Total visitors right now: 79

Logged-in members:

[45 : 1.2092]

Welcome to Stand Firm!

The 5th Article: Of the Holy Ghost (part 1)

Saturday, August 25, 2007 • 9:30 am

It has become increasingly common both in mainline denominations and in some (not all) of the more radical charismatically inclined bodies to blame all sorts of odd practices and aberrant behaviors on the Holy Spirit. Apparently, the “Holy Spirit” has caused many to flop backwards onto the floor, rained gold dust from convention center ceilings, provided golden tooth fillings and called the various leaders of Trinity Broadcasting Network to amass great personal wealth so that through their “prosperity” they might show forth the glory of God. It seems that for all the contemporary talk of spiritual gifts (and there are indeed spiritual gifts) and spiritual power (which is real) and claims of being a spirit-filled this or a spirit filled that, the Holy Spirit has in truth been largely reduced to a religious euphemism for “what we want to do.”

Article 5: Of the Holy Ghost

“The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.”

“My girlfriend and I have been praying about it and we both feel the Holy Spirit saying that even though we aren’t, technically speaking, ‘married’ our love is so deep that in God’s eyes we’re spiritually married. So, we’ve decided that it’s okay for us to have sex.”
This declaration, or some variation of it, may be familiar to you if you’ve ever worked or volunteered as a youth minister or leader. I remember hearing it at least twice during my two-year stint as a youth minister prior to seminary. In fact, to be perfectly honest, as a baby Christian in my early and mid-twenties, I personally thought it made a lot of sense.
And, unfortunately, the example above does not represent an uncommon form of “Christian” reasoning even among those who claim to be mature. There is little difference between the adolescent declaration above and the relatively recent General Convention claim to have discerned after much prayer and conversation that the Holy Spirit has revealed that it is “okay” for two people of the same sex to sleep together.
It has become increasingly common both in mainline denominations and in some (not all) of the more radical charismatically inclined bodies to blame all sorts of odd practices and aberrant behaviors on the Holy Spirit. Apparently, the “Holy Spirit” has caused many to flop backwards onto the floor, rained gold dust from convention center ceilings, provided golden tooth fillings and called the various leaders of Trinity Broadcasting Network to amass great personal wealth so that through their “prosperity” they might show forth the glory of God.

It seems that for all the contemporary talk of spiritual gifts (and there are indeed spiritual gifts) and spiritual power (which is real) and claims of being a spirit-filled this or a spirit filled that, the Holy Spirit has in truth been largely reduced to a religious euphemism for “what we want to do.”
An individual, a group, a denomination, wants something or wants desperately to do something. He/they “pray about it,” perhaps for an extended period until he/they feel a sense of “peace,” and thereupon rise justified and rationalized, claiming to himself/themselves and to others that the Holy Spirit has indeed affirmed that it is “okay” to do whatever it is he/they wanted to do in the first place. All this often without any reference whatsoever to Scripture, the historic doctrines of the Church, or even godly reason.
In truth, though we profess and confess otherwise, many contemporary Christians and Christian bodies behave as if the Persons of the undivided Trinity are at war, the Holy Spirit militating against the Word the Word against the Spirit.
Article 5 of the Thirty-Nine Articles, thankfully, cuts the legs out from under this sort of “spiritual” reasoning. The Holy Spirit is of “one substance,” one being, one nature, one essence with the Father and the Son. The Persons of the Trinity are One God. Therefore, the character and attributes, the glory and majesty, which we commonly associate with the Father and the Son belong also to the Holy Spirit.
This is a crucial affirmation. It means that the Holy Spirit cannot be understood as acting in a way that is inconsistent with or independent of the Father and the Son. If the Son, for example, says, “Do not divorce your wife except for marital unfaithfulness” (and he does) the Spirit will not say, “Do not divorce your wife unless she no longer meets your felt needs or you happen to fall in love with your secretary” as some seem to think that he has. The Holy Spirit, being God, will not reveal anything to you, or to me, or to General Convention, or the Trinity Broadcasting Network in dream, vision or prayer that subverts God’s revelation in Scripture.
This is not at all to say that the Holy Spirit will not speak directly to contemporary circumstances (he does) or that he will not give guidance, strength, encouragement, discernment, rebuke, conviction, etc in a very personal and experiential way (he will). It is to say that you can be certain that if ever you hear a voice in your heart or experience a strong urge toward some action or behavior or decision that will put you in opposition to the Word of God, that that voice or experience or leading, no matter how peaceful, beautiful, and/or rapturous, is not of the Holy Spirit.

