"It is true that systematic theologies say very little. But are there not special works on the Spirit? W. H. Griffith-Thomas is rather pessimistic. 'The probable explanation of some modern [distorted] views on the subject [of Christ, salvation, and the Scriptures] is the absence of any true doctrine of the Holy Spirit. It is significant that amid the multitude of theological works of high value which have proceeded from able writers in Germany, England, Scotland, and America during the last century, very few have treated with anything like proper fulness and emphasis the Scripture revelation of the Holy Spirit' (the Holy Spirit of God, The Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1913, p. 162).
This judgment seems a bit harsh, even if restricted to the nineteenth century. Perhaps Robert Phillip's Love of the Spirit (1832) and C.R. Vaughn's The Gift of the Holy Spirit (1894) do not qualify as 'works of high value . . . from able writers . . . with the proper fullness.' Many volumes on the Holy Spirit are distressingly vague. Their devotional language may stir the emotions of some people, but they disappoint all who wish to understand what God teaches. The book last mentioned, since it was reprinted in 1975, serves as a good example. Strangely enough it does not get to the personality of the Spirit until the fourteenth chapter of Part Two, the final chapter in the book, although one would expect this subject to come in the first or at least in the second chapter. regeneration precedes personality in chapters six to nine of Part One. The negations in these chapters are for the most part true. He speaks of the necessity of regeneration; he denies that it is merely a 'change in the external relations effected by a visible rite' (p. 136); and 'all attempts to identify this change with the ordinance of baptism . . . are useless. But the positive statements convey little meaning. For example, 'The new birth also involves the creation and the grant of a new nature . . . gaining a new nature, making a new man . . . introducing this new nature into a new life . . . new views, new feelings . . . new action determined by this great change' (p. 135).
Now these sentences are not so much false as meaningless. Literally they are true, but they do not distinguish feelings and actions resulting from regeneration by the Holy Spirit from feelings and actions resulting from other sources. Various people have various feelings and various views. Stalin, or was it Lenin? was once a seminary student; he then experienced a great change so that he had other views, new feelings, and different actions.
Furthermore, though regeneration may give one a new nature, the theologian quoted does not tell us what is meant by nature. This criticism is not simply a conclusion which a reader might infer. It is explicitly stated: 'It is obvious from these positive and most peculiar statements that all attempts to construe the Christian doctrine of regeneration out of all its high mysterious and spiritual significance must be altogether incompetent interpretations of the language used to describe it in the sacred record.' In other words, we should not try to understand the Bible." -Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 2-3
No comments:
Post a Comment