Читать книгу The Lord Is the Spirit - John A. Studebaker - Страница 9

How much do we hear about the Holy Spirit and His authority? If I were to hazard an opinion I would say that no aspect of the Christian faith has been so totally neglected and perhaps misunderstood. . . . Here, I truly believe, we are dealing with the main source of weakness in modern Evangelicalism.1

The very idea of “the authority of the Holy Spirit” probably sounds new to many Christians. Some may be skeptical that this relatively unknown concept could be our “main source of weakness.” Others may wonder why such a crucial topic has been so neglected.

Many Christians feel that a general disrespect for authority marked the twentieth century, and that this disrespect is now blooming into a full crisis in our century. Hall points out that today’s postmodern culture tends to ignore the existential element of authority, particularly regarding one’s standing before God.2 In addition, our culture no longer regards any one version of “truth” as having priority over another. As a result, the Church seems to have become just one more voice among many.

Several contemporary theologians have responded to this crisis of authority by re-asserting the doctrine of Christian pneumatology (“the doctrine of the Holy Spirit”). Postmodern theologians claim that traditional models of pneumatology were constructed on “modernist” approaches to systematic theology and, in doing so, placed undue reliance on metaphysics or on the “authority” of theological methodology itself. Such models, they hold, are now inadequate for providing a new sense of authority. “The house of [theological] authority has collapsed,” proclaims Ed Farley, because it was “propped up with mythical, historical and doctrinal rationalization” that can no longer stand on their own.3 Postmodern theologians claim that, while the God of modernism was abstract and transcendent, in the Holy Spirit we rediscover God’s concreteness and immanence, as well as God’s power to liberate people from bondage. Michael Welker, for example, holds that,

authoritarian theologies of one-upmanship have sought to grasp and expound God and God’s revelation in numerous abstract formulas: God comes “from above,” God always “precedes,” God is the “all-determining” reality. The theology of the Holy Spirit will challenge us to replace these formulas or render them superfluous.4

Another postmodern theologian, Peter Hodgson, presents an even more radical assessment of the Western marginalization of the Holy Spirit.

In Western theology and philosophy the very concept of “spirit” has for the most part been fraught with difficulties, conveying something vapid and dualistic, implying a separation of and a hierarchy between the mental and the physical, the soul and the body, the human and the natural, the male and the female, the holy and the profane. The hierarchy reflects a suspicion and fear of the suppressed poles: nature, the body, the feminine.5

Such theologians usually want to promote a re-emphasis of the Spirit with respect to several doctrines of systematic theology, particularly the Trinity and ecclesiology. Such a re-emphasis sounds very appealing to the Church today, as witnessed by the many churches that are promoting an experience of the Spirit as well as the many evangelical theologians who are sympathetic with postmodern cries of marginalization and are writing on pneumatology as well. In that more theologians are taking up biblical pneumatology as a way of revitalizing the Church, the postmodern project is to be commended.

Many of these contemporary theologians, however, seem to have granted the Spirit an “authority” unchecked by biblical boundaries. Some have divorced the Spirit’s authority from the authority of Christ or the authority of Scripture. Others have adopted “panentheistic”6 portrayals of “Spirit” that often reduce the Holy Spirit’s status as divine Person to that of a divine “force,” “world spirit,” or “function” within communities. Welker, for example, borrows from the field of magnetism in referring to the Holy Spirit as a “force field” in the world.7 Hodgson refers to “Spirit” as a “primal energy” that “takes on the shape of many created spirits, not just of living persons but of ancestors and animals as well as plants, trees, rivers.”8

Evangelicals hold that Scripture lays out specific identifying characteristics regarding the Spirit’s nature and work. Since the Spirit is clearly referred to in Scripture as “God” (i.e., Acts 5:3–5), he must possess “divine authority” in some sense. Indeed a “divine authority” proper to the Spirit seems to have explicit backing in Scripture (i.e., John 3:3–8; 14–16; 1 Cor 2:10–14; 2 Pet 1:20–21). “Authority” is certainly implied when the Spirit is referred to as “Lord” in Scripture (i.e., 2 Cor 3:17–18) and in the Nicene Creed. Because of this abundant evidence, evangelicals proclaim that theologians are not to define the Spirit, nor his “authority,” in any way they desire.

