The “Interpretive Authority” of the Spirit—Definition and Storyline
The central debate within this theological period has to do with the relationship between the authority of the Spirit and the authority of Scripture. As an integral part of the Pattern of divine authority, the nature of this relationship is crucial for both Protestant and Roman Catholic theologies in their respective understandings of the Spirit’s interpretive authority.
The Catholic version of “interpretive authority” essentially reduces to their understanding of “Tradition,” which Congar refers to as a single apostolic tradition handed down in the Church through written Scripture as well as through teaching, discipline, and rites.122 Vatican II described Scripture and Tradition as forming a unity through which the faithful are brought to a full knowledge of God’s truth.123 Such understandings of Tradition place the Spirit-inspired writings and decrees of the teaching magisterium (i.e., councils and bishops) essentially on par with Scripture. One indeed wonders whether the Spirit is actually placed over the magisterium, is replaced by the magisterium, or is conjoined with the magisterium. Eno admits that, “in practice, a juridical criterion like Roman approval, while secondary, becomes the operative norm.”124 While the Spirit has “interpretive authority” to speak “through” the Word as interpreter of the Word, the Roman magisterium, in essence, assumes the role of “mediator” between the Spirit and the Word.
Protestants, on the other hand, claim that the recognition of this Spirit/Word relationship, as stated in terms of their theological discremin, is probably the reason for the success of the Protestant Reformation. Davison traces the roots of Reformation theology back to medieval theology in order to show how earlier attention to this relationship laid the necessary groundwork.
During the long night of the Middle Ages the teaching of the New Testament was obscured by the huge shadow of the Church, a building which, intending to point men heavenwards, gradually blocked out from view the sun in its splendour and the azure of the sky. Reformers before the Reformation and the great leaders in the sixteenth century did much to clear the air and bring men face to face with God in Christ. . . . In vindication the authority of the Scriptures against the encroachments of the Churches were [sic] helping to prepare the way for the complete supremacy of the Spirit.125
Bolich points out that the genius of the Reformation was not that the doctrine of the Spirit’s witness provides a “principal thesis from which other doctrines were to be systematically deduced,” but rather that the Reformers began with the text of Holy Scripture and made the witness of the Spirit integral to their entire doctrinal system, so that the witness of the Holy Spirit was inextricably bound up with the Scriptures.126
In Luther’s theology, the Spirit is not to be seen as some “doctrine” creating an unquestionable rational theory but as a living presence over the world, one that reveals Christ in the world.127 Christ is revealed through the Spirit, who is ultimately the interpreter of the Word, so that the written Word becomes a “living Word” through the Spirit. The crux of the Spirit’s “executorial authority” in Luther is thus the contemporaniety of the Word. The “Word of the Spirit” becomes an “inward Word” when the outward (written or preached) Word penetrates the heart. In this action the Spirit is authoritative with respect to the believer or the one who is being saved. Luther, however, refuses to bind the Spirit in the Word, allowing his theology (unlike many theologians who followed him) to retain the authority of the Spirit over the Word. In opposition to Roman theology, Luther’s model does not allow for a delegation of the Spirit’s own infallibility to any human person or institution, but only to the Scriptures. In this way, “interpretive authority” is retained as a property of the Spirit.
Calvin’s pneumatology and particularly his “internal testimony of the Spirit” teach us that the foundation of the Spirit’s interpretive authority can only be what Ramm refers to as veracious authority. The Spirit has the authority to testify biblical truth to the individual, thus giving the Spirit authority over the individual believer. While believers are utterly destitute of the light of truth, they are not ignorant that this Word is the instrument of the Spirit’s illumination.128 Calvin’s emphasis is always on the work or agency of the Spirit of Truth whereby the Spirit serves as the source of internal or spiritual interpretation within the believer. This implies an interpretive authority of the Spirit that is essentially instrumental—the Spirit is the instrument through which Christ speaks his Word in the human heart. While Calvin essentially limited the Spirit’s work to that of salvation and sanctification, the Spirit is attributed with a certain veracious authority to restore order to humankind and “seal our minds” in truth.129
As a result, Luther and Calvin portray the Spirit as possessing an interpretive, veracious authority, which is in turn an expression of the Spirit’s “executorial authority.” This authority is enacted with respect to Scripture and within the Church. This illuminating Spirit, in other words, authoritatively resides over the Church and yet executes his authority under Christ, speaking through the Word. Because the Word is a product of the Spirit and because the Spirit continues to speak this Word in contemporary confirmation, the witness of the Holy Spirit is seen as the interpretive authority established for man by God. For the Reformers the Spirit is not bound to the Word but always speaks through the Word or in accordance with the Word, thus remaining consistent with himself.
Ramm strongly asserts that the “Protestant Principle of Authority”—the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures—is the only means for avoiding the imposition of the erring voice of man upon the authoritative Word of God. His convincing logic runs as follows:
The truer Protestant principle is that there is an external principle (the inspired Scripture) and an internal principle (the witness of the Holy Spirit). It is the principle of an objective divine revelation, with an interior divine witness. These two principles must always be held together, so that it may be said either that (1) our authority is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, or, (2) our authority is the Scriptures sealed to us by the Holy Spirit.130
As a result, the “storyline” development of the Spirit’s authority has now reached a level of practical objectivity. In other words, Protestants could begin to see Scripture as an objectification of the Spirit’s authority, and thereby begin to grasp God’s character and will with much more significant detail than ever before.
Modern Theology
Since precise limitations of the Spirit’s authority with respect to the Word were not yet well-defined within Protestant theology, a door was left open for followers to either limit the Spirit’s authority to the Word alone (resulting in various forms of Christian rationalism), or to overreact to this thinking by separating the Spirit from the Word (often resulting in various forms of Christian “enthusiasm”). Either way, Prenter contends that after the Reformation the work of the Spirit was narrowed to the individual, especially with respect to the work of sanctification, regeneration, and the interpretation of Scripture. Several other related activities (i.e. the Spirit’s work in creation, providence, history, Church governance, and mission) were given little or no attention.131
On top of this, rapid changes in European intellectual and social culture during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries—particularly in the natural sciences, philosophy,