Irenaeus of Lyons

Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130-200) was the most important Greek-speaking Christian theologian of the second century. For example, J. N. D. Kelly, the noted Early Church historian, has observed that “Irenaeus’s vision of the Godhead [is] the most complete and…most explicitly Trinitarian” of all the authors of second century except for the Latin-speaking North African Tertullian.[2] Unfortunately, materials for detailing Irenaeus’ life are meagre at best. What we do know makes us eager to find out more about this winsome author and pastor.[3]

Irenaeus was born in the Roman province of Asia, now on the western coast of modern Turkey, around the year 140.[4] He grew up in Smyrna where he came to know Polycarp (died c.155), who was the leading elder in the church of that city and a man widely revered for his orthodoxy and piety. According to Irenaeus, Polycarp “would tell of his conversations with John and with others who had seen the Lord.” In fact, Polycarp mentored Irenaeus. In a postscript to the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom, Irenaeus is described as “a disciple of Polycarp.”[5] The magnitude of Polycarp’s influence on Irenaeus is evident in a letter which Irenaeus wrote many years after his youth to a former friend by the name of Florinus. In it, Irenaeus recalled:

I remember events from those days more clearly than those that happened recently—what we learn in childhood adheres to the mind and grows with it—so that I can even picture the place where the blessed Polycarp sat and conversed, his comings and goings, his character, his personal appearance, his discourses to the crowds, and how he reported his discussions with John and others he had seen the Lord. He recalled their very words, what they reported about the Lord and his miracles and his teaching—things that Polycarp had heard directly from eyewitnesses of the Word of life and reported in full harmony with Scripture. I listened eagerly to these things at that time and, through God’s mercy, noted them not on paper but in my heart. By God’s grace I continually reflect on them…[6] Sometime during his teen years, Irenaeus left Asia and went west to Rome. His reasons for doing so are not known.[7] He was still in Rome, it appears, at the time of Polycarp’s martyrdom around 155 A. D.[8] It was while he was in Rome that he likely encountered two of the leading heretics of the day, Marcion (fl.140-155) and Valentinus (fl. 135-165).

At some later point, possibly after the martyrdom of Justin Martyr in the mid-150s,[9] Irenaeus moved to Lyons (Latin: Lugdunum) in southern Gaul. Second-century Lyons was a miniature Rome. A bustling cosmopolitan centre of some seventy thousand in Irenaeus’ day, it was one of the largest centres in the Western Roman Empire for the manufacture of the goods and articles used in that part of the Empire. It was also one of the key ports on the trade routes up and down the Rhône River and was the centre of the Roman road system for Gaul. Lyons housed an important garrison and the city functioned as the provincial capital. Also similar to Rome, it had a large Greek-speaking element in its population, and it was among this element that Christianity became firmly established by the end of the second century. For example, in the account of the martyrdom of a large number of believers from Lyons and nearby Vienne in 177 it is assumed that the mother tongue of most of the Christians is Greek. When, for instance, the deacon Sanctus of Vienne confesses his faith, the account we have of the martyr’s witness states that it was in Latin, thus implying that the other confessions were in Greek.[10]

In Lyons Irenaeus devoted himself to the twin ministry of church planting and shepherding the church there. It says much for his passion for planting mature, biblical churches that he learned the language of the native people, Gaulish, a now extinct Celtic tongue. Irenaeus so concentrated on mastering this language that he later felt that he had lost much of his facility with his own language.[11]

At the time of the martyrdom of the believers in Lyons and Vienne, it appears that Irenaeus was away on a trip to Rome. If he had not been out of town, he would doubtless have also died as a martyr. Upon his return to Lyons, he found the Christian communities in Lyons and Vienne decimated; with probably close to fifty of the leading Christians having been martyred during the two-month ordeal of persecution. The leading elder in Lyons had been Pothinus, who had been over ninety when he died as a martyr in this persecution.[12] Irenaeus was subsequently elected in his place.

