Scripture quotations are from the The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

All quotations from ancient Church Fathers are from the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Church Fathers, American Edition, which was originally published by the Christian Literature Publishing Company in 1896-7, and which has been reprinted by Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts (2^nd printing 1995).

This paper is a brief investigation into an idea, inspired by a quote, attributed to Eduard Schweizer, in Killian McDonnell's book, The Other Hand of God: "Long before the Spirit was a theme of doctrine, He was a fact in the experience of the community..." To what extent, in the Early Church, did the doctrine of the Holy Spirit develop out of the experience of the Holy Spirit? Was the development of the doctrine of the Spirit simply an evolution of theology done out of Scripture? Were the early Christians just dealing with the Bible, or were they also wrestling with an experience of the Living God in the person of the Holy Spirit?

This question is especially germane today, as most Evangelicals "do theology"(including theology of the Holy Spirit) out of the text alone. "Scripture Alone" is the guide for faith and practice. The role of the Spirit is illumination, but such illumination is practically theoretical. Doctrine is the adopted child of grammatical-historical criticism, which means a non-Christian has the same access to Christian truth as a Christian. Pneumatology is a product of biblical exegesis, the analogia fidei, and philosophical logic. In Evangelical circles, we assume the Holy Spirit converts a person (often a bare mental assent) and convicts the person of sin. On the contrary, it is the thesis of this paper that the Early Church did their theology not only as a effort to exegete the Bible, but to make sense of the experience of the Spirit which they shared.

My research into this topic consisted of two areas of survey, the writings of the Early Church as collected in the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers series and research into the exegesis of Galatians 3:1-5. While there are more complete selections of the Fathers, this collection is surely very extensive. And while the translations are not the most up-to-date, they are still scholarly and no part of this paper turns upon subtle use of words in the translations. The ease of use (it has a complete online search engine), coupled with the fact that I own it, made it ideal for my purposes here. Much of my reading on the exegesis of Galatians 3:1-5 followed the sources referenced by McDonnell, getting behind his footnotes so to speak. In a sense, I walked part of the path that he did in order to understand his thinking with this critical passage.

I think the topic of the relationship of the experience of God to the doctrine of God is a topic which could be followed much further, perhaps in a thesis on hermeneutics and pneumatology. I am finding many comments in works on hermeneutics and works on pneumatology which hint at the need for exploring this, but there does not seem to be much fully developed work out there, at least not work which has made its way into the mainstream of hermeneutics or historical studies.

Throughout this work I will follow the convention, in keeping with New Testament usage, of referring to the Holy Spirit as "he." This in no way is a denial of the femininity of the Hebrew word for spirit, ruach. It is also not an ascription of "sexness" to the Godhead, who in the divinity of God, transcends all sexual categories.

I will also follow the traditional convention of using "Fathers" when referring to the teaching magisterium of the Early Church. Quite simply, practically everyone who was writing influential dogmatic theology during this time was male. This begins to change in the Middle Ages, but I can see no reason to obscure the plain truth of the situation.

While I will concentrate upon Galatians 3:1-5 in this paper, I will briefly mention some Spirit passages which have bearing on this topic as a way of showing that Paul's teaching about the Spirit in Galatians is not an anomaly.

John 3:8 is one of the most important Spirit passages. Jesus says, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." Jesus is introducing Nicodemus to the idea of the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation. Interestingly, Jesus does not go back to the Old Testament, he appeals to the presence of the Spirit. In effect, he is telling Nicodemus that Nicodemus will know the Spirit when he meets him. While the Spirit is not visible or tangible, his effects are plainly detectable. Jesus uses the language of "hearing" in this passage, but surely he is alluding to all of the ways in which wind can be known: It can be felt, its effects can be seen, and, of course, it can be heard. When Nicodemus experiences Spirit-birth, he'll know it, as plainly as he knows the wind. The Spirit, in John, is not only personal and divine (e.g. John 14-16), he works "out in the open." As such, his work is public, plain to see for all who will see it.

In the book of Acts, the Spirit works publicly as well. He causes people to speak in "other languages" (2:4; 8:17; 10:45-46; 19:6). This is both linked with preaching and baptism. The apostles had the power to confer this upon others, and when they did so the effect was so dramatic that it could be witnessed by others. The miracles of the Holy Spirit are abundant: healings (4:9; 5:16; 8:7; 28:8), exorcisms (16:18), divine direction (11:28; 13:2; 15:28; 16:6; 20:23; 21:11), divine judgments (5:10; 13:11). Schweitzer's quote is definitely true of the New Testament church. The Spirit's presence was too real to be denied.

Galatians 3:1-4 is a very important passage because the manifestations of the Spirit are not directly in view, but Paul's doctrine of justification by faith is. Paul is trying to convince his hearers that the law is not something to add to the gospel (3:2). Betz notes, using the tools of rhetorical criticism, that this passage is "the most important argument" of the letter. This is where Paul is laying what he considers to be the most devastating argument for justification by faith. And the argument is not one from Scripture.

Paul argues that the Galatians received Spirit by "hearing with faith" and "not by the works of the law." They didn't need the "works of the law" to receive the Spirit; he came to them solely on the basis of their faith. And they know that the Spirit indeed came with their faith because they witnessed the miracles, and probably spoke in tongues. Paul knows his argument is devastating because no one there can say that the people didn't experience the Spirit. Not only that, but the Spirit continues to work miracles among them (3:5). The only question is not whether or not the experience of the Spirit is incontrovertible, it is, but whether the experience was "in vain" (3:4). Did receiving the Spirit by faith do them any good at all?

