The other day I came across a journal article on the topic of Cyril of Jerusalem’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and much of what the author said is germane to the discussion we have been having here at Creed Code Cult:But why, for Cyril, is the Holy Spirit not given in this full sense until Christ’s glorification? First, since Christ became the first fruits of our renewed nature only at the time of his resurrection, it would be impossible for us, as “the plant,” to be seen springing forth before “the root,” the resurrected Christ. In Cyril’s view, our human nature is only fully renewed in Christ’s resurrection, thus marking out the boundary line for our reception of the Spirit. Our humanity needed to be fully renewed in Christ in order to provide a proper dwelling place for the Spirit.
Second, the gift of the Spirit, dependent on Christ’s resurrection, is genuinely new, different in kind from the activity of the Spirit in the Old Testament. To show this, Cyril points us to Matthew 11:11, where Jesus calls the least in the Kingdom of Heaven greater than John the Baptist. For the prophets, the Spirit was a light and illumination, but among those in the Kingdom of Heaven, the Spirit “himself dwells and has his habitation.”
Cyril draws the distinction between the old and the new covenants precisely in terms of the abiding gift of the Holy Spirit. Notably, he says that our new birth into the Kingdom of God occurs not by “grace alone,” but by “God indwelling and taking up his abode within us” through the Holy Spirit. And this, he concludes, is the meaning of John’s statement that “the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” The evangelist is signifying nothing less than “the complete and entire dwelling of the Holy Spirit in human beings.”
Maybe those early church fathers have something to teach us after all....
So, I routinely hear John 3 preached as though Jesus is describing the work of grace that enables a person to respond to the gospel with saving faith, and he could have said the same thing to Abraham or Moses or David. It's used as a classic "regeneration precedes faith" passage.
ReplyDeleteIs that both missing the point - or at least the redemptive-historical element - of the passage, as well as using "regeneration" to describe something different from what that word describes in the Bible?
-Daniel
Hey D-Hoff,
ReplyDeleteDid you used to star in the hit TV show Knight Rider?
So, I routinely hear John 3 preached as though Jesus is describing the work of grace that enables a person to respond to the gospel with saving faith, and he could have said the same thing to Abraham or Moses or David. It's used as a classic "regeneration precedes faith" passage.
Is that both missing the point - or at least the redemptive-historical element - of the passage, as well as using "regeneration" to describe something different from what that word describes in the Bible?
Well, it is certainly true that God must prevail upon man's hardness of heart and enable him to savingly believe the gospel. But I do think there is a redemptive-historical element to John 3 that a simple "regeneration-precedes-faith" sermon might be missing.
For example, there is clearly a baptism element in John 3 that must be reckoned with. Plus, Jesus' words about entering the "kingdom of God" gives me the impression that he is speaking about something new for God's people. The synoptics are clear that Jesus' preaching of the dawning of the kingdom was a step forward in God's redemptive plan.
So yeah, how you've heard this passage preached sounds a bit too "Banner of Truth" for my liking.
JJS:
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, in his Trinity Journal article, "Old Covenant Believers And The Indwelling Spirit: A Survey Of The Spectrum Of Opinion," mentioned in the comments on the previous post, Hamilton has found a spectrum of views in the early fathers, represented as follows:
Augustine: more continuous than discontinuous
Novatian: more discontinuous than continuous
Origen: vaguely discontinuous
Irenaeus: vaguely discontinuous
Tertullian: vaguely discontinuous
Chrysostom: vaguely discontinuous
In the citations provided by Hamilton, the fathers are comparing OT saints to NT saints. ... FWIW
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI wish I had been in Knight Rider. I think it would make me more credible all-around.
And yeah I certainly wasn't denying the need for a work of God to enable faith, but that's been the case from Adam onward. I agree with everything you said.
Pastor Stellman
ReplyDeleteCyril taught the Spirit of God the Father rater than the Third Person of the Trinity was active prior to Pentecost.
What person of the Trinity do you believe was actively involved internally calling and equipping the OT saints?
Dean B
Dean,
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting, I didn't know that (and thus I don't know what to make of that position, although I find it interesting).
Can you point me to a work or reference?
Pastor Stellman
ReplyDeleteJohn 1:31-33 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/cyril_on_john_02_book2.htm
Dean B
Dean,
ReplyDeleteYou're thinking of St Cyril of Alexandria. Pastor Stellman says he's talking about St Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the article excerpt in the post sounds to me an awful lot like Cyril of Alexandria -- specifically like Daniel Keating's work on him -- though it's hardly incompatible with Cyril of Jerusalem's theology.
So, Pastor Stellman, which patriarch are we talking about?
best,
John
Cyril/Cyril, Jerusalem/Alexandria, what's the difference? I mean, they both lived a long time ago.
ReplyDeletePS - Yeah, it's Alexandria. Whoops.