During his time as bishop, Irenaeus continued to have a strong passion for the evangelization of Gaul.[13] In part, this passion was translated into written form as he penned a major apologetic work in the late 180s. His title for it was The Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So Called,[14] but the 5 volume-work is more popularly known as Against Heresies. Irenaeus wrote it in Greek, but the Greek version is only partially preserved and, instead, the whole text has come down to us in Latin. There are also some fragments extant in Syriac and Armenian. Principally this text was an attack on the two major heretical movements of the second century: Marcionism and Gnosticism—in particular, the Gnostic system as taught by Valentinus and his disciples. In attacking these heretical theologies, Irenaeus consciously sought to encourage steadfastness to the truth among his orthodox readers. As he prayed in Book III of the work:

I call upon you, Lord God of Abraham and God of Isaac and of Jacob and Israel, you who are the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, God who through the abundance of your mercy have been pleased with us so that we may know you, you who made heaven and earth and rule over all things, you who are the only true God, above whom there is no other God; you who through our Lord Jesus Christ gave us the gift of the Holy Spirit, now give to everyone who reads this writing to know that you are God alone and to be made firm in you and separate from every heretical doctrine, godless and impious.[15] It is known that Irenaeus wrote other works against the heresy of Gnosticism, but only Against Heresies has come down to us.[16] A later work that may have been written in the early 190s is the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, which was drawn up to provide an overview of key Christian doctrines for a friend. While known to scholars since the patristic era, there was no known copy of its existence until an Armenian translation was discovered in 1904.[17]

The date of Irenaeus’ death is not exactly known, nor the manner of his death. The Latin translator and polemicist Jerome (c.347-419/420) described him as “an apostolic man, bishop, and martyr.”[18] Jerome’s assertion that the bishop of Lyons died as a martyr is not at all certain. He probably died around 200.

Gnosticism derived its name from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis. It took many different forms, comprising a wide variety of teachings and teachers. Common to nearly all of them was a cluster of fundamental characteristics. First of all, basic to the Gnostic world-view was a radical cosmological dualism: the belief that the created realm and matter was inherently evil and intrinsically opposed to the realm of the spirit, which was essentially good. In the words of the apocryphal Gospel of Philip 22: “No one will hide a great and precious object in a precious vessel. But many times has someone put countless myriads into a vessel worth a farthing. So it is with the soul. It is a precious thing and got into a despised body.”[19] The goal of life was thus defined in terms of escape from the material realm.

This escape, “salvation” to use theological language, came through knowledge and not via faith, as the New Testament maintained.[20] This saving knowledge entailed recognition of the supposedly divine element within one’s being which constituted the real self, the realization that, latent within one’s being, there is a divine spark. Salvation was thus defined in terms of self-enlightenment, not deliverance from sin and sin’s penalty. It is fascinating to note that this line of thinking resembles that of some contemporary New Age devotees.

For most Gnostics, although not all, this work of enlightenment was the work of Jesus. But the Gnostic Jesus is quite a different person from the incarnate Son of God of the New Testament. Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection were downplayed, even rejected, and emphasis was placed on Jesus as a teacher. Thus, in the Gnostic Acts of John 93, the Apostle John supposedly recalled that, when he touched Christ, he sometimes “met with a solid and material body, and at other times, when I felt him, the substance was immaterial as if it did not exist at all.”[21] The Gnostic teacher Ptolemaeus, a disciple of Valentinus, maintained that “Christ…passed through Mary as water passes through a pipe” and that during his time on earth Christ did not enter into an intimate relationship with the material realm “for matter is not capable of being saved.” Not surprisingly, Ptolemaeus also propounded the view that Christ never really suffered, “for it was impossible that he should suffer, since he was unconquerable and invisible.”[22]

Finally, Gnosticism was greatly concerned with freedom. There was, for instance, a stress upon freedom from biblical morality, which resulted in either strict asceticism or libertine indulgence. In the Acts of Thomas, a document that some Gnostics sought to pass off as Scripture, marriage is described as “filthy intercourse,” which, when it is abandoned, makes one a “holy temple, pure and free from afflictions and pains both manifest and hidden.”[23] Saturninus of Antioch, a Syrian Gnostic who flourished in the second century, plainly declared that “marriage and procreation are of Satan.”[24] It is also noteworthy that Gnostics generally had no qualms about avoiding martyrdom for their beliefs. Since Christ never really suffered in the flesh and died, Gnostics reasoned that it was unlikely that he would work through the flesh now.[25]

The roots of this heresy stretch back to the very period in which the New Testament Scriptures were being written. Before the ink on these inerrant texts was dry, Gnosticism was assailing the church. For instance, there is little doubt that the opponents of sound doctrine squarely refuted by Paul in the Pastoral Epistles and by John in 1 and 2 John were men and women of this perspective.[26] For more than a century and a half, the church waged a life-and-death struggle with this heretical worldview. Central in this struggle was the leading elder in the church at Lyons during the final quarter of the second century: Irenaeus.