The point of all of this is that Paul appeals to an experience of the Spirit to establish a doctrine. His presence in the community was real enough that it could be called upon as a test for truth. This experience of the Spirit was more than a change of mind or the experience of faith, it was an experience of power, following faith, that was overwhelmingly real and objective. I might add that this experience was more real and objective than what most (Western) Christians experience today.

So we have seen, very briefly, that the New Testament experience of the Spirit was real and objective, and this experience was normative for that time. But the doctrine of the Spirit was not developed in New Testament times, but three hundred years later. Did the Early Church Fathers develop the doctrine of the Scripture from Scriptural logic alone, or was the experience of the Spirit real and objective to them as well?

It first has to be admitted that the vast majority of writings of the Early Church Fathers dealing with the doctrine of the Spirit make their appeal from Scripture, often with appeal to, and illustrations from, nature. A great deal of ancient writing on the doctrine of the Spirit looks much like modern, orthodox writing on the Spirit, only more careful and lengthy. But this is not the whole story; many of the same writers who pen the careful philosophical arguments or engage in theological exegesis of a passage also, on occasion, write things that seem very much like the New Testament in their content.

The Holy Spirit brings conversion. The Early Church recognized that the conversion of a human heart was a supernatural act. Gregory of Nyssa writes, in his treatise on the "Godhead of the Holy Spirit":

Gregory both acknowledges the role of the Spirit in conversion and uses this in a greater argument for the divinity of the Spirit. Since the Spirit acts with the Father and Son in this matter, he is equal with the other actors.

Gregory makes the same point regarding the work of the Spirit in a letter where he calls upon its recipient to pray for people in a neighborhood who are very wicked. He asks that they might pray "that the grace of the Spirit may speedily breathe upon them, and thaw the bitterness of their hatred, and melt the frost that is hardening upon them from their malice." This kind of work of the Spirit is uncontroversial in orthodox Christian communities, even among theologians in the Reformed tradition. Where the Fathers part ways with the more conservative of the moderns is in the realm of miracles.

The Holy Spirit works miracles. Basil writes to a Caesarius through whom the Spirit has worked to save many people from death. This working of the Spirit is miraculous:

This is by no means a unique instance. Gregory of Nyssa writes about the Spirit giving "the gift of supernatural wisdom and prophecy." It was normal for supernatural gifts to be present in the Christian community. The Apostolic Constitutions recognizes the normalcy of the presence of gifts, but cautions against making them normal for the Christian experience of all or relegating those without the supernatural gifts to a lower status: "Now we say these things, that those who have received such gifts may not exalt themselves against those who have not received them; such gifts, we mean, as are for the working of miracles."

The Spirit's activity is an apologetic. This movement by the Spirit to accomplish miracles was not only for the Christian. The Early Church Fathers found the miracles so compelling that they used them in their apologetics with pagans. Origin, in his famous book written in response to the pagan philosopher Celsus:

Here we have, in a book for public consumption, a prominent and learned Christian, trained as a philosopher, telling the pagan world that the Gospel of Christ is valid on the basis of miracles that they all can see: Exorcisms, healings, and prophecy. In an earlier chapter of the same book, Origen writes addressing the accusation that Jesus was guilty of being a sorcerer. Amazingly, he seems to defend Jesus by appealing to what the average pagan might know about Christians:

These referenced miracles are not enough to produce faith in those who witness them. The Apostolic Contitutions note that "these signs do not shame all into belief, but only those of a good disposition." This is much like Paul's statement in Romans that the wicked are "without excuse" because "what can be know about God is plain to them" in the natural world. Miracles serve an apologetic, not converting purpose toward the unbelieving. The miracle has to be in them to do them any good. Miracles cannot be the object of faith, and as such can even be dangerous. For who knows who wrought the miracle?

Up to this point we have seen that the Early Church experienced the workings of the Spirit in their lives. He was the one who changed their hearts. He spoke verifiable prophecies through them. He healed the sick. He cast out demons. And he did all of this before the rest of the world as well. Not only were Christians aware of these miracles, but non-Christians were too. But did these experiences effect the formation of doctrine in the Church, at least in any way we can tell? Did the experience of the Spirit effect the doctrine of the Spirit? The answer to that question is probably yes.

The experience of the Spirit in the development of doctrine. The argument could easily be made that all of the dramatic manifestations of the Spirit in the Church simply could not have not had an effect on the development of doctrine. But we don't have to stop there, because we have at least one direct statement on the matter from one of the most influential Church Fathers in the development of the doctrine of the Spirit, Basil:

Basil saw that the theologians who opposed describing the Holy Spirit in the same terms as the Son and the Father were not opposing some new addition to the deposit of faith, they were taking away from the faith that was already present in the Church. He was already present in Scripture, in baptism, dwelling in the saints and working miracles in the Church. The Holy Spirit had been working in the Church all along and it didn't matter if the systematizing of doctrine was not yet perfect, because the Spirit didn't show up with doctrine, he was already there.

Everyone knew he was already there. From the beginning, he had made himself known by converting hearts, directing the Church and working miracles. He was like the wind. They couldn't see him, but no one could deny his presence or existence. "Long before the Spirit was a theme of doctrine, He was a fact in the experience of the community."