At the same time, evangelicals must also admit that a general confusion reigns today regarding the precise nature of “the authority of the Holy Spirit.” It seems there are several nagging yet critical theological questions that have never been adequately answered, such as: (1) What is the biblical data regarding the Spirit’s authority? (2) How is the Spirit’s authority related to the authority 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 creation and above all creation.

Our study of “divine authority” in Christianity (and with respect to the Holy Spirit) will therefore proceed along two lines: the Christian principle of authority (defining the nature of divine authority) and the associated pattern of authority (the execution of the principle). First, what is this principle of authority in Christianity? Ramm states,

In Christianity the authority-principle is the Triune God in self-revelation. This is the central piece of the mosaic of authority, and the first and most impressive link in the chain of authority. This is the Object of religion declaring Himself to men, and in this declaration there is not only the imperial authority of God (“hallowed be thy name”) but the truth from God about God.20

This “authority-principle” tells us that “divine authority” not only possesses a quality of supremacy over the world but also that it must be revealed in the world. The principle thus alludes to a triune God whose authority is both transcendent (it “comes to the fore when God is presented to us as exalted above creation”) and immanent (God’s authority is “as far removed as possible from any notion of God as ‘wholly other’ or as ‘infinitely distant’”).21 Divine transcendence can be witnessed in God’s intellectual attributes (omniscience, faithfulness, wisdom), ethical attributes (holiness, righteousness), and existential attributes (freedom, authenticity).22 Divine transcendence, however, translates into divine authority when such divine attributes are immanently brought to bear on the world and revealed to the world in all components of human existence.23 As a result, God is the highest authority in the world; he above all is to be honored and obeyed. Frame points out the “absoluteness” of God’s authority:

Authority is God’s right to be obeyed . . . To say that God’s authority is absolute means that His commands many not be questioned (Job 40:11ff.; Rom 4:18–20, 9:30; Heb. 11:4, 7, 8, 17, passim), that divine authority transcends all other loyalties (Exod 20:3; Deut 6:4f; Matt 8:19–22, 10:34–38; Phil 3:8), and that this authority extends to all areas of human life (Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; Deuteronomy; Rom 14:23; 1 Cor 10:31; 2 Cor 10:5; Col 3:17, 23).24

Nevertheless, while God’s authority is “absolute,” it also remains “personal.” Frame continues:

But this metaphysical absoluteness does not (as in non-Christian thought) force God into the role of an abstract principle. The non-Christian, of course, can accept an absolute only if that absolute is impersonal and therefore makes no demands and has no power to bless or curse. There are personal gods in paganism, but none of them is absolute; there are absolutes in paganism, but none is personal. Only in Christianity (and in other religions influences by the Bible) is there such a concept as a “personal absolute.”25

The Christian principle of authority (“the triune God in self-revelation”) thus identifies both the “who” and the “how” of divine authority. Regarding the “who,” this principle has a specific locus in Divine Persons. Ramm states that “in a very real sense all authority is at root personal. . . . Authority is the right and power of a person or persons to compel action, thought, or custom.”26 He is “God in three Persons”—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.27 As a result, any discussion of the Spirit’s “authority” must be built upon this notion of his divine Personhood. This implies that the Spirit has authority because (1) he is a Person (rather than a “force field” or “primal energy”; see Mark 3:29; Acts 5:3; Eph 4:30), and (2) he has a special kind of authority—namely, divine (see Acts 5:3–5; 1 Cor 2:10–12).