“for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” (2nd Corinthians 14:11)

The best way to learn to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit is to tether or to re-tether your personal experience and knowledge of the Holy Spirit to a deep, daily, diligent, and devoted study of the revealed Word of God. The scriptures, being the Word of God, tune your heart to the voice of God so that the more you study the easier it is to distinguish between the rather loud voice of desire and the guidance of God.
Our cognitive knowledge of the Holy Spirit is first and foremost a revealed knowledge. God tells us about himself and that telling conditions and interprets our personal experience of him. Being fallen creatures, we must not construct a theology of the Spirit grounded in our own experience.
But what exactly does the bible tell about the Spirit? What basis is there for the 5th Article’s insistence on the divinity of the Spirit and what does it mean to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The affirmation of the divinity of the Holy Spirit is grounded in Scripture. Perhaps, the clearest declaration of the Spirit’s divinity is found in the Lord’s baptismal formula given to the Church in Matthew 28 which sets the Holy Spirit apart from the Father and the Son as a distinct entity and yet includes him equally within the context of divinity:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”

It is difficult to imagine the Lord setting an angel or an impersonal force within same context as himself and the Father and equally difficult to conceive him commanding disciples to baptize sinners “into” any entity other than God.

This explicit revelation of the divinity of the Holy Spirit in Matthew 28 is consistently confirmed both explicitly and implicitly throughout the bible.

In 1st Corinthians 2:10-13, for example, Paul refers to the Holy Spirit: 1. as coming from or of God (verses 10, 11, and 12), 2. as an entity within God (vv 11, 12), and 3. as the source of a believer’s knowledge of God (vv 10,11, and 12):

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

No angel or created power is ever identified as the “source” of divine knowledge. God alone is the source of all things and God is one. And yet the Holy Spirit in verse 10 is presented as the source of our knowledge of God. God reveals himself “through the Spirit” and this Spirit, though an entity within God (likened to the human “spirit”), has the distinct personal capacity to “search” even the deep things of God.” Just as in Matthew 28, the Holy Spirit is said to be both one with God and yet a distinct, personal, entity within him.

Far more might be said at this point regarding the biblical basis for confessing the Spirit’s divine and personal nature (perhaps the best place to begin a serious study of the Holy Spirit in scripture would be with St Basil) but the above texts are sufficient to make the matter clear. The Scriptures reveal the Holy Spirit to be “of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.”
It is necessary at this point to address a rather difficult matter. Though it is short and seemingly innocuous, the 5th Article is rather bold and somewhat controversial.
For centuries Christians in the west and Christians in the east have disagreed over the wording of the Nicene Creed as it relates to the Holy Spirit.
Originally, the Nicene Creed said this about the Holy Spirit:

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.

But sometime after the 4th Century, in the West, the words “and the Son” (Latin: filioque) were inserted into the Creed after the words, “who proceedeth from the Father…” so that the western Creed, the Creed with which most westerners were likely raised, reads:

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.

