Wherever it is found, self-sufficiency is man’s supreme folly. When Christians attempt to go in their own wisdom and strength this is, in fact, a denial of their faith.

The world is full of people who are groping, longing, hungry, and anxious for something which they have never found but the need for which is a gnawing reality.

Basic to this is the completeness of man’s need. In no vital area is man sufficient in himself. He needs strength, wisdom, guidance, help, and victory which he can never supply from his own resources. “For without me ye can do nothing,” is always valid.

It is because of this that men and nations find themselves adrift today—with weakness instead of strength, foolishness instead of wisdom, groping instead of guidance, helplessness where help is desperately needed, and defeat instead of victory.

In God’s wisdom the dilemma of man is met only as he realizes the completeness of his need. Where pride intervenes, the door is closed. Where there is ignorance, this ignorance must be dispelled by the truth of the Gospel. Where there is unbelief, this must be supplanted by faith.

The more a Christian matures, the more he understands the completeness of his own need. This is revealed by the Holy Spirit, creating a dependence which God honors in the fulfilling of his promises.

This has been experienced by many Christians to the end that peace came to their hearts in a new way while at the same time God revealed the completeness of his faithfulness.

There are times when we are overwhelmed by the multiplicity of issues which defy solution. Personal problems become baffling in their complications; loved ones are confronted with adverse developments; friends become prey to the devices of Satan; the world in which we live becomes so confused that there seems no solution to its problems.

At times like this the Christian often lives like a beggar in the midst of plenty, like an orphan in the presence and power of his Heavenly Father, like an ignorant fool in the wisdom which comes from above.

When he becomes excited and goes out in his own wisdom to solve his problems or those of others, he but complicates the situation for all concerned.

There are times when God wants his children to stand still and see the wonder of his solutions. Such was true when the children of Israel found themselves pursued by the Egyptians. To them Moses said: “Fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will work for you today; for the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again. The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be still” (Exod. 14:13, 14).

The Psalmist knew man’s propensity to become despondent when confronted with what seem to be unsurmountable odds. In Psalm 37 David writes of the apparent triumph of evil men and counsels God’s children not to fret because of that which they see, nor to be envious of sin’s temporary ascendancy.

At such a time the Christian is to put his trust in the Lord, knowing that in so doing he is trusting the One who has not only the answer but also the final word.

We are further admonished to “take delight in the Lord,” for it is in times of man’s extremity that He stretches forth his mighty arm to save.

Then the Psalmist gives us this telling advice: “Commit your way to the Lord.” How faithful are we in doing this? Do we not too often try to work out the solutions to our problems without reference to the only One who can really solve them for us?

To “be still before the Lord, and wait patiently for him” is an exercise of faith too few of us exhibit. It is so hard to be still in the presence of God, so much easier to be up and doing. Even in our prayers we are so busy talking to God that sometimes he has no chance to speak to us. Indeed we often try to cover up our own failures by an increasing amount of talk—thinking that we can divert God from our true state!

“Wait for the Lord, and keep his way,” is David’s further advice. For many of us waiting is not easy. We want to have the answer, see the solution, right now—and if God does not give it in our way and when we demand it, we soon notice our frustration mounting.

In our failure to admit the completeness of our need in everything and the completeness of God’s provision for every need, we sin against him and bring misery to our own souls.

We need to practice introspection, to examine our own hearts and lives, to pray that the Holy Spirit will show us ourselves as God sees us, in order that we may realize how barren and empty we really are—how great the void which can be filled only by the living Christ. When this occurs the first great battle has been won. Just as illness drives the sufferer to the physician, so the sinfulness and barrenness of man’s soul when it is stripped naked of ignorance or pretense, drive him to the Great Physician who has the cure for sin and the love to apply it.

Yes, the completeness of man’s need is matched only by the completeness of God’s provision.

On the one hand this is the offer of God’s redeeming, keeping, and providing love in Jesus Christ. On the other it is a case of man’s appropriating to himself that which God is offering. Instead of striving to achieve, man comes to rest in that which Christ has achieved for him.

The writer would like to bear personal testimony to the fact that many times in his life he has experienced an overwhelming sense of frustration, need, and weakness only to see God undertake, fulfilling his promises in ways which could only strengthen faith and make his presence and power a reality more precious than anything this world can offer.

We think of an occasion when there was such a multiplicity of problems in which so many people and enterprises were involved that we felt completely helpless—and we were. At that particular time there came over us an overwhelming sense of relief as we realized that all of these could be turned over to our Lord without going into any of them in detail. We simply turned them over to him in faith and knew he would solve each of them in his own way, in his own time, and for his own glory.

The objective result was a blessing for all concerned. The subjective effect was one of unspeakable relief—of peace where there had been strife, hope where there had been uncertainty, surrender where there had been striving, and praise where there had been confusion.

The lesson for us all is this: our need is complete, but his provision is equally complete.

A most crucial question of contemporary theology probes the ground for orthodox trinitarian doctrine. According to historic Christianity, trinitarianism characterizes not only God’s manifestations of himself to man, but God as he is in himself.

For much anti-metaphysical modern thought, however, nothing can be known in itself, let alone the infinite God! Men can know God’s mighty acts, but not God per se. Propositional revelation of God’s very nature is banished from its venerable theological throne; revelation in act or event has usurped exclusive rights to the kingdom of contemporary theology.

Assuming that revelation is in act not assertion, can theologians avoid the ancient heresy of modalism? Modalists (Sabellians) in the early Church alleged the three Persons were merely ways in which God revealed himself to men, not distinctions within God’s own essence. It is questionable if those whose principle of authority is non-propositional can claim more. Henry P. VanDusen observes, “The crucial question in all speculative thought about the Trinity is precisely this: whether it is legitimate, indeed necessary, to recognize as true of the inmost reality of the Divine Being distinctions which are indisputably real within our experience of the Divine Being” (Theology Today [October, 1958], p. 378).

Two heroic attempts have been made to establish an ontological trinitarianism from a basis of revelation as act. Upon that ground Leonard Hodgson, the distinguished Anglican theologian, reasons inductively or synthetically to the doctrine of the Trinity, and upon that ground Karl Barth reasons analytically to trinitarianism. Can either synthetic or analytic reasoning from temporal events (albeit revelatory) lead us to truth about the very nature of the eternal God?

Leonard Hodgson’s Induction

“I have rejected as unprofitable,” Leonard Hodgson writes in The Doctrine of the Trinity (Nisbet, 1943), a view of the Bible “as giving revelation in the form of propositions concerning the inner mysteries of the Godhead” (p. 229). The starting point of Hodgson’s trinitarianism is the given data of Christ’s “birth, ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension” (p. 25) as well as Pentecost and the presently observable “new life of communion with God into which Christians have been taken” (p. 138). Hodgson then seeks a “postulate,” or “adequate account,” for the facts of Christ, Pentecost, and Christian experience. The doctrine of the Trinity turns out to be the best “philosophical-theological attempt to grasp what must be the nature of the God who makes Himself known in this way” (p. 139).

While many agree that God cannot be totally other than he condescends to reveal himself to man to be, Dr. Hodgson has given no reasons in support of this conclusion. From a purely experiential point of view a modalistic hypothesis accounts for all the data as consistently as Hodgson’s postulate. Sabellius, for example, maintained that God in relation to creation is Father; God in relation to Jesus Christ is Son; and God in relation to the Church is Holy Spirit. According to Sabellius the three persons are not modes of the eternal Being, but merely modes of divine revelation in time. Does not the merely functional trinity of Sabellius account for the data to which Hodgson appeals? On what ground, then, does Hodgson prefer the ontological to the modalistic hypothesis? His experiential evidence does not require it, and he has ruled out propositional revelation concerning the nature of God. Since no other basis is provided, his conclusion concerning “what must be the nature of the God who makes Himself known in this way” seems to be without foundation.

We here question the necessity of Hodgson’s argument, not its possibility. If in fact we did not have scriptural assertion concerning the God who acts in human history, Hodgson’s case would be usefully employed, although tentative indeed. Granting the decisiveness of the apostolic interpretations of Christ and Christian experience, which Hodgson seems to do, then why question the trustworthiness of their written assertions? So far as he hesitates to grant authority to propositional revelation of the nature of the God who acts in Christ and Christian experience, he weakens his case for trinitarianism, and fails to provide adequate ground for escaping modalism.

While Karl Barth in his Church Dogmatics also rejects propositional revelation, he seeks to avoid the problems of inductive reasoning by alleging that “analysis” of revelatory acts yields trinitarian dogma (Church Dogmatics I, pp. 351, 358). The doctrine, according to a follower of Barth, Claude Welch (In This Name, Scribner’s, 1952), “is not an inductive conclusion from scientia, but an arche, a pre-supposition of thought which is given to men in the new logos in Christ” (p. 245). Consideration of revelatory acts involves the immediate implication of the unity and threefoldness of the revealing God. For example, when Peter confesses “Jesus Christ is Lord,” the Lord God is revealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit. In revelation Barth discovers the “Revealer, Revelation, and Revealedness” (I, 1, p. 361), or “veiling, unveiling, and impartation” (I, 1, p. 431). This threefoldness, Welch insists, is not merely modalistic, but “is in the structure or pattern of the one of God in Christ and therefore the structure of all divine activity and of the Being of God” (op. cit., p. 223). Whereas Hodgson rejects all statements about relations among the persons of the Trinity as unfounded, Welch condemns such an injustice to the Fathers who accepted the Bible as revelation and were not “altogether misled in this matter of the doctrine of relations” (p. 205).

Karl Barth’s Analysis

Does Barth’s analysis achieve the astounding feat of beginning with an event in history and necessarily concluding with a triune doctrine of God in Himself? Maurice Wiles’s expression of “Some Reflections on the Origins of the Doctrine of the Trinity” in The Journal of Theological Studies, sharpens the issue:

We are not starting with the assumption of a revealed trinitarian doctrine of God and then looking at the manner of God’s self-revealing activity in the world to see if it can appropriately be understood in a way which corresponds to the already known trinitarian nature of God. We are, on the contrary, seeking to look at the activity of God to see if it is of such unquestionably threefold character that we are forced, in order to explain it rationally, to postulate a threefold character in God himself (VIII [April 1957], p. 93).

Wiles, who rejects the Bible as propositional revelation because “it appears to conflict with the whole idea of the nature of revelation to which Biblical criticism has led us” (p. 104), also rejects the formulations of Barth and Welch. In his judgment:

For all the advocacy of Karl Barth, it seems impossible seriously to maintain that the statement about revelation is something that requires a trinitarian explanation. The whole argument sounds suspiciously like a later rationalization to support a doctrine really based on … [propositional revelation] and now in search of a new foundation” (p. 105).