This principle also identifies “how” divine authority is expressed (but without explaining it). Ramm parts with many other theologians on this very point: “Most books on religious authority state that God is the final authority in religion. Here is where the discussion begins, and it begins with this question: How does God express His authority?”28 The obvious an-

swer is “by divine self-revelation.”29 The idea is that God does not need an intermediary to communicate his divine authority to others. Instead, it is revealed through the interrelated contributions of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In general, the Father is the author of divine revelation (establishing its final authority), the Son is the focus of divine revelation (establishing its content), and the Spirit is the revealer and executor of divine revelation (revealing God’s authority in the world).30

The Pattern of Authority

As mentioned earlier, the principle of authority in Christianity is associated with a pattern of authority, which is “designed for its practical and concrete expression and execution.” In other words, while “divine authority” is located in divine Persons and is revealed by God himself, the Christian “pattern of authority” expands this self-revelation into a full description of the means by which divine authority is revealed and executed. Ramm contends that divine revelation requires a specific pattern of delegation through which such execution occurs.31 We might say that divine authority is revealed through a specific pattern involving a delegated executive authority. In the Old Testament this pattern first includes the Holy Spirit and the prophets. The Spirit spoke the revealed word through the prophets to a particular generation of people. This was “the actual authority for the Old Testament believer.”32 This pattern later came to include a written word of revelation available for subsequent generations. As a result, divine author-

ity is delegated through a basic pattern involving Word and Spirit.33 This basic pattern tells us that what gets communicated is not just the content of authority through the Word of God but also, in a very real sense, the actual saying of authority through the Spirit of God. Divine authority, in other words, consists of the intimate association of content (from the mind of God) and rightful force (of a divine Person).

The NT, however, presents a radical focusing of this essential pattern. The center of divine revelation becomes the person and work of Jesus Christ. “Christ is the supreme object of the witness of the Spirit, and Christ is the supreme content of the Scriptures.”34 Ramm thus presents God’s indivisible “pattern” of authority in terms of these three interrelated elements of God’s self-revelation:

(1) Christ, who is the personal Word of God, the living, supreme revelation of God, and supreme depository of the knowledge of God (Col 2:3)

(2) The Holy Spirit, who conveys revelation, who delegates its authority, and who witnesses to its divinity

(3) The Sacred Scriptures, which are inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore the document of revelation, which witness to Jesus Christ, and which are the Spirit’s instrument in effecting illumination.35

The Spirit’s Place within the Pattern of Divine Authority

This pattern of authority involves both objective and subjective factors. God’s objective revelation results in the written and authoritative Scriptures. Scripture possesses “delegated imperial authority and veracious authority in all matters in which it intends to teach.”36 The objective truth of the Word of God moves first from the utterance of the Father to Christ as his Supreme Revelation. Then,

[Christ] delegates His word to His chosen apostles, who complete their oral witness to the supreme Person of divine revelation with a written document, the New Testament. There is no decay of authority nor lessening of authority from the utterance of the Father to the written word of the Scripture.37

This pattern of authority also involves the subjective operation of the Spirit of God that parallels the objective revelation. The Spirit inspires the Scriptures and then illuminates this written revelation in the mind and heart of the believer. “Thus the objective Word of the Father, and the subjective ministry of the Spirit intersect in the heart of the believer to create a true knowledge of God and to call into being the Christian principle of authority.”38 The Westminster Confession proclaims the crucial importance of this intersection for the authoritative determination and discernment of truth in all things.

The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, are in whose sentences we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.39

In this work, the doctrine of the Spirit’s authority will be developed as an outworking of our “pattern of divine authority. The Spirit is involved in this pattern as an executor of Christ’s will in the world (John 15:26; 16:14–15). The Spirit’s involvement in the world has been described in the historic notion of the “economic Trinity.” Whereas the “immanent Trinity” is the perspective on God that explains who he is “antecedently and eternally in his own divine life,”40 the economic Trinity is the perspective that demonstrates the priority and distinctive role of each of the three Persons as they act in relation to us. In the economic Trinity we witness a subordination of authority—the Son to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son. This subordination certainly does not imply inferiority. Forsyth states,

Subordination is not inferiority, and it is Godlike. The principle is imbedded in the very cohesion of the eternal Trinity. . . . It is not a mark of inferiority to be subordinate, to have an authority, to obey. It is divine.41

Within the pattern of divine authority, the Son and the Spirit may be thought of as authoritative “agents” of the Father, each being equal with the Father and having the Father’s full authority with respect to their nature (as God) and their right to execute the Father’s will. Such “agency,” therefore, retains divine authority. The Spirit is also given the specific assignment of executing Christ’s will, an authority I will define in chapters two and three as “executorial authority.” Such an authority shall be examined in two specific ways in chapter four: (1) the authority to act as Spirit of Truth, bringing the truth that is in Christ to the believer (through his “veracious authority”42) and (2) the authority to act as Governor of the Church, bringing the Church under the authority of Christ the King and delegating to her a limited “functional”43 or “ministerial” authority44 in the world (through his “governing authority”45).

