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).