Why, for example, does not Welch supply some reasons for the following assumption: “We must reaffirm the judgment that God in himself cannot be other than God in his revelation” (op. cit., p. 219)? This is precisely the point to be substantiated in answering modalism. Sabellius regarded not only human words but also temporal acts insufficient media for revealing the nature of God. For the ancient modalist the acts of Christ and experiences of the Holy Spirit were accommodations of the Eternal to time; the hidden God remained unknown. Barth, on the other hand, is certain that the acts of God in human experience must reveal God per se, but agrees with Sabellius that the scriptural words cannot convey truth concerning the divine essence. On what basis can Barth maintain that human propositions alter divine truth while incarnate acts do not? Are we to believe that God cannot reveal propositions true of his own nature, but Barth can analyze events in a way that must be true of the divine nature? Without propositional revelation what reason have we for following Barth rather than Sabellius? It is not enough for Welch to “reaffirm” the ungrounded assertion that “God in Himself cannot be other than God in His revelation.” The assertion may be true enough; it is its basis that we here challenge.

Furthermore, why does Barth stop with a threefold analysis of the event of revelation? Wiles is willing to follow the analytic approach where it leads, and it leads to a startling conclusion. “Our Trinity of revelation is an arbitrary analysis of the activity of God, which though of value in Christian thought and devotion is not of essential significance” (op. cit., p. 104). Wiles admits that this view is revolutionary, but “no more so than the break-away from the idea of propositional revelation of which it appears to be the logical conclusion” (p. 106). As the thought continues, the completed orthodox doctrine of the Trinity can logically be known only on the basis of propositional revelation about the inner mysteries of the Godhead. Remove that foundation and the necessity (not the desirability or value) of trinitarian thought is removed. With D. M. Edwards, Wiles is led on to this conclusion: “The modern mind … cannot see any necessity of thought for fixing on the number three, neither less nor more.… No convincing reason can be given why, in view of the rich manifoldness of divine functions and activities, the number of hypostases may not be increased indefinitely” (p. 106).

The observed weaknesses in the kingdom of non-propositional revelation lead to a reconsideration of richer view of authority including both act and proposition.

Lowry’s Fallible Propositions

Dr. Charles W. Lowry, former professor at Virginia Theological Seminary, in The Trinity and Christian Devotion (Harper, 1946) judges that the most serious difficulty facing theories of revelation exclusively as act, is the biblical data itself. Examining such assertions as: “God is love,” “God is Spirit,” “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter,” “Upon this rock I will build my church,” and “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” Lowry says, “It is not easy to see how the formula of revelation given simply in act or event covers the ground. I believe accordingly, that there is no alternative to positing, in the full light of modern criticism, a special inspiration of Holy Scripture” (pp. 64 f.). Lowry goes so far as to say, “The Bible remains, when all is said and done, the greatest miracle of all time. It is in actuality the Word of God, since it is only through its witness, record and interpretation that we confront and are confronted by the deeds and speech of the living God” (p. 78).

Nevertheless, Dr. Lowry adds, “The Bible is human and fallible as well as Divine and authoritative” (p. 66). But if that be the case, trinitarianism is not supported with any degree of necessity. The very propositions which imply the doctrine may be in error. A Bible with propositional revelations which may be untrue is incapable of conclusively sustaining ontological trinitarianism.

Lowry admits the undue tension of his position that the Bible is both fallible and divinely authoritative:

The working out of the dialectical problem set us by this dual character of the Holy Scriptures is not easy. It is not easy for the common man. It is probably still harder for theologians and scholars. But it is a task that has to be accepted and worked at with energy (ibid.).

Until Dr. Lowry can resolve the problem of biblical criticism in some measure, and recognize propositions certified by verbal inspiration, he will not have secure ground upon which to defend his belief that the Trinity is necessary to Christian faith and devotion.

Orthodoxy’s Infallible Propositions

In view of the inconclusiveness of the inductive, analytic, and fallible propositional bases for trinitarianism, either the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity must be regarded as unnecessary to Christianity or the doctrine must be founded upon propositional revelation and verbal inspiration. On any basis short of this it seems impossible to make assured assertions concerning the inner nature of God. Upon the ground of certified cognitive truths Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, who did not ignore the incarnate acts of God, have structured their doctrine of the Trinity. They may not have used the explicit terms propositional and verbal, but they employed the concepts those words express. For example, Augustine’s first goal in his classic De Trinitate is to “demonstrate, according to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, whether the [trinitarian] faith be so” (I, 2, 4). On that authority, orthodox theologians maintained, God in himself is triune. They did not claim fully to comprehend the Trinity, but the incomprehensibility of God did not imply irrationality. Admittedly their limited knowledge of God’s nature was indirect (1 Cor. 13:12) in being mediated through linguistic and visible signs, but it was not therefore untrue.

Can we, today, in view of biblical criticism continue the allegedly uncritical position of orthodoxy’s stalwarts? Men enlightened in modern critical procedures and results do defend a trustworthy propositional revelation in conjunction with revelation in mighty acts, or as one of the greatest of these acts. Since we cannot here present anything like a full statement of the case, we mention Bernard Ramm, Special Revelation and the Word of God (Eerdmans, 1961); Paul Jewett, Emil Brunner’s Concept of Revelation (James Clark, 1954); and Carl F. H. Henry (ed.), Revelation and the Bible (Baker, 1958).

Furthermore, in the full light of modern criticism Frederick C. Grant concludes that the historic view of Scripture is the biblical view of itself. In the New Testament, Grant observes, “it is every where taken for granted that Scripture is trustworthy, infallible and inerrant.… No New Testament writer would ever dream of questioning a statement contained in the Old Testament” (Introduction to New Testament Thought, Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950, p. 75). Biblically, God reveals himself not only in events, but in words and assertions (1 Sam. 3:21; Dan. 2:28; Matt. 16:17; 11:25; Rom. 16:25; Gal. 1:12). Our Lord himself accepted the Old Testament as true in its assertions of fact and reality (Matt. 5:17, 18; John 5:46, 47; 10:35). The Apostles shared the view of their Master (2 Tim. 3:15, 16; 2 Pet. 1:19–21; 3:16; 2 John 9). As Professor Ned Stonehouse said, “Apart from clarity and unity in understanding the Lordship of Christ as coming to expression in the Holy Scriptures, there can be no theological wholeness and no lasting assurance of advancement in theological education” (CHRISTIANITY TODAY [Feb. 16, 1959], p. 36). The truth of that dictum is vividly illustrated in relation to the basis of trinitarian doctrine. Apart from its culmination in propositional communiques the whole revelation process remains ambiguous concerning the triune nature of God.

It is not only biblical criticism which shatters confidence in inspired assertions; phenomenalistic philosophy also challenges scriptural authority. It is evident to twentieth-century eyes that the biblical authors expressed their own interpretations of events from their personal perspectives. Can we then claim any measure of objectivity even for biblically based knowledge? Are we not limited to a complete relativism and phenomenalism? In his Language and Religion (Philosophical Library, 1957) Ben F. Kimpel shows that “a distinction must be made between knowledge which consists of interpretations and knowledge which is exclusively of interpretations” (p. 39). The latter is phenomenalism. On that position no metaphysical truth of the Trinity could be attained, even with the assistance of Scripture. However, on the former alternative, realities other than one’s own experiences are knowable. Kimpel argues, “Neither Kant, nor anyone else, has made it ‘fully clear’ that knowledge is only of phenomena” (pp. 39, 40). Rather, “In knowing the meaning of an informed affirmation about a reality, one would then be informed of two realities—a subject’s interpretation; and a reality about which his interpretations inform him” (p. 40). On the ground of inspiration we need not deny interpretive aspects of scriptural assertions concerning redemptive acts and the God who performed them. We simply suggest that the superintendence of the Holy Spirit kept the biblical interpreters of revelatory events from error of thought, fact, or judgment. Their assertions concerning the triune nature of God are not merely interpretations; they are true interpretations of what is the case. According to Scripture an eternal Being exists independently of projections of human thought. Futhermore, Scripture makes clear that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct within the Godhead.

Where do the Scriptures teach ontological trinitarianism? The trinitarian distinctions are regarded eternal (a) from those passages which speak of the existence of the Word from eternity with the Father (John 1:1, 2; Phil. 2:6); (b) from passages asserting or implying Christ’s preexistence (John 8:58; 1:18; Col. 1:15–17; Rev. 22:13, 14); (c) from passages implying fellowship between the Father and the Son before the foundation of the world (John 17:5, 24); (d) from passages asserting the creation of the world by Christ (John 1:13; Heb. 1:2, 10); (e) from passages asserting or implying the eternity of the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2; Psa. 33:6; Heb. 9:14). (See A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology [Judson Press, 1907, p. 326]. Additional biblical documentation may be found in E. H. Bickersteth, The Trinity [Kregel, 1959], and G. A. F. Knight, A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity [Oliver and Boyd, 1953].)

Barabbas

Possessor of the name

We usually see fit

To link with yet

Another word: acquit.

Peter: deny.

Judas, but a way

To more than amply

Call to mind: betray.

Barabbas: he chosen

In place of Christ;

His freedom rather

Highly priced.

And Jesus? To Barabbas

Here was no whim Of doctrine. Here was fact:

Christ in place of him.

FRED MOECKEL

Does it seem obscurantist to accept such ontological assertions? Acceptance of them is not limited to those who neglect evidence. No less a scholar than William Adams Brown would remind us of the metaphysical implications of the Scriptures:

In the quiet of the study or the classroom it is easy to speak of banishing metaphysical terms from theology, but in practice it is impossible. To do this would involve not simply the rewriting of our theological systems, but of our hymns, our liturgies, even of the Bible itself. The doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness may be a product of the fourth century, but its beginnings go back to the very threshold of Christianity and the men who laid its foundations are not Origen and Athanasius, but the apostle Paul and the fourth evangelist. The Christ of the New Testament is not simply the man of Nazareth, but the pre-incarnate Logos, the Word that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. Either we must be prepared to break with historic Christianity altogether and banish large parts of the New Testament from their place in our public worship, or else we must be able to give some rational account of the metaphysical element in early Christian theology and its present significance for the church (Christian Theology in Outline, Scribner’s, 1916, pp. 158–59).

