McCall RTCH711 Metacognitive 1
I am a Baptist convert to Methodism, and I have only been exposed to Methodism for the last 2.5 years. In my studies at the Southern Baptist Seminary, the Holy Spirit was treated as sort-of the “red-headed stepchild” of the Trinity. Therefore, I truly did not study very much material regarding the Divine Third Person while at New Orleans. Strangely, even after my subsequent transfer into the UMC and Asbury Theological Seminary, I still did not encounter much substantive conversation regarding the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when I came to Regent University, I did not have an adequate understanding of the Holy Spirit (and still do NOT, frankly!). So then, my reading in the pre-residential period prior to my on-campus work for the course CHURCH HISTORY IN PNEUMATOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE I, I am encountering new dimensions of my Faith in God. I found my value in my cursory examination of The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal Charismatic movements. I greatly enjoyed the brief, concise, and adequate coverage that the various topics received in the NIPDC.
The triumvirate of books entitled The Holy Spirit was truly revelatory to me, and I digested the material over several different complete readings, as a result. Pointedly, I was greatly shocked at the evidence for the continuation of the Holy Spirit’s activity throughout church history. Indeed, being raised in, as well as educated within a denomination that openly espouses that the Spirit’s outpouring ceased in the 1st century AD, I was not exposed to the perpetuity of the Spirit’s influence and activity in the Church at large. I particularly enjoyed the first book in the series, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions. In said book, Burgess gave detailed accounts of the writings of the early church fathers. In fact, Burgess voluminously quotes primary texts in order to support his analysis of the texts. Thereby, the reader is enabled to actually encounter the primary materials, and not merely depend upon the synthesis and analysis of Burgess alone.
The second book of the series, The Holy Spirit: Eastern Christian Traditions, fueled my already nominally present interest in Eastern Orthodoxy to new levels. Heretofore, I have been immersed into a (near) purely Augustinian interpretation of the Spirit’s activity in history. However, after encountering the analysis and explication of the early Eastern Father’s teaching on the Holy Spirit, which Burgess here amply provides, I kindled my affinity toward the Orthodox position. In fact, I have, as a consequence of twice perusing this book (in excess concerning distinct portions), thoughtfully pondered my relation to Western orthodoxy. I have for years disliked many emphases within the Western Church, and this particular volume gave me more fodder in which to feast upon. I particularly reveled in the discussion regarding the Cappadocian Fathers in chapter 6. I appreciated their treatment of the Trinity in that they properly (according to my ignorant opinion) recognized that procession from the Father through the Son did not introduce subordination as long as currently one affirmed the homoousios of the Spirit. So then, after having digested this volume incrementally, I might in fact be recognizing myself to be in truth an Orthodox believer.
The third book in the series, The Holy Spirit: Medieval Roman Catholic and Reformation Traditions, was likewise infinitely informative to me. I do not understand why the Professor seemed so negative toward Peter Abelard. Moreover, I was taken aback at the prevalence of the postulation that the Holy Spirit was the mutual love between the Father and the Son amongst this era’s Roman Catholic scholars.