The most important work of Irenaeus’ literary heritage is undoubtedly his monumental Against Heresies, a work of five volumes originally written in Greek as a refutation of Gnosticism sometime in the 180s. In general, Against Heresies follows a logical order. The first book of Against Heresies describes the various Gnostic groups of Irenaeus’ day. Book II stresses their absurdity. What is especially valuable about this section is that Irenaeus quoted a significant amount of Gnostic literature in it. These quotations made Against Heresies the main source for scholars of Gnostic views and beliefs until 1945, when a large cache of Gnostic manuscripts were discovered at Nag Hammadi in the Egyptian desert.[27] This discovery corroborated the reports made by Irenaeus and other orthodox authors about the teachings of Gnosticism.

Irenaeus’ intent in these first two books was to acquaint his readers with the deceitfulness of Gnosticism, which outwardly appeared to be Christian since the terms and expressions that it used resembled those used by genuine believers. This aberrant theology was “craftily decked out in an attractive dress so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced…more true than truth itself.”[28] Irenaeus thus compared his task to that of a jeweller testing and exposing counterfeit emeralds that have been cleverly made from coloured glass.

In Book III of Against Heresies, Irenaeus tackled the question of theological authority and established the basis of Christian doctrine as Scripture and teaching in accordance with God’s Word. He went on to detail what Scripture teaches about the nature of God’s unity (the Gnostics sought to drive a wedge between the God of the Old Testament and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ) and he defended the plan of redemption through the incarnate Son of God. Book IV was especially aimed at Marcion, who had whittled canonical Scripture down to the Gospel of Luke and ten of Paul’s letters (he excluded the Pastoral Epistles, which is not surprising in view of their heavy anti-Gnostic content). Irenaeus sought to refute Marcion by stressing the unity of the Old and New Testaments. The final book, Book V, teaches about redemption and outlines Irenaeus’ understanding of the goal of history and the world to come.

It is vital to note that Irenaeus was first and foremost a pastor. Thus, he did not attempt to produce an innovative theology, nor was he desirous of originality. Yet, it is noteworthy that his Against Heresies is the richest theological work of the second century. In fact, in many respects, the goal that guided his theology was similar to that of Paul. Like the Apostle, his writings sought to foster the spiritual formation of his hearers/readers.

Foundational to Irenaeus’ refutation of Gnosticism are the Scriptures, the Old and the New Testaments, which he believed were the work of the one true God. For Irenaeus, these Scriptures were perfect texts because they had been spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit.[29] The human authors of the various books of Scripture had been given perfect knowledge by the Holy Spirit and thus were incapable of proclaiming error.[30] “Our Lord Jesus Christ,” Irenaeus wrote,

is the Truth and there is no falsehood in him, even as David also said when he prophesied about his birth from a virgin and his resurrection from the dead, ‘Truth has sprung from the earth’ (Ps 85:11). Now the Apostles, being disciples of the Truth, are free from all falsehood. For falsehood has no fellowship with the truth, just as darkness has no fellowship with the light, but the presence of the one drives away the other.[31] Irenaeus based the fidelity of the apostolic writings upon the absolute truthfulness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as it is impossible to conceive of Christ ever uttering falsehood, so the writings of his authorized representatives are incapable of error. This quality of absolute truthfulness can also be predicated of the authors of the books of the Old Testament, since the Spirit who spoke through the Apostles also spoke through the Old Testament authors. Thus the Scriptures form a harmonious whole: “All Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found to be perfectly consistent…and through the many diversified utterances (of Scripture) there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things.”[32] Due to their perfection, fidelity to the truth and their harmony, Irenaeus maintained that the Scriptures were to be the normative source for the teaching of the Christian community. These remarks were foundational to the rebuttal of the various Gnostic systems which argued that the Scriptures had been falsified and that even the Apostles erred in their teachings at times.[33] Given the Gnostic propensity to fob off their writings as genuine revelation, Irenaeus rightly discerned that a discussion of the nature of Scripture was vital.

Irenaeus was, of course, aware that not everything within the Scriptures could be adequately explained. He traced this situation back to the finitude of man and his inability to comprehend fully the mysteries of God. According to Irenaeus, such mysteries should be left in the hands of God, so that “God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught him by God.” [34]

Irenaeus also recognized the importance of a confessional Christianity in responding to heresy. In Against Heresies 1.10.1, for instance, he reproduced an early Christian creed, possibly the statement of faith of his local church at Lyons.

