized the uniqueness of function of the three divine hypostases. The Trinity is not to be viewed, however, as a sort of tritheism, because of the balance provided by the concept of perichoresis, which implies that each member of the Trinity functions in vital correspondence and involvement with the other two.
77. Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 3:37.
78. John of Damascus, De fide orthod, I:8.
79. Ibid.
80. Ibid.
81. Gaybba, The Spirit of Love, 74.
82. See Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 3:98–110; Gaybba, The Spirit of Love, 74–75.
83. As we shall see, some Western theologies—such as Augustine’s—do bring the Spirit’s divine authority with respect to the immanent Trinity into question. However, there is no prominent Western theologian who is both orthodox and has actually denied the fact that the Spirit possesses divine authority of some sort.
84. In the previous chapter we identified “executive authority” as simply “the right or the power to act in certain ways” (DeGeorge, The Nature and Limits of Authority, 62). This definition contains no specific limitations regarding the right or power to act.
85. Eastern Orthodoxy’s mindset is grounded in the ideas that there exists a substantial continuation of the Spirit’s authority from the days of the early Church until now. This idea is described well by Hryniewicz, “The early Church often appropriated to itself the conviction that she was controlled by the Holy Spirit, and for this reason the identity and continuity of her sacramental nature was preserved. The Holy Spirit, which takes effect in the community of believers, was the highest authority for the early Church and the only real security. Very early on, conscious decision was affirmed in the conviction: ‘the Holy Spirit and us’ (Acts 15:28). . . . The authority and rule of the Holy Spirit in the early Church, however, was placed far ahead of all individualism and subjectivism” (Hryniewicz, “Der Pneumatologishe Aspekt der Kirche aus Orthodoxer Sicht,” 137–38).
86. Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 1:188.
87. Berman, Law and Revolution, 176–77.
88. Ibid., 178.
89. Gunton, Theology through the Theologians, 109.
90. Ibid., 110.
91. Jensen, The Holy Spirit, 2:126–27.
92. Inch, Saga of the Spirit, 224 (emphasis mine).
93. Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/1:481.
94. Hryniewicz, “Der Pneumatologishe Aspekt Der Kirche,” 137–38 (emphasis mine).
95. Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ, 218.
96. Ramm sees this as an aspect of “veracious authority.” In connection with the Church, Ramm defines “veracious authority” as the authority to determine the truths of revelation (Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, 56). As the “source” of truth, the Holy Spirit is the one who possesses the veracious authority necessary to claim a legitimate and ultimate “interpretive authority” (12).
97. Badcock, Light of Truth and Fire of Love, 87.
98. Luther, “On the Councils,” 145.
99. Luther, The Works of Martin Luther, 11:223.
100. Prenter, Spiritus Creator, 61.
101. Hesselink, “Governed and Guided by the Spirit,” 161.
102. Calvin, Institutes, III.ii.7.
103. This subordination occurs in a different way, though, than in Augustine’s formulation. Whereas in Augustine’s theology believers are seen as justified by the Spirit’s caritas, in Calvin’s theology the Spirit comes through other means, in particular the Word and the Sacraments. Calvin sees the Spirit’s role in salvation as quite distinct (though not completely independent) from the role of Christ, and this distinction clarifies the nature of the Spirit’s executorial authority in almost all subsequent evangelical theology.
104. Reformers first used this word to describe the role of the judge who presided over and passed sentences in a court of law. Such an authority was understood to be resident in one’s office, commission, or status—not in the person.
105. Johnson, Authority in Protestant Theology, 15.
106. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I:ix.3.
107. Osterhaven, “John Calvin,” 25.
108. Johnson, Authority in Protestant Theology, 54.
109. Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 1:151.
110. Fisher, La Documentation Catholique,