To understand the “filioque controversy” aright requires grasping two important principles.
First, the Father is the ground of divinity. During our discussion of Article 2: “The Word, or Son of God, which was made very Man” we noted that the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father. The Father is the “source” of the Son’s divinity. This does not mean that the Son became divine at a certain point in time. The Son is “eternally” begotten. He has no beginning nor does he have an end. Nor does it mean that the Son is any less divine than the Father. The Father and the Son are of one substance, one nature, one being. It does mean that the Father is “the Father”. Divinity is grounded in his Person. He is the eternal source of divinity. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. In the same way and by the same reasoning, you will notice above that the Holy Spirit, originally, was described as eternally “proceeding” from the Father alone. The Son is eternally “begotten” of the Father and the Spirit eternally “proceeds” from the Father. Both formulations and this is the point, set apart the Father as the source of divinity.
Second, in the west, the Holy Spirit has been understood primarily in relational terms. This is quite biblical. The Spirit indwells the believer and by virtue of this indwelling the Christian is spiritually bound at once to the Church and to the Lord. The Holy Spirit establishes and, over time and for eternity, deepens the bond of love between you, God, and your fellow Christian. This is why it is often effective to pray about conflicts among believers. Because we share the same Holy Spirit, we can expect that God can work conflicts out spiritually that we cannot resolve naturally. The relating function of the Holy Spirit is not, at least according to St. Augustine of Hippo in his work on the Trinity, limited to human interpersonal relationships nor to human-divine relationships but it reflects the eternal source of the Holy Spirit within the Godhead. The Holy Spirit is the eternal bond of love between the Father and the Son. In this “relational” way, the Holy Spirit is described in the west as proceeding from the Father “and the Son.”
Dr. Alister McGrath, in his Introduction to Christian Theology (p.285) points to this passage from St. Augustine ’s De Trinitate (On the Trinity):

“Scripture teaches us that he is the Spirit neither of the Father alone nor of the Son alone, but of both; and this suggests to us the mutual love by which the Father and the Son love one another…Yet Scripture has not said: “the Holy Spirit is love.” If it had, much of our inquiry would have been rendered unnecessary. Scripture does indeed say: “God is love” (1st John 4:8,16); and so leaves us to ask whether it is God the Father or God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit or God the Trinity itself who is love.”

St. Augustine goes on to argue, based primarily on 1st John 4:7 for the identification of divine love with the Person of the Holy Spirit.
Now, perhaps, you can grasp the disagreement. To eastern Christians, the addition of the filioque clause seemed and seems to undermine the Nicene emphasis on the Father as the source of divinity. But in the west the clause seems to be understood as properly descriptive of the function or role of the Holy Spirit but not necessarily indicative of the “source” of his being.
In fact, as Dr. McGrath goes on to point out in his summary of the controversy (pp 313-316), St. Augustine’s argument from 1st John, identifying the Holy Spirit with Love, assumes that the Father is the lone source of divinity. The passage from which he argues reads:

“7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. (1st John 4:7-12)

St. Augustine argues that the Holy Spirit is the Person in whom divine love is grounded. It is one of the Spirit’s functions to “love” as it is one of the Son’s functions to “Redeem” but it is not simply a function. The Spirit is love. He is the Love between Father and Son and that “proceeds” from or out of this love.
How does St. Augustine come to this conclusion?
1st John 4 teaches that God is love and love is from God. Since the text reveals that God is “love” (v.8) St. Augustine reasons that “love” must be located or grounded within the Trinity and, specifically located in a single Person of the Trinity.
But, and this is important, since love is “of” or “from” God (v.7) the person from whom or out of whom Love flows cannot be the Father.
Why?
Because, as Dr. McGrath explains (p.315), St. Augustine believes that the Father is the source of all divinity. Love must proceed from him to the Son. He cannot proceed from love. McGrath points us to the following passage, again from On the Trinity:

“There is good reason why in this Trinity we speak of the Son alone as the Word of God, of the Holy Spirit alone as the Gift of God, and of the Father alone as the one of whom the Word is begotten and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. I add the word ‘principally,’ because we learn that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son. But this is again something given by the Father to the Son—not that he ever existed without it, for all that the Father gives to his only begotten Word he gives in the act of begetting him…”