If to be true to the New Testament we can and must speak metaphysically, that is, of God as he is in himself, then we either believe what the Bible implies concerning the triune nature of God or we deny its ontological trustworthiness. It is here maintained that because of the Holy Spirit’s guidance we may trust without qualification not only the biblical writers’ descriptions of events but also their assertions concerning the triune nature of the God who redeems and renews sinners. It is furthermore argued that such inspired assertion is the only basis on which conclusively to answer modalistic trinitarianism.

GORDON R. LEWIS

Associate Professor of Theology

Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary

Denver, Colorado

Resolutions

If I may claim your courtesy,

I ask that you would print for me

In January, Sixty-Three

For all my Eutykin to see

These New Year’s resolutions.

(The uses of publicity

May underwrite a guarantee

Correcting the fragility

Of resolutions framed by me.

Resolves should gain longevity

When printed for posterity.)

I should resolve to give up Cokes

And buying books and telling jokes;

I should resolve to answer mail

The day I get it, without fail;

To count my calories and weigh

The consequences every day;

To take a break without a snack

And learn to drink my Sanka black.

Domestic duty calls for action:

Some traces of dissatisfaction

Appear in notes in which the author

Describes her plans for kitchen tile, or

(What strengthens my resolve the most) her

Concern that I should fix the toaster.

The faucets leak, the stove is stuck,

The kitchen drain is clogged with muck;

It is apparent that, in fact,

The only way to keep intact

Monogamous alliance is

Repairing home appliances.

Resolving, it is plain to see,

Will be my job for Sixty-Three,

For other areas arise:

Before I lay in my supplies

To mend my fences near and far,

I must put Esso in my car—

And then resolve to moderate

That itching to accelerate;

To view with Christian charity

The driver just in front of me,

And tolerate the lead she gains

By Dodging action in two lanes.

On second thought, or third, I see

No profit from your courtesy.

The list is long and will not finish

For numbering will not diminish

The unending mending required.

Resolution is no solution

For a Happy New Year!

Racket And Ricochet

I have read with interest the feature article … by the Rev. Glendon E. Harris (Nov. 23 issue) entitled: “The Quietest Racket in America”.…

Everyone knows that transient men and families apply to the churches for help and crooks of all kinds thrive on this kind of “charity,” but the fact is that so many young ministers forget when they enter a community that they are not only the pastor of a church but a member of the community itself and should learn what its total resources are to meet human need. Certainly the minister knows where the doctors and lawyers are and can seek their aid when necessary. Why, then, is he not aware of the service available from the regularly constituted social agencies? Unless it be a very small community, there will be a Community Chest or its equivalent, and the agencies coordinated in it are skilled and able to handle human physical and social problems.

The Family Service, the Salvation Army, and many others are ready and willing to interview the applicant for aid and sift out the true from the false, thus saving the minister not only time but money.…

Dallas, Tex.

Located at the junction of U. S. Highways 66 and 166, our little town (population 4400) has more than its share of professional transients.…

Several experiences convinced us that an infinitesimal percentage were truly in need. However, we too … had “rather be swindled a dozen times than turn away one deserving case”.…

However, a joint project was inaugurated with the Salvation Army and the local Police Department (who welcomed the solution).

It works like this: Each minister in town has instructions to sent all transients to the City Hall (Police Station). There, the Officer on duty has the authority to provide a meal, groceries, gasoline, or lodging (no cash!). He does this by making arrangements on the phone, charging the amount to either the Ministerial Alliance or The Salvation Army. (We furnish about two-thirds of the budget.) A limit is set on the amount the officer can charge without getting permission from the President or Vice-President of the Alliance.

The officer fills out a card on the applicant while he is at the station. This discourages the “pro” from returning.

The plan has several advantages: (1) The ministers are freed from personal “touches.” (2) The transient can only “work” one minister since we all send him to the same place. (3) It screens out people in trouble with the law. (4) It provides a “clearing house” which is open day and night. (5) It gives the minister an opportunity to deal with the individual, but the final decision on material help rests in the judgment of a police officer, a person who isn’t easily “taken.” (6) The churches do the bulk of the financing.

In order to replenish the transient fund, all cooperating churches observe “Ministerial Alliance Day” once a year. A special offering is received in each church on that Sunday.…

First Baptist Church

Baxter Springs, Kansas.

True, there is a racket of this type, and I have been taken in several times. To magnify this thought seems to say that we should shut out mercy to those in need.

Very often social agencies have residence requirements before persons passing through can be helped. Others who could help are suspicious. What is a person in need to do when even church people and church denominations warn against helping?

Even if those in need are to be considered enemies, St. Paul tells us, “If your enemies are hungry, feed them.”

First United Presbyterian Church

Paulding, Ohio

We first tried a committee of laymen to cope with the problem. This worked fine for local needs, but was unsatisfactory for those traveling. We still have the committee for purposes of helping local people.

The best solution I have known of is cooperation with the local police. Out ministerial alliance and the police cooperate in this matter here. The police hold and administer a fund furnished by local churches and civic clubs to help those traveling who have a legitimate need.…

Pittsburg Baptist

Pittsburg, Calif.

The Wisdom Of Joseph

I was shocked when I read in the article, “Israel’s Favorite Game” (Nov. 23 issue), that “Aseneth was the daughter of Potiphar, wife of Joseph.…

According to every copy of the Bible that I have, and after consulting my commentaries, I find every one states that Joseph’s wife was the daughter of Potiphera (Gen. 41:45). Joseph had his troubles with Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39:1 ff.). He surely did not marry her daughter.

First English Lutheran Church

Pittsburgh, Pa.

• Reader Wentz is correct. In the same sentence the spelling of the name of Joseph’s wife should have been “Asenath.”—ED.

To find such keen interest on the part of the general public in any part of the world in a Bible contest is really a sensation! I have read about these … contests in the secular papers but nowhere did I detect the fact that this contest aroused popular interest comparable to interest in the World Series.…

Rochester, N. Y.

Distinctions

The Review of Current Religious Thought for November 9 by Addison H. Leitch … on “distinctions” … expresses my sentiments exactly. However, I predict a cold reception for this article on the part of many. Some time ago I preached on the subject “Protestant Biblical Distinctives and the Second Vatican Council.” Awaiting me at the door was a lady who said, “May God forgive you for all those horrid things you said. That was the most narrow, bigoted, pharisaical thing I have ever heard.… Both (Rome and the Protestants) of us will have to give up a little (for effective ecumenism), but we should be willing to do it!”

As for Dr. Leitch, should my prediction come true, I know he will take heart. As for me, I do not care to give up Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide for the Papacy and the Mary cult.…

Sugar Hill, N.H.

Baiting the Pope can be almost as “great fun” as burning heretics.

Does it occur to Dr. Leitch that one who “thinks on the Man of Galilee” might consider it unworthy to comment on the separation of Christians in a flippant tone? Dr. Leitch talks about being aroused to “cynicism and a certain sadness.” His comments, however, reveal more cynicism than sadness, and an attitude for which—to the extent that we all share it—we should pray for forgiveness.

Chairman

Humanities Division

Wabash College

Crawfordsville, Ind.

I am in agreement with Dr. Leitch that truth must be broadcast and error exposed; however, I think it can be done in a conciliatory, informative, comparative and gracious way. I had a Catholic friend read this article who is very concerned about prayer, God’s will, etc., and he felt very hurt by the non-serious fun-poking as he considered it to be.

I am at present studying in a Roman Catholic university and would like to present various articles to various faculty members from time to time, with a view to their ultimate enlightenment and conversion.…

Chicago, Ill.

Only On Sunday

Recently I noticed a moving picture title, “Never On Sunday.” I knew nothing about this picture except its title. During October (Oct. 26 issue) an article by this name appeared in CHRISTIANITY TODAY … to stress the importance of the Lord’s Day. Now I believe in the Lord’s Day and keeping it; but as I read this article, I thought of how often Christians do things only on Sunday, that God would have them do every day.…

Our life has been so secularized that the only time the majority of Christians seem to have time for religious education is … Sunday.…

It is rather unusual today to hear Psalms or hymns on week days. Much of our worship is only on Sunday.… Wouldn’t the average deacon’s or elder’s wife be startled if she heard her husband singing “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, early in the morning our songs shall rise to Thee,” as he shaved or prepared to leave for work in the morning.…

At church, on Sunday, prayer is offered for ruler, nations, missionaries and many other needs. Sometimes a small percentage of the Sunday group gathers to pray in the middle of the week, but for the most part … only on Sunday.…

To get right down to brass tacks, perhaps our title should be “Only In Church.” The language of the church, the hymns of praise, the open Bible and prayers are beginning to seem out of place except in the church, and even there only on Sunday.…

The Calvary Bible Baptist Church

Monroeville, Pa.

Marx And Marxism

Many students of Communism would take exception to Lester DeKoster’s “The New Face of Marxism” (Oct. 26 issue). Two of [his] ideas need careful scrutiny.

The first is the notion that Soviet-Sino style Communism has lost its appeal to “uncommitted” peoples. This theory is misleading.… Communism has never appealed to a majority in any nation. Rather, Communism has been imposed from the top down.…

Mr. DeKoster’s picture of Marx also needs correcting. Among phrases quoted and coined in discussing Marx are … “basically humanist” and “passion for righteousness.” It is true that Mr. DeKoster has dealt with the false Marxist claims to humanism, but it is unfortunate that he has left uncorrected the above … concept of the man Marx. Leopold Schwarzschild’s Karl Marx: The Red Prussian … draws heavily on Marx’s correspondence with Engels in supporting his description of the bigoted and bitter hater of mankind that was the person Karl Marx.…

Manchester by the Sea, Mass.

Church leaders should: (1) quit grouping together all the anti-Communists from the opportunists and die-hard segregationists to the real patriots; and (2) enter into an all-out effort to show that the love of God is a better reforming agency than the doctrines of class hatred and liquidation of Marx and Lenin.

First Presbyterian

Elsinore, Calif.

Disciples Convention

Thank you very much for the excellent article (“Disciples Battle Integration Problems,” News, Oct. 26 issue) interpreting the whole convention.… It certainly was a fair report of exactly what happened at the meeting.

I read your magazine with great interest … and have enjoyed many of the articles in the recent months of crisis.

President

International Convention of Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ)

Indianapolis, Ind.

To write of the Holy Spirit is to write of God, as the ecumenical creeds affirm; to write of his works is to write of the action of God through all of human history (he “convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment”) and throughout the history of the Church (he is the Paraclete in every Christian heart). Thus the compilation of a bibliography of books on the Holy Spirit is a task requiring great delimitation.

The present bibliography is limited in these respects:

1. It includes only works written in English or available in English translation. Thus such important books as Werner Krusche’s Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach Calvin (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957) are omitted.