The church, dispersed throughout the world to the ends of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples the faith in one God the Father Almighty, “who made heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them,”[35] and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, incarnate for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets predicted the dispensations of God: the coming, the birth from the Virgin, the passion, the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension of the beloved Jesus Christ our Lord in the flesh into the heavens, and his coming from the heavens in the glory of the Father to “recapitulate all things” and raise up all flesh of the human race, so that to Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Saviour and King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of beings in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess him,”[36] and that he should render a just judgement on all and send to eternal fire the spiritual powers of iniquity, the lying and apostate angels, and men who are impious, unjust, iniquitous, and blasphemous, while on the contrary he should give life imperishable as a reward to the just and equitable who keep his commandments and persevere in his love (some from the beginning, others since their conversion), and surround it with eternal glory.[37] The confession stresses that, contrary to Gnosticism’s view of the world, there is “one God the Father Almighty, who made heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them.” Creation is not evil, because it comes from a good God. By describing God the Creator as “Father,” this statement of faith affirms the fact that the God who created all things is also the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Gnosticism sought to drive a wedge between the Creator and the Father of the Lord Jesus by asserting that they were two very different beings, and that only the latter was the true God.

This confession also states that there is also “one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, incarnate for our salvation.” Therefore, the incarnation is asserted as vital for salvation. Irenaeus was the first to explicitly formulate what would become a cardinal tenet of Christianity: “any part of human nature, body, soul, or spirit, which the Redeemer did not make his own is not saved.”[38] Without a full assumption of humanity, sin excepted, human beings cannot be saved.[39]

This Christ who became flesh, the creed continues, suffered and was raised from the dead, ascended “in the flesh into the heavens,” and will return in a future “coming from the heavens in the glory of the Father.” At that time he will “raise up all flesh of the human race,” the wicked to be sent into “eternal fire” and the righteous to be surrounded with “eternal glory.” The clear emphasis here is on the reality of the Incarnation. It should be noted that Irenaeus was equally firm with regard to the deity of Christ. Christ is described as “Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King.” In Book V, Irenaeus encouraged all of his readers to “confess him [i.e. Christ] as God and hold firmly to him as man, using the proofs drawn from the Scriptures.”[40]

In this creedal statement nothing is said about the Holy Spirit beyond the fact that the Church believes in him along with the Father and the Son. In other places in Against Heresies, though, Irenaeus made it very clear where he stood as to the question about the Spirit’s being. In Against Heresies 5.12.1-4, Irenaeus argued that salvation of the body is the Spirit’s work. Without the Spirit a man simply has “the breath of life,” which gives him physical life. The breath of life is created, continues for a period of time and then ceases. It is temporal. The Spirit, on the other hand, gives eternal life and is “peculiar to God” and “eternal.”[41] The contrast that Irenaeus made here clearly indicated his conviction in the Spirit’s deity.

Irenaeus was also aware that the Holy Spirit is involved in creation. The Father, by his Word and Spirit, “makes, disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence.”[42] However, the Word and Spirit cannot be regarded as less than God, for Irenaeus often asserted that there is only one Creator who is God. What does this then say about the Holy Spirit? He can only be regarded as a fully divine being.[43]

Irenaeus thus employed this creedal statement to state the essential Christian belief that a person must hold in order to be saved. Moreover, Irenaeus never tired of stressing the fact that this faith is held by the Church wherever it is found.[44] In the Church there is “one and the same faith”, “one and the same doctrine”, “one and the same way of salvation.”[45] This unity pertains, Irenaeus stressed, to the essentials of the faith. During the 190s, for example, Irenaeus was critical of Victor, the bishop of Rome, for his unwillingness to tolerate differences between churches in the celebration of Easter, both with regard to when it was actually celebrated and how. Victor was prepared to excommunicate anyone who did not agree with his perspective. In a situation like this where there was no danger to the essentials of the faith, Irenaeus longed to see mutual tolerance and the acceptance of different customs.[46]

The Gnostics, though, erred in the essentials. They had to be corrected, therefore, by the teaching of the Scriptures and the church had to be safeguarded by creedal statements like the one cited above.