Whether St. Augustine’s exegesis of 1st John 4 is valid and regardless of whether his reasoning above is universally accepted, at the very least we can recognize that St. Augustine affirmed the place of the “Father alone” as the eternal source divinity.
It seems then that in the west the emphasis following Augustine has been to describe the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the love relationship Father and the Son and, flowing out of that, to understand the Holy Spirit relationally as the bond of love between believers and between the Lord and his Bride. But, in so far as the west rightly follows Augustine, this relational emphasis does not imply a denial of the Father’s place as the lone source of divinity.
One final note in defense of the filioque clause this time from Dr. David Scott, former professor at Virginia Theological Seminary. In a lecture given during his last year at the seminary Dr. Scott argued that with regard to the Spirit’s “role” or “function” (as opposed to being) within the Godhead and the created order, the western addition of the filioque clause points to and grounds the biblical principle that the Holy Spirit cannot be known apart from Christ. This is not to say that the Holy Spirit cannot and/or does not act where Christ is unknown. Obviously, he can and does. It is to say that the Spirit only “indwells”, makes his home, within those who have come to a living faith in the Son. Biblically speaking, the Spirit comes to human beings from the Father through the Son. Without the filioque, Dr. Scott suggested, the Church risks a descent into a compromised pluralism wherein the Father might be experienced through the Spirit apart from the Son.
I think it best for Christians at this point not to come down too firmly on either side. I do think the following can be said and affirmed:

1. Ontologically speaking (ontology is the study of “being”), the Creed without the filioque clause secures the principle that God the Father is the source of all things; that the Father is the ground of divinity.
2. Functionally speaking the Creed with the inclusion of the filioque clause affirms the relational role of the Holy Spirit both within the Godhead, within the Church, and between the Church and her Lord and it secures the principle that without the Son one cannot be related to God through the Spirit.

This does not, of course, settle the disagreement. The debate over whether the Spirit, even in a derivative or secondary way, proceeds from the Son as well as the Father remains unresolved.
But at the very least, I believe, the first clause of 5th Article of Religion, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, can be affirmed with regard to his function or role within the Godhead and within the Church.
As I noted at the beginning of this essay, the work and role of the Holy Spirit in the Church has become somewhat controversial. But there are some important basics that we can and must affirm regarding the functional role of the Spirit before moving on to the next Article. But because this has been so long and I have a great deal of work to do, I will cover those in the second essay on the 5th article to be published next week.

29 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook

Comments:

Great article, as always! I think as many of us as possible ought to forward it to ++Schori’s e-mail copied and pasted into the body of the e-mail so they won’t have to sully their monitors with going to SFIF, and so they will have only their own hardened hearts to blame for not reading it and confronting their rebellion against the Holy Spirit who they claim inspires and supports their wanderings.

One OT passage seems to me to almost declare explicitly the Trinity including the Spirit:
Isaiah 48:15-16 “I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him. I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful. Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.”

Striking, isn’t it? What do you think?

[1] Posted by Milton on 08-25-2007 at 11:23 AM • top

The Isaiah passage IS striking Milton.

Fr. Matt, wonderful article.

Why didn’t you use John 14:16, 23, 26; John15:26; John 16:15, John 17:21,26 in the discussion of the filioque and the Trinity?

[2] Posted by Theodora on 08-25-2007 at 12:34 PM • top

All wonderful and key texts Floridian. I suppose I just wanted to outline the controversy. Those texts certainly support the functional role of the trinity, but the heart of the matter, I think, is the identification of the Spirit as the Love bond between Father and son and the implication of something more or deeper than a functional procession…I am not sure that any one disputes the point that the Spirit comes to us through our relationship with the Son. The question is whether the son is a secondary source of the Spirit’s ontological procession…if I have understood it rightly anyway

[3] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 08-25-2007 at 12:45 PM • top

Fr. Matt, If you could put a little pressure on James Noble (whose skills at figuring out such were displayed here: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5225/) HE might take our texts and be able to decipher the puzzle of procedures and processes within the Trinity and whether the filioque is valid, perhaps even reunite the Eastern and Western Churches. ;8-)

[4] Posted by Theodora on 08-25-2007 at 02:13 PM • top

It is to say that you can be certain that if ever you hear a voice in your heart or experience a strong urge toward some action or behavior or decision that will put you in opposition to the Word of God, that that voice or experience or leading, no matter how peaceful, beautiful, and/or rapturous, is not of the Holy Spirit.

I’ve been saying the same thing for a long time. My favorite part of the essay. Excellent job as usual Matt.