2. It includes only separately published books on the person or mission of the Holy Spirit. Works of general dogmatics (e.g., Calvin’s Institutes, Barth’s Church Dogmatics), though containing sections on the Holy Spirit, are therefore excluded; and so are books which are devoted to other subjects but which touch on pneumatology (e.g., William Anderson’s Regeneration [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1875]; and Robert Preus’s Inspiration of Scripture: A Study of the Theology of the Seventeenth Century Lutheran Dogmaticians [Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957], which has a valuable chapter (pp. 50–75) on the relation between the work of the Holy Spirit and the doctrine of biblical inspiration).

3. It includes only works not previously listed in my bibliography of “100 Select Devotional Books” (CHRISTIANITY TODAY, V [September 25, 1961], 1070–72). Readers must consult that issue for such works as William Arthur’s Tongue of Fire, A. J. Gordon’s Ministry of the Spirit, Ruth Paxson’s Life on the Highest Plane, and Charles Williams’ Descent of the Dove.

4. It excludes for doctrinal reasons works orientated toward what Professor E. A. Burtt of Cornell has called “Constructive [i.e., subjective] Religious Empiricism” (e.g., H. Wheeler Robinson’s Christian Experience of the Holy Spirit); works of unreconstructed liberalism (e.g., T. Rees’s The Holy Spirit in Thought and Experience; E. F. Scott’s two books on the Holy Spirit; The Spirit, B. H. Streeter, ed.; H. P. Van Dusen’s Spirit, Son and Father); and anti-Reformation, non-evangelical treatments such as L. Dewar’s The Holy Spirit and Modern Thought.

Astute readers will note that, in contrast to my book list of devotional works for CHRISTIANITY TODAY, almost 50 per cent of the present bibliography consists of out-of-print titles (specifically, 27 of the 60 items are in this class). Every effort was made to concentrate on in-print titles, but it is an unhappy fact of mid-twentieth century life that many currently available books on the Holy Spirit are not worth bibliographical listing, and many of the truly classic books on pneumatology have been neglected since their original publication. It is hoped that a publisher with a flair for photolithographic reprinting will bring out a “Library of Classical and Devotional Pneumatology” to fill the gap.

Readers interested in purchasing in-print titles (identified by an asterisk) will find the addresses of United States publishers in Books in Print or in the Cumulative Book Index, and the addresses of British publishers in the Reference Catalogue of Current Literature. American prices have usually been given below; in some instances British prices are considerably lower, and the Christian bibliophile can benefit economically from an international orientation.

ATHANASIUS, Letters concerning the Holy Spirit, tr. by C. R. B. Shapland (London: Epworth, 1951). By the great fourth-century defender of the divinity of the Holy Spirit against Arianism. His letters deserve to be read today as a historical counteractant to the essentially Arian views of Unitarianism, religious liberalism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

¹In Print.BARCLAY, WILLIAM, The Promise of the Spirit (Westminster, 1960, $2.50; London: Epworth, 5s.). Barclay, author of A New Testament Wordbook and More New Testament Words and editor of the Daily Study Bible commentary series, as usual combines expert Greek scholarship with penetrating devotional insight.

²In Print.BARRETT, C. K., The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (Seabury, 1947, $3.50; and S.P.C.K.). Deals primarily with the Synoptic Gospels. Author holds inadequate doctrine of biblical authority, but his book is still of great value. Cf. his “The Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel,” Journal of Theological Studies, 1950, pp. 1–15, and R. Hoeferkamp’s article under the same title in Concordia Theological Monthly, September, 1962.

BARTH, KARL, The Holy Ghost and the Christian Life, tr. by R. B. Hoyle (London: F. Muller, 1938). Study of the Holy Spirit as Creator, Reconciler, and Redeemer. Cf. Barth’s sermon collection, Come Holy Spirit (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1934); and G. W. Bromiley, “The Spirit of Christ,” Essays in Christology for Karl Barth, ed. by T. H. L. Parker (London: Lutterworth, 1956).

³In Print.BICKERSTETH, EDWARD H., The Holy Spirit, His Person and Work (Kregel, 1959, $2.95). This nineteenth-century Anglican divine evidenced his spiritual depth in writing such hymns as “Stand, Soldier of the Cross.”

BIEDERWOLF, WILLIAM EDWARD, A Help to the Study of the Holy Spirit, 4th ed. (Revell, 1904). In the Introduction Dr. William G. Moorehead rightly praises this work for its “complete subjection to the authority of Scripture” and for its excellent bibliography.

⁴In Print.BOER, HARRY R., Pentecost and Missions (Eerdmans, 1961, $5). A doctoral study “concerned with the significance of Pentecost for missions.” Author is a theologian-missionary of the Christian Reformed Church to Nigeria.

BURTON, EDWARD, Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Doctrine of the Trinity and of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost (Oxford, 1831). Still the standard work.

CANDLISH, J. S., The Work of the Holy Spirit (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.). A brief, lucid work, published originally in the series “Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students,” ed. by Marcus Dods and Alexander Whyte. Candlish was professor of systematic theology, Free Church College, Glasgow.

⁵In Print.CHAFER, LEWIS SPERRY, He That Is Spiritual (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1918, $2.75). By the former president and professor of systematic theology at Dallas Seminary. Practical yet profound analysis of Holy Spirit-created spirituality.

⁶In Print.COME, ARNOLD B., Human Spirit and Holy Spirit (Westminster, 1959, $4). Strongly Kierkegaardian in outlook. Its anthropocentric starting-point and its lack of a clear revelational criterion of authority are great weaknesses, but it offers stimulating insights via depth psychology and process philosophy.

CUMMING, JAMES ELDER, “Through the Eternal Spirit”: A Bible Study on the Holy Ghost (Stirling, England: Drummond, 1891). Correctly regarded by Wilbur Smith as a “standard work”; scholarly, comprehensive, beautifully organized, thoroughly scriptural and devotional.

⁷In Print.DAVIES, J. G., The Spirit, the Church and the Sacraments (London: Faith, 15s.). An exceedingly attractive presentation from the standpoint of contemporary evangelical Anglicanism; shows acquaintance with the best literature, ancient and modern, English and non-English, on the subject.

⁸In Print.DILLISTONE, F. W., The Holy Spirit in the Life of Today (Westminster, 1947, $2). Short, well-written book “for the average man.” Author is chancellor of Liverpool Cathedral, England; previously he served as professor of systematic theology at Wycliffe College, Toronto, and at the Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

DIXON, A. C., ed., The Holy Spirit in Life and Service (Revell, 1895). Consists of 19 addresses delivered before the Conference on the Ministry of the Holy Spirit held in New York in 1894; authors include, inter alia, W. J. Erdman, A. J. Gordon, and A. T. Pierson. The papers relate the work of the Holy Spirit to a wide range of church activities.

⁹In Print.DOWNER, ARTHUR CLEVELAND, The Mission and Ministration of the Holy Spirit (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909, 13s.). “A book that deserves the widest circle of readers”—Wilbur Smith. Comprehensive, well organized. Comparable to Kuyper, though shorter, and orientated more to biblical than to dogmatic theology. Author was Anglican.

FABER, GEORGE STANLEY, A Practical Treatise on the Ordinary Operations of the Holy Spirit, last edition, with a biographical notice (New York: Protestant Episcopal Society for the Promotion of Evangelical Knowledge, 1857). By the nineteenth-century bishop, apologist, and student of biblical prophecy.

¹⁰In Print.HAMILTON, NEILL Q., The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul (Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1957, paper $2.25; London: Oliver & Boyd, 8s. 6d.). In the series Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers (No. 6). Contains useful bibliography.

HARE, JULIUS CHARLES, The Mission of the Comforter, ed. by E. H. Plumptre (London: Macmillan, 1886). Sermons preached at Cambridge University in 1840. Archdeacon Hare added numerous valuable scholarly notes.

¹¹In Print.HENDRY, GEORGE S., The Holy Spirit in Christian Theology (Westminster, 1956, $2.50). Regarded by T. N. Tice of Princeton as “at this point the one indispensable treatise on the subject by an English-speaking theologian.” Excellent on the problem of the Holy Spirit in current theological thought, but marred by a neoorthodox view of Scripture.

¹²In Print.HENRY, ANTONIN M., The Holy Spirit, tr. by Lundberg and Bell (Hawthorn, 1960, $3.50). In the “Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism” series. An exceedingly valuable work demonstrating once again that Protestants cannot afford to ignore contemporary Roman Catholic theological writing.

¹³In Print.KÖBERLE, ADOLF, The Quest for Holiness; a Biblical, Historical and Systematic Investigation, tr. by J. C. Mattes (Augsburg, 1930, paper $1.25). Contemporary Lutheranism’s greatest contribution to the study of sanctification; the book combines scholarly thoroughness with devotional depth.

¹⁴In Print.KUYPER, ABRAHAM, The Work of the Holy Spirit, tr. by Henri De Vries, Introduction by B. B. Warfield (Eerdmans, 1900, $5). An unsurpassed classic. Undoubtedly the most comprehensive work in print on the subject. In the tradition of Reformation-Calvinist systematic theology.

MACGREGOR, G. H. C., ed., “The Things of the Spirit”: The Teaching of the Word of God about the Spirit of God (London: Marshall, 1898). A valuable classification of the biblical passages on the Holy Spirit by a close friend of G. Campbell Morgan. Cf. Wilbur Smith’s classification in his A Treasury of Books for Bible Study¹⁵In Print. (Wilde, $3.95).

MCINTYRE, DAVID M., The Spirit in the Word (London: Morgan & Scott, 1908). An excellent treatment of the work of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of the Bible. Cf. L. Gaussen’s Theopneustia.

¹⁶In Print.MORGAN, G. CAMPBELL, The Spirit of God (Revell, 1900, $2.75). One of the finest books written by this great preacher and Bible expositor.

MOULE, H. C. G., Veni Creator: Thoughts on the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit of Promise (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1890). A superlative book by the prolific doctrinal and devotional writer well known for his contributions to the Cambridge Bible for School and Colleges, for his Christian poetry, and for his biography of Charles Simeon.

¹⁷In Print.MURRAY, ANDREW, The Spirit of Christ (Zondervan, $3.50). Meditations of extraordinary depth by the nineteenth-century Dutch Reformed pastor.

¹⁸In Print.NUTTALL, GEOFFREY F., The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience, 2nd ed. (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1947, 18s.). A valuable historical study, particularly with regard to Quakerism, though marred by its author’s enthusiastic proclivities. The book originated as an Oxford University D.D. thesis.

