Swartzentrover.com | Thomas - The Holy Spirit - Part 2

The Holy Spirit

By W. H. Griffith Thomas

Part 2. - The Historical Interpretation

Chapter 15 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

Once again the tide of spiritual life and power ebbed, and the Revival of the eighteenth century was succeeded by a period of spiritual dryness. Evangelicalism became largely spent in England; Germany, mainly untouched by Revival, continued in its Rationalism; and in America there was a decided reaction from the theology of Jonathan Edwards. All this movement, or lack of movement, naturally affected the relation of the Church to the Holy Spirit.

Then came a movement in Germany, represented by Schleiermacher. In opposition to the prevalent Rationalism, he rendered great service by emphasising the reality of personal religion as consisting of Feeling.

' Schleiermacher was as nearly original as a man can well be, yet his originality consisted rather in a novel combination of elements previously existing than in any great new discovery of his own. We can find in Spinoza, in Kant, in Novalis, in Zinzendorf, the separate threads which he wove together into his parti-coloured theology.'1

But, unfortunately, with this came the denial of the I objective realities of the Incarnation, the Cross, and Pentecost. His doctrine of the Trinity is Sabellian; the Persons in the Godhead are only modes of manifestation. With regard to the Holy Spirit, He is not a Person distinct from the Son and from the Father, and His work is defined as ' the collective Spirit of the new corporate life that was initiated by Christ.'

' The Holy Spirit is the union of the divine being with human nature in the form of the collective spirit which animates the collective life of believers.'2

It is therefore true to say that

' Schleiermacher knows nothing of a living Christ, nor of a living j Holy Spirit; he knows nothing of a continuous personal working of the exalted Redeemer, and nothing of a continuous personal | working of the Holy Spirit, taking of the things of Christ and showing them to us.'3

The explanation of this is, of course, the fact that the subjective experience needs an objective reality for its basis.

' Unless the feeling of dependence has a proper object, it may be very irreligious. The heart needs a guide; we must not apotheosize it, but must put it under rational control; otherwise we may become a prey to most ignoble impulses. Schleiermacher's religion is not really Christianity, for it recognises no objective norm or revelation. It is a purely subjective phenomenon, a purely natural product.'4

While, therefore, it is possible and right to be profoundly / thankful to Schleiermacher for his work and influence 1 against the Rationalism of his day, a work which has; affected German theology to the present time, yet from the standpoint of full Christianity in relation to the Deity I of Christ and the Holy Spirit he is greatly wanting. '

' In most respects he is a poor guide to follow. Charles Hodge has well said that Schleiermacher is like a ladder in a pit — a good thing for those who wish to get out, but a bad thing for those who wish to get in.'5

It may be convenient here to refer to two other names of great importance and prominence in Germany during the past century. The first is that of Hegel, who endeavoured to construe Christianity in the terms of pure thought and abstract philosophy. But beyond the mention of his name as one who has widely and profoundly influenced all philosophical thought since his time, it is unnecessary to refer to his attempts to state Christian doctrine. As it has been rightly said, everything appears to be as Christian as before, and yet we cannot help feeling that nothing distinctively Christian is left.

' When once the Gospel has been severed from a historic person, and identified with a complex of metaphysical ideas, what it ought to be called is scarcely worth discussion; that it is no longer Christianity is clear.'6

The other name of immense importance is that of Ritschl, whose position has been aptly summarised as ' theology without metaphysics.' His dominant thought was the Kingdom of God, and through this all the blessings of Christianity are mediated to the individual.7 It is particularly interesting to notice how this view of the Kingdom has been seized by the Anglo-Catholic school in support of their theory of the Church, but in reality Ritschl's conception of the Kingdom is something far different from the sacerdotal idea of the Church as the mediator of blessing. Ritschl's avoidance of everything purely ontological necessarily affects his doctrine of the Trinity, and with it his view of the Holy Spirit. As to this, the following words seem to be true:

' In a doctrine of the Spirit the Ritschlian theology conspicuously fails. But the Evangelical theology unambiguously affirms His Personality, work, and abiding presence and power in the heart of the believer.'8

While, therefore, we may gladly accept the view that Ritschl has done much to emphasise some of the practical spiritual results of Christianity, yet his position must be regarded as ' deficient as a transcript of full Christian Faith.'9

' It is not easy to name any specifically Ritschlian doctrine of capital importance which has not in some former situation sought to establish itself in theology in a slightly different form, and which did not evoke misgiving or solemn protest as impairing the efficacy or diminishing the security of the Christian salvation.'10

In England three movements call for attention in connection with this subject. The first of these is Tractarianism, which owed its initial impulse to a protest against ' Liberalism ' in Christianity and politics, and sought protection in the authority and continuity of the Christian Church as expressed and proved by Apostolic Succession. But its emphasis on this position tended, as sacerdotalism invariably does, to ignore the definite presence and spiritual power of the Holy Spirit. Whether we consider its Roman Catholic aspect, as represented by Newman and his fellow-converts, or its Anglican counterpart, as represented by Pusey and others, it is marked by a decided absence of reference to the New Testament conceptions of the Holy Spirit in the individual and the community.