Hence, same-sex behavior is not of the Holy Spirit. Blessing same-sex unions is not of the Holy Spirit. Ordaining actively unrepentant GLBT’s to the clergy is not of the Holy Spirit. Suing parishes and their clergy/vestry is not of the Holy Spirit. Undermining what Scripture claims for Itself is not of the Holy Spirit. The list goes on and on….

P.S. Hey Matt, care to get into it again with LP about LWO and what Scripture and the Holy Spirit has to say about that? j/k! j/k!

[5] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 08-25-2007 at 05:09 PM • top

Hi Matt, minor punctuation idea :

Second, in the west, the Holy Spirit has been understood primarily in relational terms. This is quite biblical. The Spirit indwells the believer and by virtue of this indwelling the Christian is spiritually bound at once to the Church and to the Lord. The Holy Spirit establishes and, over time and for eternity, deepens the bond of love between you God your fellow Christian.

“between you, God and your fellow Christian”

[6] Posted by Deja Vu on 08-25-2007 at 05:30 PM • top

heh, yes, that would be better

[7] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 08-25-2007 at 05:36 PM • top

Also here:

This is not at all to say that the Holy Spirit will not speak directly to contemporary circumstances (he does) or that he will not give guidance, strength, encouragement, discernment, rebuke, conviction, etc in a very personal and experiential way (he will). It is to say that you can be certain that if ever you hear a voice in your heart or experience a strong urge toward some action or behavior or decision that will put you in opposition to the Word of God, that that voice or experience or leading, no matter how peaceful, beautiful, and/or rapturous, is not of the Holy Spirit.

“then that”

[8] Posted by Deja Vu on 08-25-2007 at 05:47 PM • top

Right now it does seem, exactly as Matt’s essay states, that the Holy Spirit is being used as an excuse to justify what is not acceptable within our Holy Scriptures.
I am hoping that by this identification and rejection of what is not of the Holy Spirit through the use of Holy Scripture, there can also be more discernment of what is truly of the Holy Spirit.
I am thinking that, to protect themselves from the danger Matt describes, maybe many good Christians are rejecting all Christian Spirituality.
Perhaps the thinking is: better to err on the side of rejecting some manifestations of the Holy Spirit than to accept a false spirit as the Holy Spirit.
My hope is that as we make it through this period of false claims of the Holy Spirit, we can find a renewal of genuine Christian Spirituality.

[9] Posted by Deja Vu on 08-25-2007 at 06:00 PM • top

I recall hearing a bishop say (in my presence, not something I read) that he could feel the movement of the Holy Spirit several times during GC06. I am amazed at the folks who have Holy Ghost “radar.” I am also surprised that He makes such frequent trips to the general convention of TEC but apparently does not grace the much larger churches of the Anglican Communion with the same attention, or so TEC would have us believe. It strikes me as unlikely that the Lord would choose a denomination that represents 3% of the world’s Anglicans, and in which only 1/3 actually show up on Sunday, to be the prophetic leader of the Christian world. Actually, I think the obvious giveaway that TEC is NOT the prophetic leader of the Christian world is that so many of them are convinced they are, that the Holy Spirit is “doing a new thing.” The Holy Ghost does not cause Pentecostal moments to occur according to the convenience of the presiding bishop or pres of the house of deputies.
It also strikes me (although I cannot quote scripture on it) that it is very unlikely for the Holy Spirit to move one to do what one already intends to do, or that He comes to pat you on the back after you do it. More to the point, I think, He is your guide in times of uncertainty, and if you are open to Him, will sometimes re-direct your path to a way you had dismissed, or in a direction you had not thought about.
Certainly, it is only rational to assume that the Lord God was not wasting time in the writing of Holy Scripture. There are things that are proscribed (thou shalt not….) and things that are prescribed (Baptism, Holy Communion). The Holy Spirit does not move one to violate the Decalogue on the one hand, nor does he tell you it is OK to skip church on Sunday on the other. It seems evident that if you believe that you are being led to ignore or violate the specific instructions in Scripture, this is clear evidence that it is NOT the Holy Spirit who is doing the talking.
Sorry, I realize that all I’ve done here is to repeat and interpret the “easy part” of Matt’s discussion above, mostly for myself- being one of those people who understand and internalize things better if I write them out. Am I correct so far?
I will have to leave the “filioque” controversy to the real theologians, although I suppose it is something one may become more familiar with if things turn dark after September 30 and one is forced to choose between Rome and the East. Time to read up on my Latin. And spend more time with Augustine and Aquinas and less worrying about Jim Naughton’s latest escapade.
God bless you for good work here Matt+. Reading your essay was a welcome relief after 24 hour of parody. It is good for us to remember who we are, and what we are really fighting for. There are those out there now, some with the reins of power, who no longer believe in the divinity of the Son. How could they then believe that the Holy Ghost was anything more than a good feeling they get when they’ve done something “politically correct”?
Thanks for a wonderful and needed article
TJ