¹⁹In Print.OCKENGA, HAROLD JOHN, The Spirit of the Living God (Revell, 1947, $2). High-quality sermons by the pastor of Park Street Church, Boston, and president of Fuller Theological Seminary. Cf. his Power through Pentecost* (Eerdmans, 1959, $2).

²⁰In Print.OWEN, JOHN, The Holy Spirit, His Gifts and Powers (Kregel, 1954, $3.95). Regarded by Kuyper in 1888 as “still unsurpassed”; the same must be said today. Owen, a Presbyterian Nonconformist of the seventeenth century, was one of the most learned and prolific theological writers of all time.

²¹In Print.PACHE, RENÉ, The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, tr. by J. D. Emerson (Moody, 1954, $3.50). A carefully outlined, lucid exposition of biblical teaching on the Holy Spirit by the president of Emmaus Institute, Lausanne, Switzerland. Particularly helpful for sermon construction and in Bible study preparation.

PARKER, JOSEPH, The Paraclete: An Essay on the Personality and Ministry of the Holy Ghost, with Some Reference to Current Discussions (Scribner, 1886). The first edition of this fine work appeared anonymously.

PHELPS, AUSTIN, The Work of the Holy Spirit; or, The New Birth (Boston: D. Lothrop, 1882). By the brilliant Congregationalist homiletician who served as professor of sacred rhetoric (1848–79) and president (1869–79) of Andover Seminary.

PIERSON, ARTHUR T., The Acts of the Holy Spirit, Being an Examination of the Active Mission and Ministry of the Spirit of God, the Divine Paraclete, As Set Forth in the Acts of the Apostles (Revell, 1895). By the nineteenth-century authority on missions and voluminous Christian writer who edited the Missionary Review of the World.

²²In Print.PRENTER, REGIN, Spiritus Creator, tr. by J. M. Jensen (Muhlenberg, 1953, paper $1.50). The first comprehensive study in the twentieth century of Luther’s concept of the Holy Spirit.

²³In Print.RAMM, BERNARD, The Witness of the Spirit; an Essay on the Contemporary Relevance of the Internal Witness of the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans, 1959, $3). A trenchant systematic-historical analysis, with a final chapter criticizing Romanism, liberalism, and fundamentalism; by the neo-evangelical apologist and professor of systematic theology at California Baptist Seminary.

REDFORD, R. A., Vox Dei: The Doctrine of the Spirit As It Is Set Forth in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (London: J. Nisbet, 1889). By the nineteenth-century biblical apologist and contributor to The Pulpit Commentary.

²⁴In Print.SANDERS, J. OSWALD, The Holy Spirit of Promise; the Mission and Ministry of the Comforter (Fort Washington, Pa.: Christian Literature Crusade, 1959, $2.50). For the general reader; a short but penetrating overview of the central problems of pneumatology by the director of the China Inland Mission.

²⁵In Print.SHOEMAKER, SAMUEL M., With the Holy Spirit and with Fire (Harper, 1960, $2.50). Typically warm and practical book from the prolific pen of this much-loved Episcopalian rector.

²⁶In Print.SIMPSON, A. B., The Holy Spirit, or, Power from On High, 2 vols. (Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1924, $5.80). Subtitle: “An unfolding of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments.” Originally presented as sermons in the Gospel Tabernacle, New York City, by the founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.

²⁷In Print.SMEATON, GEORGE, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Christian Literature Crusade, $3.50). A classic, worthy to be placed with Downer, Kuyper, and W. H. Griffith Thomas. Includes a historical survey of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit from New Testament times through the nineteenth century.

SNAITH, NORMAN H., et al., The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (London: Epworth, 1937). Contents: “The Spirit of God in Jewish Thought,” by Snaith; “The Spirit in the New Testament,” by Vincent Taylor; “The Holy Spirit in the Church,” by Howard Watkin-Jones; and “The Holy Spirit and the Trinity,” by Harold Roberts. Exceedingly valuable, though not always manifesting a high view of biblical inspiration.

²⁸In Print.STARKEY, LYCURGUS M., JR., The Work of the Holy Spirit: A Study in Wesleyan Theology (Abingdon, 1962, $3). A historical study of Wesley’s concept of the Holy Spirit.

SWETE, HENRY BARCLAY, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1909). To be used in conjunction with Swete’s other three standard works on the early history of doctrine: The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church (London: Macmillan, 1912), covering the patristic age; On the Early History of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit with Especial Reference to the Controversies of the Fourth Century (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, 1873); and On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, from the Apostolic Age to the Death of Charlemagne (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, 1876).

²⁹In Print.THOMAS, W. H. GRIFFITH, The Holy Spirit of God, 3rd ed. (Eerdmans, 1955, $3). A masterly work by the conservative Anglican theologian who served as professor of Old Testament literature and exegesis in Wycliffe College, Toronto. The book, which first appeared in 1913, studies the doctrine biblically, historically, systematically, and practically; its comprehensiveness ranks it with Downer, Kuyper, and Smeaton.

TOPHEL, GUSTAVE, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Man, tr. by T. J. Després (Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1882). Five discourses of great devotional power.

³⁰In Print.TORREY, R. A., The Holy Spirit: Who He Is and What He Does (Revell, 1927, $3). In the perceptive and lucid style characteristic of this great pastor, evangelist, and onetime (1889–1908) superintendent of the Moody Bible Institute.

³¹In Print.UNGER, MERRILL F., The Baptizing Work of the Holy Spirit (Wheaton, Ill.: Scripture Press, 1953, $2.75). Provocative study of a difficult aspect of pneumatology by the eminent Old Testament scholar and professor at Dallas Seminary.

WALKER, JAMES BARR, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, or Philosophy of the Divine Operation in the Redemption of Man, 6th ed. (Cincinnati: Jennings and Pye, 1901). A continuation of the author’s Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation, which deservedly attained great popularity in the nineteenth century.

³²In Print.WALVOORD, JOHN F., The Holy Spirit, 3rd ed. (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1958, $3.95). By the president and professor of systematic theology at Dallas Seminary. Contains a valuable appendix on “The Holy Spirit in Contemporary Theology.”

WATKIN-JONES, HOWARD, The Holy Spirit in the Medieval Church (London: Epworth, 1922). A continuation of the work of Swete. It deals with the history of the doctrine from the post-patristic age to the Counter-Reformation, and is itself continued by Watkin-Jones’ Holy Spirit from Arminius to Wesley (London: Epworth, 1929), which covers the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

WEIDNER, REVERE FRANKLIN, Pneumatology, or, The Doctrine of the Work of the Holy Spirit (Wartburg, 1915). Systematic treatment from the standpoint of conservative Lutheranism. Author was professor of dogmatics and president of Chicago Lutheran Seminary (1891–1915).

³³In Print.WINSLOW, OCTAVIUS, An Experimental and Practical View of the Work of the Holy Spirit (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 3s.). First published in 1843. Powerfully evangelical and deeply devotional, as were all of this prolific writer’s works, some 100 of which are listed by the British Museum’s Department of Printed Books.

WINSTANLEY, EDWARD WILLIAM, Spirit in the New Testament (Cambridge: University, 1908). Subtitle: “An enquiry into the use of the word pneuma in all passages, and a survey of the evidence concerning the Holy Spirit.”

³⁴In Print.WISLӦFF, FREDRIK, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, tr. by Ingvald Daehlin (Augsburg, 1949, $3). By a European Lutheran pastor who represents a contemporary blend of classical orthodoxy with the evangelical pietism characteristic of the Norwegian Inner Mission movement. His book cannot be too highly recommended for its faithfulness to Scripture and its genuine experiential impact.

END

Worldwide revivals around the turn of the twentieth century resulted in the establishment of more than a dozen “denominations” commonly called Pentecostal. While some divergence of doctrine exists, one basic position unites Pentecostals—their common belief that “the baptism in the Holy Spirit” is a distinct experience which all believers may and should have following conversion.

During their formulative years, Pentecostals came from various backgrounds. Revivals of the late 1800s and early 1900s touched individuals in the old-line denominations, as well as many who had no previous affiliation. Early congregations often faced opposition from the community and the established churches. Far from stamping out the groups, hard-hitting opposition fanned the small flame that had a doubtful future.

As the various Pentecostal denominations grew, each established its own program of world evangelism since lack of communication had separated most of the groups during their infancy. However, 15 years ago, recognizing more similarities than differences, ten of the denominations formed the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America. Though each has retained its own organization, their common position on the Holy Spirit serves as a rallying point for united fellowship.

This backdrop provides but a brief history of the work and advancement of Pentecostals. Time has brought changes, but no modification in the emphasis, teaching, and experience of the baptism of the Spirit.

The Promise Of The Spirit

Just before the dark days preceding the birth of Christ, Joel prophesied of the coming of the Holy Spirit into the world. “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit” (Joel 2:28, 29).

This prophecy was repeated by Peter as he spoke to those who received the experience on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17, 18). Pentecostals have asked, “If this is not what is being experienced today, where is the fulfillment of this prophecy in the ‘last days’?”

John the Baptist heralded the coming of the Holy Spirit when he foretold the ministry of Christ. In Matthew 3:11 he said: “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.”

Most Bible scholars accept the position that the word “baptize” used by John was the Greek baptidzo, meaning to immerse. This meaning is consistent in classic Greek. The word is used to describe the sinking of a ship, and, metaphorically, being drowned in drink. Hence, Pentecostals accept the position that to be baptized in the Holy Spirit is to be immersed.

During his ministry Christ repeatedly promised the Holy Spirit to the disciples. The sending of the Third Person of the Trinity is also mentioned by Christ in John 14:26 and 16:7 and in Luke 24:49. Finally, when gathered with the disciples and with friends on the Mount of Ascension, Christ “commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence” (Acts 1:4, 5).

The promise of the baptism in the Holy Spirit was initially fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost, ten days after the ascension of Christ. Hence the expression Pentecostal experience. This term is a modern-day one, unmentioned in the Bible. So encompassing was the experience that it was described as “a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind” (Acts 2:2). The use of the word rushing portrays the rapidity with which the Spirit’s influence spread. The account of the first outpouring indicates also that all spoke with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4). This Pentecostals accept as the initial physical evidence of the infilling or baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Acts lists a number of languages spoken by those who received the infilling and states that the languages were recognized by those who came to hear after it was “noised abroad.” So emotional was the setting of the first Pentecost that there were mockers and those who suggested the entire crowd was drunk (Acts 2:13). The Apostle Peter, with new boldness, spoke for those present, stating that the experience was not drunkenness but a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. He closed his address to the onlookers by telling them, “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39). This opened the dispensation of complete indwelling of the Holy Spirit, an age which will not until the coming of Christ.

