of Jesus Christ and to the authority of Scripture? (3) How might a biblical understanding of the Spirit’s authority expose and correct deficiencies in postmodern pneumatology?
Such a study also intersects the sort of practical issues and questions local churches continually wrestle with—questions regarding hermeneutics (i.e., how do we interpret Scripture “through” the Spirit?), church government (i.e., how does the Spirit structure and guide a church?), and Christian spirituality (i.e., what does it mean to “respond” to the Spirit?)
Lloyd-Jones asserts that the Spirit’s authority is indeed practical in nature. After investigating the authority of Christ and the authority of Scripture, he exhorts:
I would remind you first of all that, from a practical standpoint, this third division of our study is the most important of all . . . Only when the authority of the Holy Spirit comes to bear upon us do these things [i.e., the authority of Christ and the authority of the Scriptures] become real and living and powerful to us. More than that, all that we believe about the Scriptures and about the Lord Himself can only be applied in our ministry and so become relevant to the world and its situation, as we are under the authority and power of the Spirit.9
A theological understanding of the Holy Spirit’s authority must therefore be reconstructed for today’s Church as it wrestles with postmodern and contemporary theology on both a theoretical and a practical level. This reconstruction certainly does not require a reversion to modern “authoritarianism,” but a fresh, biblical examination and articulation of the authoritative character and work of God the Holy Spirit in the Church today. With the doctrine of the Holy Spirit receiving such attention today, is it not time in the historical development of Church doctrine to develop biblical and yet practical clarity regarding “the authority of the Holy Spirit?”
Purpose
My Thesis Question is, “How might evangelicals recover a biblical conception of the Holy Spirit’s authority in and over the Church, one that could serve to provide a response to contemporary misconceptions of ‘Spirit?’”10 My Thesis Statement is, “In order to meet the challenge posed by contemporary misconceptions of ‘Spirit,’ a biblical conception of the Holy Spirit’s authority to establish and govern the Church must be recovered in systematic theology.” I will demonstrate this recovery both theoretically (by discerning the nature of the Spirit’s authority within the overall pattern of divine authority), and “practically” (by showing how the Spirit’s authority is brought to bear with respect to hermeneutics, the structure and guidance of the church, and Christian spirituality).11
A Framework for Understanding and Defining “The Authority of the Holy Spirit”
In order to introduce the notion of “the authority of the Holy Spirit” we need to (1) define the general concept of authority and the specific “principle” of authority to be used throughout this work, (2) understand the basic “pattern of authority” exhibited within biblical Christianity, and (3) provide an initial determination of the Holy Spirit’s place within this pattern.12 Then, in the remainder of this thesis, we will have clear starting points for discussing the theological nature of the Spirit’s authority in a biblical/systematic way and for discerning the “practical” nature of this authority with respect to the Church.
Defining the General Concept of Authority and the Christian Principle of Authority
A good secular definition of “authority,” according to Ramm, is as follows:
Authority itself means that right or power to command action or compliance, or to determine belief or custom, expecting obedience from those under authority, and in turn giving responsible account for the claim to right or power.13
Webster’s dictionary defines authority as “the power or a right to command, act, enforce obedience, or make final decisions.”14 As a result, “authority” might be thought of according to two interrelated categories: (1) an authority over particular domains and people, and (2) an authority to act in a given situation. These two “perspectives” on authority might be referred to as imperial authority and executive authority, respectively.15
“Authority” appears in many areas of investigation (i.e., law, politics, education, etc), each developing their own “principle” of authority that specifies the general definition within a particular field or context. We can thereby expect a specific principle of authority to emerge with respect to religion as well. Ramm demonstrates that the common problem faced by all religions is the need for an understanding of authority that goes beyond a “bare monistic principle.”16
Most treatises on religious authority assert that God is the final authority in religion, but this bare assertion does not make its way. Unless the assertion is expressed in a more concrete fashion it becomes mere platitude. A principle of religious authority, along with its pattern designed for its practical and concrete expression and execution, should incorporate all the necessary elements associated with such a complex notion as religious authority.17
Only in Christianity do we encounter a divine principle of authority (one that incorporates the notion of a “final” imperial authority) along with an extensive pattern of authority through which the principle is graciously expressed and executed in practical ways. According to Ramm,
God’s imperial authority is graciously expressed. When God binds His authority upon man, it is an act of grace. In God’s supreme revelation, Jesus Christ, exists the epitome of God’s authority—grace and truth (John 1:17). There is no impersonal force in grace, and God’s authority is sealed by grace, not by impersonal force. Bound to God by love and grace, the believer’s mind is free from all traces of imposed authoritarianism or forced obedience.18
As a result, the Triune God should be thought of as the One who demonstrates “imperial authority” over the world, but this authority includes a divine “executive authority” to act in the world. “Imperial authority” is portrayed in Scripture in terms of God’s position as the one sovereign, holy, eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent Lord who reigns over all. Scripture tells us that “The Lord reigns, let the nations tremble . . . . He is exalted over all the nations . . . . He is Holy” (Ps 99:1–2). According to Ramm, “God as God occupies the highest conceivable personal station, and possesses all the authority which derives from that station.”19 For sake of discussion, however, when speaking of imperial authority in relation to God, I will from this point on refer to it as simply “divine authority.” Divine authority will thus refer to God’s imperial authority over the world, one that incorporates an authority to act in and toward the world. It will thus serve as our general definition for the sort of authority located in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
“Divine authority” is distinguished from other authorities by its intimate association with several of God’s “absolute” or “supreme” characteristics. Most significant characteristics would include God’s absolute metaphysical primacy, eternality, and necessity (see Exod 3:14; Deut 33:27). Such characteristics in themselves do not constitute divine authority, but instead substantiate God’s transcendence, which is a relational term identifying God as uniquely other than