[10] Posted by tjmcmahon on 08-25-2007 at 07:00 PM • top

I recall hearing a bishop say (in my presence, not something I read) that he could feel the movement of the Holy Spirit several times during GC06

It is quite possible what the good bishop felt was the presence of the Holy Spirit on its way to one who actually stands for the Word of God.

[11] Posted by JackieB on 08-25-2007 at 07:08 PM • top

it is “okay” for two people of the same sex to sleep together.

Just a suggestion—sleeping isn’t the issue.

It’s a euphemism that isn’t helpful.

[12] Posted by James Manley on 08-25-2007 at 07:31 PM • top

Not sure I agree James but thanks for the suggestion.

[13] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 08-25-2007 at 07:37 PM • top

Very good article, Fr. Matt. Thanks for the extra time spent on the filioque. I have always had a hard time understanding why it is such a problem to the Orthodox. This helped put it in perspective. Looking forward to next week’s installment.

[14] Posted by terrafirma on 08-25-2007 at 09:02 PM • top

It is quite possible what the good bishop felt was the presence of the Holy Spirit on its way to one who actually stands for the Word of God.

Whaa?? Jackie, you mean to say that what the good bishop felt of the Holy Spirit was actually meant for someone else, and NOT for the good bishop? Harumph!

[15] Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides on 08-25-2007 at 10:53 PM • top

Matt, your basic answer in one sentence, correct?:
“The Holy Spirit cannot be understood as acting in a way that is inconsistent with or independent of the Father and the Son.”
Why? Because God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is One.

This is the grand corrective to those who incorrectly claim “The Holy Spirit has said…” Within that corrective you have stated a couple of the very basics of Trinitarian “consistency” (as you termed it). And I certainly agree.
Now I want to hear those correctives spoken positively, encouraging Christians to step forward boldly in that which is indeed offered to them by gift from God (as you said throughout your essay parenthetically). To be clear, any time an individual or a body of Christians says that have heard or been impressed or seen or felt, etc., etc., the Holy Spirit (even simply saying “God is doing something new”), they are saying from a biblical perspective that God has revealed Himself.
I think you would agree that the problem is not that God chooses to continue to reveal Himself, the problem is that God chooses to continue to reveal Himself within every believer. We WANT that to happen. But with a lack of teaching that “all may prophesy” AND to apply the checks and balances we end up with the irritating premise at the beginning of your (correct and thorough) essay, the intended fleshly, worldly and demonic manipulation of the Holy Spirit.

So to take what I just said and add it to what you expounded, we could summarize: Spirit-filled Christians always prophesy in love, by faith, while accepting some risk, always being actively yielded to the (consistent) Holy Spirit, the result of (consistent) intimacy with Jesus Christ.

Here’s where I see this going, and it will take a concerted effort, and more than just you and I, being empowered by the Holy Spirit. I cannot take credit for this saying: “The flesh runs from the problem; the anointed goes TO the problem.” So in the case of the young man and his lover, we go to them with correct teaching and example of hearing from the Holy Spirit. And in the case of the Episcopal Church (and all the other mainline denominations - not to mention every Christian body), when we hear “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us” - and it is not “consistent” - then not only will we use the Word of God for correction and rebuke, but we will also go in the power of the Spirit for the purpose of redemption and healing, within such revelations’ parameters of “edifying, exhorting and consolation.”
We will teach them and SHOW them —and it is needed across the spectrum—what it really means to proclaim “The Holy Spirit is doing a new thing.”
One thing that would help immensely, and is a very recently renewed prayer of mine, is the raising up of a (or some) recognized (doma) Prophet within each of the denominations. In TECusa we license and ordain everything but that.
May it be soon.
In the meantime, let us encourage all to be Filled, and Walk, and Talk in the Spirit.
Maranatha.