The Gift Of Tongues

Shortly after Pentecost, Peter was called to the home of Cornelius, whom Scripture describes as a “devout man who feared God.” There Peter witnessed the Gentiles receiving the same experience with the same initial evidence as that which took place on Pentecost: “For they [Peter and those with him] heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God” (Acts 10:46).

The Apostle Peter was soon called to task by the council of Jerusalem to explain why he had preached to the Gentiles. The report of his action climaxes in Acts 11:15—“And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.” A visual and vocal result was evidence to Peter that the experience was the same as that which the crowd experienced at the first on the Day of Pentecost.

The Scriptures relate a similar experience which occurred when the disciples preached to the believers in Samaria: “Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8:17). Although speaking in tongues is not specifically mentioned, some visual or audible demonstration was evident for “when Simon [the sorcerer] saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power.…”

Some years later, probably around A.D. 54, Paul came to Ephesus and inquired of “certain disciples,” … “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” Finding they had “not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost,” he laid his hands on them, and “the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues” (Acts 19:1 ff.).

Though space will not permit an exhaustive listing, history records many infilling experiences with the same initial physical evidences. Acts mentions at least five incidents. One incident follows Paul’s own conversion, and although the account does not mention a speaking with tongues at the time Paul received the Holy Ghost (Acts 9:17), the apostle does say in 1 Corinthians 14:18, “I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all.”

Speaking in tongues as the initial evidence should be distinguished, however, from the gift of tongues as described in 1 Corinthians 12:10. Many individuals have received the baptism in the Holy Ghost and spoken in tongues at that time, but have not experienced the gift of tongues. This explains Paul’s question in 1 Corinthians 12:30: “Do all speak with tongues?”

Irenaeus, A.D. 115 to 220, wrote in his book Against Heresies, Book V, vi, “In like manner do we also hear many brethren in the church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages.…” Pachomius, A.D. 292–348 (according to A. Butler’s Lives of the Saints), after seasons of special prayer spoke in tongues in Greek and Latin. From the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries there were numerous revivals in southern Europe in which many spoke in tongues. In Erich Sauer’s History of the Christian Church (III, p. 406) it is recorded, “Dr. Martin Luther was a prophet, evangelist, speaker in tongues and interpreter, in one person, endowed with all the gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

Evidences Of The Infilling

Pentecostals hold that the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues signals the infilling of the Holy Ghost because:

1. It is so recorded in most of the cases in Scripture where the outpouring is mentioned.

2. History mentions the same experience in most incidents where the Holy Spirit was outpoured.

3. Thousands of believers in modern days have spoken in languages they had never learned at the time of their infilling.

There are a great number of Scripture passages which would indicate that believers do not receive the infilling or baptism in the Holy Spirit at the time of conversion. Christ explained to the disciples in John 14:17, “… But ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” In Ephesians 1:13 Paul writes, “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise.” The disciples confessed Christ to be the Son of God (Matt. 16:16; John 6:68, 69) and were pronounced clean by Jesus (John 15:3), yet were commanded to tarry in Jerusalem to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49).

The ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church has been enlarged as never before. Pentecostal churches are among the fastest growing in the world. But the work of the Spirit is by no means limited to them. Today he is indwelling believers of many denominations, wherever men open their hearts to him.

END

Contemporary Christianity spends itself far more in posing questions and pondering problems than in maintaining and promulgating the faith. The habit of the early Church was otherwise. It leaned hard on the reality and power of the Holy Spirit for vitality, assurance, and direction. Perhaps the modern Church needs a fresh look at Pentecost to see the folly of relying mainly on human organization and skills. Not to seek the Holy Spirit, not to thrust open our souls to his illuminating, purifying, and empowering light is to invite gloom and tragedy into the work of the Kingdom. To substitute the clatter of ecclesiastical machinery for the quiet penetration of the Spirit’s teaching and transforming power spells uncertainty and failure; not because of him but of ourselves we become straitened and weak.

The teaching of Paul and of our Lord himself indicates that the most vital doctrine of our Christian faith is that of the Holy Spirit. Yet far more is said and read about the Fatherhood of God and Christ’s sacraficial life and death than about the Person and power of the Holy Spirit. This is not wholly bad, of course, for to glorify the Son is to glorify the Father; yet even this requires the Holy Spirit’s glorification of the Son. With so much emphasis on the Holy Spirit in both the Old and New Testaments it seems strange that Christians should have neglected this doctrine so long.

Eighteenth-century deism proclaimed an absolute Deity. Its God was mighty enough to fashion the universe and to announce laws for its regulation, but it had no Father whose measureless love provided a Redeemer-Son for sinning humanity. For men of that deistic age God was simply Sovereign Ruler, Mighty Architect, All-wise Judge. Such faith furnished a creed for the intellect, a law for conduct, and purpose for the world. But it offered man no help in realizing God’s abounding love manifested in the saving grace of Christ.

Perhaps the tremendous concentration these days on man’s own energy and activity has deceived us into forgetting that the triune God is the source and sustainer of life.

The Spirit’S Work

It is the Divine Spirit who makes known our adoption into the family of God and imparts the needed strength for daily service. He fills us with the knowledge of God’s will in spiritual wisdom and understanding. The Holy Spirit reveals our partnership in the divine nature; he evidences the fact that we are in God and God in us. He reveals Christ, by whom the tangle of our sinful nature is quieted. The Spirit invigorates our wills, delivers us from the law of sin and death; assuring us of our eternal sonship, he enables us to live in daily, unbroken fellowship in the household of faith.

Through Joel God declared this prophetic promise: “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh …” (2:28). Peter’s sermon at Pentecost reverts to Joel’s prophecy; in fact, the redemptive experiences of that day were in no sense alien to Jewish thought. On that day, according to each person’s power to receive and the work entrusted to him, leaders and followers, men and women, young and old, shared in the outpouring of the Divine Spirit. Their spiritual training had deeply impressed the people of Israel with the close relation of God to his people, and thus prepared them to receive and to appreciate the baptism given at Pentecost.

This revelation in the Old Testament is essential for understanding the New Testament message. From the first chapter of Genesis through the prophetic books, the Spirit of God appears in many places and in many lives. In nature he broods over chaos and brings faith, order, light, fertility, and fragrance. The origin of life itself is the divine breath of God which he breathes into man. Across the Old Testament pages we see Judges introducing order; Elijah dares to act, Daniel dreams, Ezekiel writes, and Isaiah preaches—all work under the Holy Spirit’s direction.

But notice this mystery! While the Divine Spirit illuminated and empowered writers, warriors, and statesmen, his intimate presence and energizing power he does not seem to have entrusted to all of God’s people for day-by-day possession and practice. The Spirit directed certain leaders and manifested his power on certain extraordinary occasions, but clarified vision, victory over self and sin, and a close walk with God were not the conscious experience of all believers. Joel’s promise, therefore, becomes all the more significant, for he declared a day would come when God’s Spirit should consciously engulf all believers. This promise, which hovers over the closing pages of the Old Testament, burns like a star before the eyes of God’s people. The faithful seem to stand on tiptoe, waiting not alone for a Redeemer but for the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. Pentecost became the fulfillment of this promise; what happened on that day justified all expectations.

The Spirit’S Witness

Of all the doctrines of Christian theology which may be verified by experience, none requires more careful and discriminating study than what we call the witness of the Spirit or assurance of faith. If we believe in what we call “experimental religion,” we must believe that the living Christ is made present in our lives through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Christianity is a religion of redemption! It affirms that all men are sinners; that Christ died for all men; that all men can be saved by repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It declares, further, that by the witness of God’s Spirit all men can know they have been saved. Christianity presents the plight of man and proffers the power of Christ. Through disobedience man lost his place in God’s favor and family and therefore needs a new relationship to God, a renewed personality, a complete renewal of his nature. To secure a right relationship with God he must be reborn; this experience is apprehended by faith in Christ Jesus and ministered to the believing soul by the Holy Spirit. Paul spoke of being “strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man.” Thus the miracle of divine love frees the sinner from the law of sin and death.

Paul often used the word “flesh” to describe the perishable sinful condition of the natural man. He insisted that apart from God’s grace and left to himself man is not only frail and mortal but wayward, selfish, and evil; not only has he broken God’s law, but he has also placed his trust in himself. He is a sinner who must be changed and converted. He must believe on the only begotten Son of God. Only the Holy Spirit can reveal his need for pardon and give him an awareness of its abundant provision in the Saviour.

The Holy Spirit takes the initiative in this miracle of awakening and renewal. We can be sure that God has left no man without the leadings and strivings of the Holy Spirit, though man so often disregards and stubbornly resists them. Man cannot apprehend nor remedy by his own effort the sense of guilt in his heart. Any one who denies the need for a life hid with Christ in God will never rise above the level of the natural man. But anyone born of the Spirit experiences a veritable miracle. To be in Christ is to be a new creation—ruled, directed, and controlled by the indwelling Spirit of God.

Wesley emphasized both what he called the “direct” and what he called the “indirect” witness. The former, which he identifies with the work of the Holy Spirit, he defines as an inward impression on the souls of believers whereby the Spirit of God directly testifies to their spirit that they are the children of God. He calls the “indirect witness” the testimony of a good conscience toward God which, strictly speaking, is a conclusion drawn partly from the Word of God and partly from personal experience. The Bible affirms that everyone who has the fruits of the Spirit is a child of God. These two witnesses, the “direct” and the “indirect,” are never disjoined in normal and ideal experience but always united. Experimental religion is evidenced by a conscious knowledge of sins forgiven; it is this same Spirit that convinces us of guilt and assures us of pardon. When this witness is absent, a professing Christian is constantly on the defensive and continually attempts to prove he is a child of God. The Bible promises that “the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”

We must not limit the witness of the Spirit to the assurance of salvation. His indwelling presence kindles aspirations to lay hold on things divine, and to grow as loyal and resolute servants of righteousness. Christ promised that the Spirit would lead us into truth, that by his illumination we should be able to discriminate between the raucous voice of the world and the still small voice of God. The Holy Spirit exalts the Christ and makes known what he offers us and the world; he stirs our emotions and minds to new quests. Habitual yielding to the guidance of the Spirit increases our confidence, joy, and fruitfulness, for his indwelling brings spiritual enrichment, greater victory over self and sin, and deeper intimacy with him whom having not seen, we yet love. Elevating and broadening our interests and sympathies, he makes us increasingly alive to all the great realities. Observing life as the Spirit reveals it, we discover how impertinent it would be to limit the blessings of the Gospel to any one race, class, or nation. “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth …” (1 Cor. 2:12, 13). To be filled with the Spirit is to accept and walk in the truth of God; to be guided by the will of God; to surrender the whole man in loving loyalty to the service of Christ.