A Limitation of This Study

This study will wrestle primarily with the Spirit’s inherent authority rather than with the display of his power. The Spirit’s authority can be seen as that which provides appropriate parameters for understanding and experiencing the Spirit’s power. The Greek words exousiva and duvnamij illustrate the general distinction between “authority” and “power.” Exousiva is used in the New Testament 105 times and is closely related to, though distinguishable from, divine du/namij. Barrett catches the crucial distinctions:

Exousi,a corresponds to potential energy; it is the divine authority which may at any moment become manifest as power, du,namij, through the impulse of God’s will . . . evxousi,a could be used for an office, or magistracy, which afforded authority, the capacity for wielding du,namij. Thus e0xousi,a belongs to a state of effectiveness which lies behind du,namij, which du,namij reveals and on which du,namij depends.46

These comments indicate that, while there is a close relationship in the New Testament between authority and power, these two concepts should not be confused.

Methodology

Each chapter will build upon the previous chapters. In this chapter, I show the need for this study, define its purpose, develop a basic framework for understanding and discussing “The Authority of the Holy Spirit,” mention an important limitation, and present an overview of the chapters.

Chapter two will be entitled “The Authority of the Holy Spirit and Historical Theology: Assessing Historical Debates.” Here I shall examine the critical debates regarding the doctrine of the Holy Spirit found in five periods of historical theology: Patristic, Medieval, Protestant, Modern, and Postmodern. I shall discern four provisional definitions of the Spirit’s authority that emerge from these debates (divine, executorial, veracious, and governing authority) that display his authority in various “realms.”

Chapters three and four will be entitled “The Authority of the Holy Spirit and Systematic Theology” (Parts 1 and 2). In chapter three, I shall develop a systematic understanding of the Spirit’s divine and executorial authority, two critical perspectives on his authority that are foundational for any further understanding (in that they establish the essential “nature” of his authority as well as his “authority to act”). In chapter four, I shall develop a systematic understanding of two critical “domains” of the Spirit’s executorial authority: veracious authority and governing authority. I will develop these two chapters by exegeting key passages of Scripture, by attempting to find specific evidence of the Spirit’s authority therein for systematic theology, and by developing “dialogue” with contemporary pneumatologists.

In chapters five, six, and seven, I will attempt to demonstrate the way my systematic model (developed in chapters three and four) comes to bear upon three “practical” applications with respect to the Church. These three chapters will be entitled “The Authority of the Holy Spirit and Practical Theology” and subtitled “Hermeneutics,” “The Structure and Guidance of the Church,” and “Christian Spirituality,” respectively. Within these chapters I will also provide an evangelical response to contemporary versions of “practical theology” that attempt to incorporate the work of the Holy Spirit in various ways.

1. Lloyd-Jones, Authority, 65.

2. Hall, Word and Spirit, 187–89.

3. Farley, Ecclesial Reflection, 157, 165.

4. Welker, God the Spirit, xi.

5. Hodgson, Winds of the Spirit, 276.

6. “Panentheism” is defined in The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology as “a doctrine of God that attempts to combine the strengths of classical theism with those of classical pantheism” (Franklin, “Panentheism,” 819–20). God is the “supreme effect”—everything that happens affects and changes God. To be the supreme effect, “God must not only be affected by each event in the world, he must also retain his own integrity and wholeness during this process” (ibid., 819–20).

7. Welker, God the Spirit, 21–22.

8. Hodgson, Winds of the Spirit, 284.

9. Lloyd-Jones, Authority, 62.

10. In speaking of the “Church,” I am referring broadly to Christ’s universal Church, unless referring to the local “church” (as I shall frequently in chapter six).