[16] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 08-26-2007 at 12:55 AM • top

I have a friend who says she continues to pray about things after she hears an answer because she wants to make sure she is not overhearing God’s call to a neighbor.

[17] Posted by JackieB on 08-26-2007 at 11:21 AM • top

That’s a good one, Jackie.
Seems like any way around it, your friend will just always have a hard time making a decision!
Seriously, though, despite the idea of overhearing God’s revelation on a nearby band frequency, I do believe God does allow certain revelation to be “received” by many, or else we wouldn’t be able to place forward the concept of unanimous discernment. Not only does ONE person need to be attuned and prepared for revelation (as noted in the essay and in my response) for themSELVES, but also every member of a GROUP all need to be in the same ballpark (committed disciples of Jesus, and empowered by the Holy Spirit - I would love to be able to say simply “baptized and confirmed”, but the outcomes of events in Spirit and in Truth has negated the presumptions of sacramental theology). We can easily see, then, the problem of making correctly divined decisions at the level of General Convention (do not take that as a blanket condemnation of General Convention deputies and bishops as not being Christians. That would not be fair. But I am speaking to the reality of it all. And who would be responsible for such a reality? Those who cast their votes in elections for those bishops and deputies, like me. And on down the finger-pointing line from there….but I’ll stop so I don’t implicate myself twice).

Here’s a funny back to you, Jackie:

Two prophets meet each other on the road. One prophet says to the other, “I know how YOU are, but how am I?”

[18] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 08-26-2007 at 05:06 PM • top

Rob+,
Glad you got the humor part.

[19] Posted by JackieB on 08-26-2007 at 05:30 PM • top

Matt: In 1972 I transferred into an LCMS congregation which had just undergone a schism: the pastor and about 1/3 of the membership followed a charismatic path. The pastor resigned from LCMS, and started his own congregation. Our vacancy pastor was overheard to say something to the effect that he had never encountered a congregation so ignorant of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity. He immediately set out to correct that ignorance. I reckon that is why I don’t suffer the confusion some folks do about those subjects. Whenever I hear someone assert that GC 2003 or 2006 were “spirit-filled”, or that they heard/felt the Holy Spirit, I have to wonder which spirit they actually are heeding…

[20] Posted by Charles III on 08-26-2007 at 06:26 PM • top

Wonderful Fr. Kennedy. Thanks. Keep up the good work.

I’ll admit I’ve found it tiresome to hear people say the Holy Spirit is in agreement with whatever is the nonsense of the day. I recall the last time I heard a priest say something about the Holy Spirit moving the church to some innovation against plain meaning of Scripture that he might be right obliquely; inasmuch as God was allowing way too much misbehaviour in his priests, God was certainly giving more time for some repentance.
And it is funny to see so many of the would-be frozen chosen full of the Holy Spirit–where did that come from?

I look forward to the rest of your lessons. It is good of you to take the time to write up these lessons.

[21] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 08-28-2007 at 08:05 PM • top

The question is whether the son is a secondary source of the Spirit’s ontological procession…if I have understood it rightly anyway

In terms of strictly Trinitarian theology, that is precisely the question; however, there are other questions at stake as well, the first having to do with Jesus’ own words, first, in John 15:26 and secondarily, in John 14:25. Beyond that, there is the issue of how the filioque became part of the universal creed in the West. As has perhaps been mentioned above, the First Council of Constantinople (late Fourth Century) promulgated the Creed without the filioque, and the Council of Ephesus (431) ratified this Creed as THE statement of the Christian Faith, not to be changed. Thus, if the Creed can be changed at all, such a change requires an ecumenical council in order to be valid. However, the filioque was imposed upon the Western Church as a whole by PAPAL authority, and only after the papacy had resisted doing so for many centuries. Because of this, I find it ironic that any Christian tradition, born of resistance to papal authority, would have any problem whatsoever with simply rejecting the filioque.