The Spirit’S Fullness

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, which contains much of his ripest teaching, Paul prays that the Church be clothed with might by the Spirit in the inward man. He exhorts all believers to “be filled with the Spirit” (5:18). This does not mean to “become full” like an empty vessel that is replenished. It means, rather, that the believer finds his fullness, the true realization and fulfillment of his highest being, by and through the presence of the Holy Spirit. If the Church is to rise to its fullest stature in God, if it is to enjoy the abundant life, if it is to meet all foes in the spirit of triumph, it must rely not upon its numbers or its human skills, but upon the power of the Holy Spirit. To accomplish the mission of the Church by trusting only earthly means spells failure, even in the midst of what the world calls success.

We need to be quickened. We need to resort once again to the sources of power. The Church is hindered and the Kingdom thwarted not so much by the non-Christian influences in the world, but rather by the tepid, stoic religiosity of Jesus’ professed followers. Christ desires not our polite deference but the total strength of our lives. The enormous forces unleashed in the world today only God can govern and direct. They challenge our courage. While the world wistfully awaits the Christ, can we so present a Church which incarnates Christianity effectively, redemptively, and relevantly to all of life, that men must say in truth: “Here is hope, here is salvation”? To share in such a ministry of redemption is a veritable baptism into immortality, the beginning of a more radiant, vigorous, and joyous life than was ever dreamed possible in these shadows of our present existence.

The symbol of the Gospel is neither an isolated cross, nor a distant crown of proud, despotic aloofness. Rather both together symbolize the Gospel: the cross lying within the crown, the crown haloing and encircling the cross.

END

Once every year the Christian minister is confronted with the task of preaching a sermon on Pentecost. Barring happy exceptions, most ministers see themselves not so much confronted with a wonderful challenge as condemned to an inevitable annual chore. Given the reigning conception of Pentecost in the Christian church, the reason is not hard to find. One has to say something about those tongues of fire, that rushing mighty wind, and particularly all those languages spoken at the same time. These mysterious occurrences, so far removed from our own experience and observation, are indeed difficult to do anything with either theologically or homiletically if they are regarded as in themselves significant phenomena.

Pentecost is much like the Cross. One can regard the Crucifixion as an event of a few hours’ duration, in which case one soon comes to the end of the discursive rope. It can also be regarded as the epitome of the Christian message, the height and breadth and depth of which angels desire to know. That is what Paul had in mind when he wrote, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” It is in this manner that Pentecost should be viewed. It is not an “event” that was over when Peter began to preach, but rather the beginning of a great divine work that continues in our day and will continue to the of time. The beginning has no meaning without the continuation, and the continuation could not be without the beginning.

Pentecost was the beginning in redemptive history of that specific function or activity of the Holy Spirit of which he had already given so powerful a manifestation in the realm of the natural, namely the giving of life. The Spirit gives life. He is the life-giving Spirit of all creation, and his is the life of the new creation. Having brooded upon the face of the waters to bring forth, he gave life to grass and flowers and trees, to animals and to men. Every birth is a manifestation of this mysterious gift of the Spirit to the creature.

His, too, is the life that makes possible the rebirth of man. “Verily, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” In the New Testament the Holy Spirit is most intimately linked with both the initiation and the continuation in its many and varied forms of the new life of the believer in Christ. To transmit and to develop this life is the specific function of the Holy Spirit in the divine redemptive economy. The Cross made the giving of this life possible; Pentecost began the effectuation of it in the history of the Church.

The question we want to consider more particularly in this article is: How is the most prominent phenomenon associated with Pentecost, namely the speaking with tongues, related to this work of the Spirit? In taking up this question we do not forsake the grand theme of the life-transmitting work of the Spirit; rather, we enter upon the very heart of the theme.

The Spirit Speaks

When one reads the Pentecost account in Acts 2:1–13 carefully, he is struck by the imbalance between the space devoted to the tongues of fire and the mighty rushing wind, on the one hand, and that given to the speaking with tongues, on the other. Clearly the writer intended the central significance of Pentecost to be found in the speaking with tongues, not in the rushing wind or the tongues of fire. The latter are mentioned in verses two and three respectively, but are not again alluded to. The speaking with tongues, by contrast, is introduced in the fourth verse and then dominates the account to its very end, even carrying over into Peter’s sermon. We must not fail, therefore, to give very serious consideration to the speaking with tongues if we are to understand the coming of the Spirit.

It is passing strange indeed that through all the centuries of the Church’s reflection on the Pentecost event, so much attention has been devoted to the manner of the speaking with tongues and so little (almost nothing) to the fact of the speaking with tongues. It should be a matter of sanctified indifference to us whether the speaking with tongues constituted a miracle of speaking or a miracle of hearing, whether the tongues that were spoken were a new language, the language of Paradise, the language of heaven, or a form of ecstatic utterance. Why should we be concerned about such curious questions when the New Testament itself manifests not the slightest interest in them? What stands in the foreground of the account is the fact of the speaking. The Holy Spirit who came to indwell the Church at Pentecost came as a witnessing, a proclaiming, a speaking Spirit. He himself was not heard or seen. His effects were heard and seen, among which the speaking of the mighty works of God overshadowed all others.

We should further note that this speaking framework in which the Spirit came to us is not only inseparable but also indistinguishable from his coming. Think this speaking away and there is no Pentecost left. The prophetic form in which the Holy Spirit came to dwell in the Church was not accidental but was essential to his coming. It was essential because it is the nature, the character, the very being of the Spirit to witness, to speak, to proclaim. His coming in the Old Testament is foretold as a prophetic coming. When Jesus gave the Great Commission to his disciples, he told them to wait in Jerusalem for the coming of the Spirit. When the Spirit had come upon them, then they would be his witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. The whole book of Acts is the elaboration of this theme. At every significant turn in the book the Holy Spirit is the central Actor, and the grand climax is St. Paul’s arrival in Rome, the capital of the kingdoms of the world, to make known there the mystery of Christ. In Jesus’ discourses in John 14; 15, and 16 the Holy Spirit is presented as the one who will guide, teach, judge, reveal, witness, and show, with respect to the things that Christ will give to the Church. Pentecost, concentrating all this in a dramatic symbolic action, wants to make plain that the witness of the Church is wholly identified with, grounded in, and flowing out of the coming of the Spirit. Not later, not soon, not immediately after, but in the coming, through the coming of the Spirit, the Church became a witnessing Church.

The Spirit Gives Life

The witnessing nature of the Spirit, and therefore of the Church in which he dwells, is seen to be grounded even deeper when beyond the explicit data of Scripture, and as the fundamental reason for them, we have regard to the Spirit’s specific function of transmitting life. This activity of the Spirit is most intimately related to the preaching of the Gospel. There is only one way in which the life of the Spirit can come into being in the life of a man. That way is the believing acceptance of the proclaimed word of the Gospel. Where the preaching of the Gospel (or its equivalent: hearing or learning through some human agency) has not taken place, there the Christian life, that is, the life of the Spirit, cannot exist. Fundamental to the life of the Church is the spoken witness to the Gospel of Christ. The witness of the Church is the means by which the Spirit of God transmits his life to the children of men. There is no other way. “… How are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?” The ministry of the Word is the mystic agent of that spiritual reproductive process which brings into being the life of the new man in Christ. Therefore the Church is first of all, most of all, and above all, a witnessing body. Out of the prophetic activity to which her inner nature prompts her flow all her other activities of worship, fellowship, confession, teaching, mercy, discipline, reflection. The Word begets; all else follows from the birth.

Now this is the fact that the speaking with tongues at Pentecost dramatizes. For the purpose of this grand occasion the power with which the Spirit comes (the wind) and the purifying effect of his presence (the tongues of fire) recede into the background to make possible the full projection of the manner in which the life of the Spirit is transmitted. The Gospel is to be preached in all languages. It is to be preached to all nations. Christ for the world through the witness of the Church! This is the message of the “other tongues.” This is the meaning of Pentecost.

The principle given at Pentecost rapidly took on permanent and radical historical form in the change that came over the institutional manifestation of the People of God in the world. The Jewish congregation became the supra-national Church. Temple and synagogue yielded to the worship service of the New Testament church. The priest was replaced by the preacher, the altar by the pulpit, the strictures of the law by the freedom of the Gospel, circumcision by baptism, Passover by the Lord’s Supper; the Gentile became the equal of the Jew. In short, at Pentecost, by reason of the universally witnessing character of the Holy Spirit, the People of God was reconstituted from a national sacerdotal manifestation to a universal prophetic one to fit it for the new role into which the coming of the Spirit had thrust the Church.

One is tempted to say that Pentecost has a missionary message. But this is too superficial a statement. It might strengthen the reigning conception that the Church amid her multifarious activities “also does mission work” and that Pentecost has to do with this facet of her existence. Rather, Pentecost calls the Church to reexamine her entire spiritual heritage, her deepest and truest nature, and then to rechannel her energies in the direction to which the renewed discovery of her basically prophetic character points her.

END

Many Christians have quite clear ideas about God the Father and God the Son, but only rather vague, indistinct ideas about God the Holy Spirit. This stems, in part, from the fact that as human beings Christians have knowledge of fathers and sons in everyday experience, but not of personal bodiless spirits.

Though reluctant to admit it (it’s so unspiritual!), even ministers often share this indefiniteness about the Holy Spirit and almost dread occasions that call for special sermons on this subject. It is much easier to preach about Christ and to take silent refuge in the fact that even theologians have found it far easier to formulate a doctrine of Christ than of the Holy Spirit. Yet this uneasiness is not so much a matter of deficient spirituality as it is a misunderstanding about the possibilities of knowing the Holy Spirit.

Two other Christian truths are still without clear and adequate formulation. Both, interestingly enough, are intimately related to considerations of the Spirit. They are: eschatology (the doctrine of the last things) and ecclesiology (the doctrine of the Church). The dependence of both upon the Spirit is clear from the biblical teaching that the Church was constituted, and the last things were introduced, by the outpouring of the Spirit upon the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–17).

With the rise of the ecumenical movement and with the impact of Albert Schweitzer’s insistence in The Quest of the Historical Jesus that Jesus was an eschatological figure, a vast amount of research has been turned on the New Testament teaching about eschatology and the Church. And as a by-product came a deeper understanding and richer appreciation of the Spirit.

