href="#ulink_2724c96c-5d9c-52e7-9d6a-0cf0b4925f4e">37. Ibid., 62.
38. Ibid., 62.
39. The Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 1, no. 10.
40. Thompson, Modern Trinitarian Perspectives, 25.
41. Forsyth, “The Divine Self-Emptying,” 42.
42. Veracious authority is defined by Ramm as “that authority possessed by men, books, or principles which either posses truth or aid in the determination of truth” (Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, 12).
43. Ramm thinks of “functional authority” as a “substitutional authority” (ibid., 12). For further explanations see chapters four and six in this work.
44. As we shall see, the emphasis of Scripture regarding the Spirit’s authority in the Church is that of a “ministerial authority” rather than a “magisterial authority.” A general parallel can be drawn between present debates regarding the Spirit’s authority and Reformation debates regarding Church authority. “Catholic” authority “understands the magisterium to be the living authority of the Church”; the Church “specifies the rules for interpreting the Bible, and even (at times) restricts the use of the Bible” (Shelley, By What Authority?, 140). Whereas Catholicism replaced the authority of the believer to interpret Scripture with the authority of the Church, postmodernists often replace the authority of the Bible as truth with the power of the Spirit, and the absolute authority of Christ with a “pluralistic” authority of the Spirit.
45. Governing authority might be seen as a fully delegated right to govern within a particular structure.
46 Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition, 78. Henry points out that in the NT, “exousia appears as 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