11. I am defining “practical theology” as the application of the results of systematic theology to the development of the church’s overall “ministry,” both theoretically and practically (i.e. “practical theology” would thereby include the theory and practice of hermeneutics, church government, and spirituality).

12. One of the best discussions of the “principle” and “pattern” of authority in Christianity is found in Bernard Ramm’s The Pattern of Authority. This book will serve as a basis for understanding many of the essential concepts used herein.

13. Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, 10.

14. Webster and McKechnie, “Authority,” 126.

15. Imperial authority is that which is “possessed by persons or ruling bodies by reason of superior position such as that of a king” (Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, 10); DeGeorge defines executive authority as “the right or the power to act in certain ways” (DeGeorge, The Nature and Limits of Authority, 62).

16. Such a principle only leads to “authoritarianism,” which is “the sheer appeal to authority, or the excessive claims of an authority” (Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, 19).

17. Ibid., 18 (emphasis mine).

18. Ibid., 21.

19. Ibid., 26.

20. Ibid., 21 (emphasis his).

21. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 16.

22. See Lewis, “Attributes of God,” 453–58. Divine transcendence has traditionally been a watershed attribute for “theism.” “The incomparable divine transcendence involves a radical dualism between God and the world. . . . A biblical theist not only believes that the one, living God is separate from the world, as against pantheism and panentheism, but also that God is continually active throughout the world providentially, in contrast to deism” (Lewis, “Attributes of God,” 458).

23. While Frame holds that both divine authority and divine control demonstrate transcendence (“divine transcendence in Scripture seems to center on the concepts of control and authority”), he also seems to distinguish the way they do so. Divine authority demonstrates transcendence in that “divine authority transcends all other loyalties (Exod 20:3; Deut 6:4f; Matt 8:19–22, 10:34–38; Phil 3:8)” (Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 15–16). Divine control, however, is made evident “by God’s sovereign power” (p, 15).

24. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 16.

25. Ibid., 16.

26. Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, 14. This is confirmed by the Latin word for authority, auctoritas, which refers to “personal influence” and is derived from the auctor, a person who “brings about the existence of any object” (Watt, Authority, 11).

27. This also implies that our principle of authority is free from subjectivism—it finds its locus not in the individual “under” authority but in the Father, Son, and Spirit who “possess” divine authority (see Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, 21).

28. Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, 19.

29. Ramm explains, “All authority must be personally recognized. This is not, to be very sure, the grounds of authority. An authority becomes authoritative to a person only as that person accepts the authority through personal decision. This would appear to taint all authority with the leaven of subjectivism, but this is so only if the grounds of authority are confused with the personal acceptance of authority” (Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, 14).

30. Ramm defines divine revelation as “the religious object determining the character and truth of religion to the subjects of religion” (ibid., 20). See also Oden, Life in the Spirit, 23.

31. Ramm adds, “It must be understood that there is not dilution of authority in its delegation” (Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, 27).

32. Ibid., 27.

33. Ramm proclaims, “The duality of the Word and the Spirit must always be maintained, for it is in this duality that the Protestant and Christian principle of authority exists” (ibid., 30). Ramm also provides helpful documentation of this thesis in Protestant theology. This includes: Calvin, who entitles one chapter in his Institutes, “The Testimony of the Spirit Necessary to Confirm the Scripture, in Order to the Complete Establishment of Its Authority” (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, chap. VII); Luther, who states, “I believe that I can not by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord, or come to him; but the Holy Ghost has called me through the Gospel . . .” (Luther, Small Catechism); and Arminius, who asserts, “the Holy Spirit, by whose inspiration holy men of God have spoken this word . . . is the author of that light by the aid of which we obtain a perception and an understanding of the divine meanings of the word, and is the Effector of that Certainty by which we believed those meanings to be truly divine” (Arminius, The Writings of Arminius, 1:140).

34. Ramm, The Pattern of Authority, 37.

35. Ibid., 36.

36. Ibid., 38.

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).