The next movement was Irvingism. This, which sprang from Edward Irving in Scotland and extended to England, created a great stir by its claim to Divine revelations through the Holy Spirit. It developed into a curious blend of what may be called Montanism in relation to the Holy Spirit, and Ecclesiasticism in worship and ministry. But its eclecticism partook too largely of divergent and contradictory elements to permit of its becoming a permanent power.

The third, Plymouth Brethrenism, to use the best-known designation, represented a movement to unite all real Christians in view of divided Christendom in an endeavour to ' keep the unity of the Spirit.' At the outset the Coming of the Lord as the present hope of the Church and the presence of the Holy Ghost as the principle of the unity of God's people were greatly insisted on. The Church as a whole owes much to the testimony of the Brethren on the importance of the Word of God, the judicial standing of the believer in Christ by the Spirit, and the Coming of Christ as the blessed hope of the Church. But, like many other movements, it developed extremes of teaching and discipline, and its undue and unbalanced individualism, with its fissiparous tendency has led to deplorable severances and their consequent weaknesses. But in so far as the Brethren emphasised the Holy Spirit's presence in the Church as characteristic of this dispensation, their witness to primitive truth was as welcome as it was necessary, and one of their number has rightly said that ' their appreciation of the Holy Spirit's presence, power, and guidance is the grand and distinctive character of their theology.'

A period of nearly lifty years, from 1856 to the end of the century, was marked by three special features, more particularly in England and America.11 At first there was a period of Revival. Evangelistic movements in America, Ireland, and England created a great impression in 1859 and the following years, with the result that renewed emphasis was placed on the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and lives of God's people. Then followed Holiness movements, of which the most important subsequently found its centre at Keswick, wherein the need and power of the Holy Spirit through faith was brought into special prominence. Later on the mission work of D. L. Moody contributed not a little to the insistence on the work of the Spirit of God.

Side by side with these movements came a remarkable development in the work of Foreign Missions, and both in America and in England world-wide evangelisation may be said to have sprung largely from these Revival movements, which led the Church to realise as scarcely ever before its duty to preach the Gospel to every creature.

The issue of works on the Holy Spirit also characterised these fifty years in a very remarkable way. From the issue of Arthur's Tongue of Fire, with its powerful appeal to the Christian, book after book was issued calling attention to some aspect of the Holy Spirit's presence and work. A well-known writer. Dr. H. C. Trumbull, has raised the question whether all this attention given directly to the Holy Spirit is pure spiritual gain in view of the fact that the Holy Spirit never glorifies Himself, but Jesus Christ, and that emphasis on His work tends to a forgetfulness of the supreme place and power of our Lord and Saviour. There is, of course, a decided danger of undue perspective, but as a rule it cannot be said that this has been the practical result of these works, since for the most part there has been an earnest and successful endeavour to keep close to Holy Scripture, and to honour the Son of God in stating the Scriptural view of the Spirit of God.

Reviewing the ferment of thought of the last century, it may perhaps be said that on the whole the emphasis on the Holy Spirit represents clear progress and a decided return towards the full New Testament revelation. It is true that Pneumatology has not received anything like the attention paid during the century to Christology, and it is the opinion of some that, in view of modem researches into the domain of psychology, the time has not yet come for a thorough reasoned statement of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. This may be so, but it is perhaps equally true that a proper discussion of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit demands something infinitely more and greater than a knowledge of psychology, or even of the ' abysmal deeps ' of personality. It will only be when a real, personal, and corporate experience of the Holy Spirit once again possesses the Christian community that we shall be able to have a thoroughly modern and yet ancient view of the Person and Work of the Blessed Spirit. Philosophy, as represented by Pragmatism and by the names of Eucken and Bergson, seems to be tending more and more towards the reassertion of spiritual realities over everything materialistic, and we may well believe and devoutly hope that through this insistence on the spiritual, God will raise up champions who will declare to all the world the essential, vital, and distinctive truth of the Holy Spirit in the Christian Church.