But back to the ontological question: no Christian tradition worthy of the name, least of all Orthodoxy, would argue that it is possible to have communion with God via the Spirit, apart from the Son. And Orthodoxy certainly understand that the Spirit animates the Church, coming at Pentecost in the Name of the Son, as Jesus himself says, or even, coming at the behest of the Son. What is at stake ontologically is the relationship between the Divine Persons within the immanent Trinity. However, the immanent Trinity is invariably manifested economically. Therefore, one must ask: how does the filioque square with what is clearly the Holy Spirit’s role in the INCARNATION of the Son? Or what of the Holy Spirit descending upon the Incarnate Word at the latter’s baptism? Both of these are most easily explained by the understanding of Orthodoxy, in which, by one eternal act, the Father alone simultaneously generates the Word and breathes forth the Spirit

[22] Posted by Fr. Greg on 08-29-2007 at 10:36 PM • top

Oops! The second Scriptural reference above should be John 14:26.

[23] Posted by Fr. Greg on 08-30-2007 at 08:10 AM • top

It has become increasingly common both in mainline denominations and in some (not all) of the more radical charismatically inclined bodies to blame all sorts of odd practices and aberrant behaviors on the Holy Spirit. Apparently, the “Holy Spirit” has caused many to flop backwards onto the floor

I have been involved with several charismatic/pentecostal churches before, including ones where people were “slain in the spirit.” I think it is easy to assume an emotional experience is a spiritual experience. I believe that at times that the Holy Spirit does indeed touch us emotionally, but most often He speaks to our mind.

The Holy Spirit, being God, will not reveal anything to you, or to me, or to General Convention, or the Trinity Broadcasting Network in dream, vision or prayer that subverts God’s revelation in Scripture.
This is not at all to say that the Holy Spirit will not speak directly to contemporary circumstances (he does) or that he will not give guidance, strength, encouragement, discernment, rebuke, conviction, etc in a very personal and experiential way (he will).

I find that when the Holy Spirit speaks to us, He echoes Scripture back to us. He will bring to mind a Scripture that speaks directly to our situation.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
(John 14:26, ESV)

[24] Posted by Ephesians 3:20 on 08-30-2007 at 10:13 AM • top

[25] Posted by notsosubtle on 08-31-2007 at 06:20 PM • top

Regarding filioque: regardless of whether one accepts the doctrine (and I will confess that most of the time when I reflect upon it, I do) does it really belong in an ecumenical creed? After all, not including the phrase “and the Son” does not constitute an outright denial that the Holy Spirit does indeed proceed from both the Father and Son (i.e., there’s no reason to have the Nicene Creed sans the controversial phrase while keeping it in Article 5). Beside, there has been no truly ecumenical council (and likely never will be) that will ever settle the matter.

—jimm

[26] Posted by notsosubtle on 08-31-2007 at 06:22 PM • top

People used to speak of the still, small voice of conscience. I think this may be the voice of the Holy Spirit, if we listen he will protect us from making decisions that will lead to sins we regret.

[27] Posted by Betty See on 08-31-2007 at 09:32 PM • top

It is a grave sin against the Holy Spirit to attribute to Him those lawless deeds that we are trying to justify. He will never contradict the Scriptures or the other Persons of the Trinity, nor will He draw attention to Himself. There are those who mistakenly believe that the Holy Spirit has not “shown up” in a worship service unless the congregants have had some exciting experience. It is sad we are attracted to such innovations when His work is clearly seen by the eyes of faith in every Eucharist service, through the prayers, the Scripture readings, and the consecration of the elements. He brings peace and order out of the chaos of our lives, which is why the orderly nature of the liturgy is such a beautiful reflection of His work among us, enabling us to worship God as we ought.

[28] Posted by Abigale on 09-01-2007 at 02:00 PM • top

I think it is possible for the Holy Spirit to work in dramatic ways, but this is not the norm. Most often it through the “still small voice.” (1 King 19:12)

[29] Posted by Ephesians 3:20 on 09-04-2007 at 05:52 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.