Our Knowledge Of The Spirit

This concomitant emergence of greater knowledge of the Spirit illustrates a cardinal truth which must be recognized if we are to gain greater clarity concerning the Spirit and lose the uneasy sense of guilt concerning our deficient knowledge. By the term “by-product,” I mean to suggest that we know the Spirit of God only indirectly; he himself ever eludes us—for we hear the sound, but know not whither he comes or whither he goes. It is not given us to know the Spirit in isolation, to know the Spirit simply as the Spirit. We can know him only indirectly, in and from our knowledge of Christ. To know Christ is to know his Spirit; to know the Spirit is to know Christ. The one does not occur without the other. Our quest to know the Spirit cannot circumvent the fact that God has given his Spirit to Christ, nor the fact that the Spirit so accepts this being-given-to-Christ that he makes Christ known but not himself.

Before pursuing this matter further, we must linger for a moment with another factor that explains the peculiar status of our knowledge of the Spirit. It is commonly recognized that the illuminating and directing action of the Spirit upon our hearts and minds is that which makes any and all Christian knowledge possible. It is not so commonly recognized, however, that this creates a special obstacle for every attempt to obtain direct knowledge of the Spirit. Since the action of the Spirit upon our spirits is the precondition of all Christian knowledge, it is also the precondition of our knowledge of the Spirit. Every attempt therefore to gain direct knowledge of the Spirit objectifies him who is the indispensable element in our subjective processes of coming to know him. The effort presupposes itself; it involves a detachment from the very condition within which all Christian knowledge, including that of the Spirit, is alone possible. Direct knowledge of the Spirit is an attempt to know the means of Christian knowledge without using the means, that is, to know the Spirit without the help of the Spirit.

Such an attempt to gain direct knowledge of the Holy Spirit is quite similar, both in intent and final result, to the epistemological experiment conducted by modern philosophy since the days of Descartes. From that time on a “critical philosophy,” by separating the object from the knower, sought to know the conditions of knowledge without using them; it ended finally in skepticism concerning the possibility of any valid knowledge at all. Once the Christian separates himself from the true object of his knowledge—namely, from Christ—by isolating the Spirit and by attempting to know that Spirit which is the very condition of all Christian knowledge, directly and apart from Christ, he too will in a Christian skepticism, or at best in an irrational form of Christian mysticism. Whether in philosophy or theology, every attempt to know directly the conditions of knowledge by abandoning those conditions is doomed to failure.

We return now to our theme that all knowledge of the Spirit is first of all a knowledge of Christ. It must be urged that this “first” is not something that can be left behind, as though once having gained a knowledge of the Spirit through Christ, we can then enjoy and retain this knowledge apart from Christ. The Spirit is eternally Christ’s and is never ours except as his Spirit and as his gift (Acts 2:33).

We read that God made Jesus to be the Christ (Acts 2:36), and did so by the gift of the Spirit. As the one who has received from God the gift of the Spirit, Jesus is the Christ (Hebrew, Messiah), i.e., the “anointed one.” It is the possession of the Spirit which constitutes Jesus as the Christ. Without the Spirit, Jesus would not be the Christ; Jesus Christ is who he is because of this peculiar possession of the Spirit. If others also shared in this unique anointing and peculiar possession of the Spirit, Jesus would not be the only Christ. It is his peculiar anointing and possession of the Spirit that makes him the only Christ, and makes all other Christs and Messiahs false.

Just as unique anointing constitutes him the only Christ, so it constitutes him also the only Elect of God. He is the Elect of God beside whom there is none else. On this fact rests the divine summons to the elect nation of Israel: “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth” (Isa. 42:1a). This unique anointing accounts also for the special designation of Psalm 2, “Thou art my Son”—a distinction applicable to none other; accordingly he alone is designated as the one who shall receive the nations for his inheritance, the one whom we must kiss lest we perish in the way. This unique anointing also is the basis for that public and dramatic announcement at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me …” (Luke 4:18). If the significance of this escapes us, it did not escape Jesus’ enemies, for they thereupon sought to kill him. The peculiar reception and possession of the Spirit constitutes Jesus the one and only Christ, the one and only Elect of God, beside whom all others are pretenders.

The Reticence Of The Spirit

That this Spirit, so uniquely given to Christ, does not make himself the object of our knowledge is clearly asserted by Jesus: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.…” Further, “He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it into you” (John 16:13, 14). Here our Lord plainly says that the Spirit will talk not about himself, but about Christ; that he will not glorify himself; that he will “seek not his own” but the things of Christ; that he will be an echo of Christ and by so doing will guide us “into all truth.” This silence about himself has been called “the reticence of the Spirit.” We know the Spirit not as one who makes himself known to us, but as one whose function is to give the knowledge of Christ. Only as one who makes Christ known, do we know him.

The Leading Of The Spirit

Of what “spirit” God is or what the Spirit of God is like, we discover not by looking directly to him, but by looking to Jesus of Nazareth whom God by the bestowal of his Spirit hath made to be both Lord and Christ. It was this bestowed Spirit that drove Christ into the wilderness to triumph over Satan and all the demonic powers that haunt our spirits and lure us to destruction. Prompted by the Spirit, Jesus gave sight to the blind, healing to the sick and brokenhearted, food to the hungry, liberty to the captives; by the Spirit he had compassion for the mutitudes, good news for the poor. Induced by the Spirit, Jesus took our iniquities and diseases upon himself and made them his own. When in Gethsemane the flesh was so weak that “mere” contemplation of the Cross brought it nigh unto death and prompted the cry “Now is my soul troubled, even unto death,” it was the Spirit that was strong. The Spirit led him to the Cross, and there through this eternal Spirit, he offered himself unto God (Hebrews 9:14). It is the Spirit, too, that creates for him his Body, the Church, that community of God in which men, prompted by the same Spirit, accept Christ as Lord and each other in love and forgiveness. By the Spirit the Church becomes that authentic Body of Christ which does not talk about itself, but echoes Christ, bearing witness to him and to his glory. It is by the Spirit that Paul is prompted to assert, “We preach not ourselves but Jesus Christ.” In Christ is revealed the nature of God’s Spirit, the Spirit of the Almighty, whose tender and thoughtful solicitude commanded that a young girl be given something to eat (Mark 5:43).

The biblical imperative is not that we know the Spirit, but that we know Christ and be filled and led by his Spirit. By New Testament definition the spiritual man is he who knows the “reticent” Spirit indirectly as the unique possession of Jesus. The spiritual man therefore acknowledges that Jesus is the Christ, and is humbly and happily willing to share in Christ’s calling and election, in his name and Gospel, in his death and resurrection, and in his final glory. Until that glorious day he seeks not his own but the things of Jesus Christ. In a word: The spiritual man knows Jesus as the Christ, who led by the Spirit died for him.

END

The departure of the Spirit from theology can occur in two ways.

The first possibility is that theology, whether it is primitive or exceedingly cultivated, whether old-fashioned or, perhaps, most fashionable, will no doubt be practiced more or less zealously, cleverly, and probably also piously. In any case it will certainly be occasionally reminded of the problem of the Holy Spirit. Yet this theology does not muster the courage and confidence to submit itself fearlessly and unreservedly to the illumination, admonition, and consolation of the Spirit. It refuses to permit itself to be led by him into all truth. By such refusal, theology fails to give, in its inquiry, thought, and teaching, the honor due the Spirit of the Father and the Son that was certainly poured out over all flesh for its sake. One moment theology stands in out-and-out fear of the Spirit; in another it plays dumb, perhaps pretending to be better informed or else becoming obstinate in open opposition to him. As soon as the Spirit begins to stir within it, it suspects the danger of fanaticism; or it may rotate in circles of historicism, rationalism, moralism, romanticism, dogmaticism, or intellectualism, while “round about lies green and pleasant pasture” (from Goethe’s Faust, Part One).

When theology poses and answers the question about truth in the above style and manner, it certainly cannot be serviceable to the community which, like itself, is totally dependent on the Holy Spirit. Its effect will be just the opposite! If theology is in the same situation as those disciples of John in Ephesus, who reportedly did not even know that there was a Holy Spirit, then theology must inevitably open the door to every possible, different, and strange spirit that aims at nothing other than to disturb and destroy the community, the church, and itself. Unpleasant consequences cannot and will not be lacking! Human criticism, mockery, and accusation, to be sure, cannot help theology when it is in this predicament. Only the Spirit himself can rescue theology! He, the Holy One, the Lord, the Giver of Life, waits and waits to be received anew by theology as by the community. He waits to receive from theology his due of adoration and glorification. He expects from theology that it submit itself to the repentance, renewal, and reformation he effects. He waits to vivify and illuminate its affirmations which, however right they may be, are dead without the Spirit.

The second possibility is that theology may know only too well about the rival power of the Spirit, which is indispensable to Christianity, to every Christian, and to it as well. Just because of this familiarity, theology may once again fail to acknowledge the vitality and sovereignty of this power which defies all domestication. In such a situation theology forgets that the wind of the Spirit blows where it wills. The presence and action of the Spirit are the grace of God who is always free, always superior, always giving himself undeservedly and without reservation. But theology now supposes it can deal with the Spirit as though it had hired him or even attained possession of him. It imagines that he is a power of nature that can be discovered, harnessed, and put to use like water, fire, electricity, or atomic energy. As a foolish church presupposes his presence and action in its own existence, in its offices and sacraments, ordinations, consecrations and absolutions, so a foolish theology presupposes the Spirit as the premise of its own declarations. The Spirit is thought to be one whom it knows and over whom it disposes. But a presupposed spirit is certainly not the Holy Spirit, and a theology that presumes to have it under control can only be unspiritual theology.

The Holy Spirit is the vital power that bestows free mercy on theology and on theologians just as on the community and on every single Christian. Both of these remain utterly in need of him. Only the Holy Spirit himself can help a theology that is or has become unspiritual. Only the Spirit can assist theology to become enduringly conscious and aware of the misery of its arbitrary devices of controlling him. Only where the Spirit is sighed, cried, and prayed for does he become present and newly active.

Veni creator Spiritus! “Come, O come, thou Spirit of life!” (title of a hymn by Heinrich Held, 1658). Even the best theology cannot be anything more or better than this petition made in the form of resolute work. Theology can ultimately only take the position of one of those children who have neither bread nor fish, but doubtless a father who has both and will give them these when they ask him. In its total poverty evangelical theology is rich, sustained, and upheld by its total lack of presuppositions. It is rich, sustained, and upheld, since it lays hold on God’s promise, clinging without skepticism, yet also without any presumption, to the promise according to which—not theology, but—“the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.”