Irenaeus’ rebuttal of Gnosticism was rooted in a confessional Christianity that, in turn, was grounded on the perfection and fidelity of the Scriptures. It is a model worthy of emulation in our day. As the Lyons pastor realized, the Lord feeds his people through all of the Scriptures: “For the Church has been planted as a garden in this world. Therefore, the Spirit of God says, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden’ (Gen. 2:16), that is to say, ‘Eat from every Scripture of the Lord’.”[47] Irenaeus likened the Church to the Garden of Eden: just as the trees which the Lord planted in that garden provided food for Adam and for Eve, so the entirety of Scripture contains nourishment necessary for all believers to experience true growth in Christ.

Irenaeus knew of one other way of reaching the Gnostics: by prayer. His prayer at the end of Book III reveals his pastoral heart.

We do indeed pray that these men may not remain in the pit which they themselves have dug, but…being converted to the Church of God, may be lawfully begotten, and that Christ may be formed in them, and that they may know the Framer and Maker of this universe, the only true God and Lord of all. We pray for these things on their behalf, loving them better than they seem to love themselves. For our love, inasmuch as it is true, is salutary to them, if they will but receive it. It may be compared to a severe remedy, extirpating the proud and sloughing flesh of a wound; for it puts an end to their pride and haughtiness. Wherefore it shall not weary us, to endeavour with all our might to stretch out the hand unto them.[48]

[1] A portion of this chapter was given initially as a paper, “The Church in the Second Century”, The Fellowship for Reformation and Pastoral Studies, 26, Number 7 (March 9, 1998).

[2] Early Christian Doctrines (4th ed.; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968), 107

[3] F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, “Irenaeus of Lugdunum”, Expository Times, 44 (1932-1933), 167.

[4] For the date, see Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (London/New York: Routledge, 1997), 2.

[5] The Martyrdom of Polycarp 22.2 [The Apostolic Fathers: Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, ed. J.B. Lightfoot (1889-1890 ed.; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), Part Two, Vol. 3:401].

[6] Cited Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History 5.20.5-7 [trans. Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), 195-196].

[7] Early Christian Fathers, ed. and trans. Cyril C. Richardson with Eugene F. Fairweather, Edward Rochie Hardy and Massey Hamilton Shepherd (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), 347.

[8] Martyrdom of Polycarp 22.2 (The Moscow Epilogue) (The Apostolic Fathers: Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, ed. Lightfoot, Part Two, Vol. 3:402).

[10] The Martyrs of Lyons [trans. Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 69].

[11] Against Heresies 1, Preface 3. There is nothing to justify Robert Grant’s remark that Irenaeus’ mission among the Celts was a failure and that the “Celtic population remained resolutely non-Christians” (Irenaeus of Lyons, 5).

[12] For the poignant account of his death, see The Martyrs of Lyons (trans. Musurillo, Acts of the Christian Martyrs, 71, 73.

[14] For the date, see Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), 182-183. The title of the treatise is based on the wording of 1 Timothy 6:20.

[17] Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd., 1967), 80.

[19] Trans. R. McL. Wilson, The Gospel of Philip (London: A.R. Mowbray & Co., Ltd., 1962), 32, altered.

[21] Trans. G.C. Stead from the German translation of K. Schaferdiek in E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. W. Schneemelcher, English trans. ed. R. McL. Wilson (London: Lutterworth Press, 1965), 2:227.

[22] Cited Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.6.1; 1.7.2 [trans. Alexander Roberts and W.H. Rambaut in A. Cleveland Coxe, arr., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.1; 1885 ed.; repr. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1903), 324, 325,].

[23] Acts of Thomas 12 (trans. Stead in Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Schneemelcher, 2:449).

[24] Cited Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.24.2 (trans. Roberts and Rambaut in Coxe, arr., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, 349).

[25] See Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.33.9, where he notes that the Gnostics really have no martyrs.

[26] See, for instance, Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 4:1-5, where he refutes those who rejected marriage and argued that certain foods should not be eaten. In 2 Timothy 2:16-18, he castigates as error an over-realized Gnostic eschatology all too similar to what prevailed in second-century Gnosticism. In 1 John 4:1-5 and 2 John 7, the Apostle John stoutly maintains that the denial of the Incarnation is nothing less than heresy.

[27] For the details of this discovery and the nature of the manuscripts, see Pheme Perkins, “Nag Hammadi” is Everett Ferguson, ed., Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (2nd ed.; New York/London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998), 796-797.

[28] Against Heresies 1 Preface 2 (trans. Roberts and Rambaut in Coxe, arr., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, 315).

[34] Against Heresies 2.28.3 (trans. Roberts and Rambaut in Coxe, arr., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, 399).

[38] Henry Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 102.

[42] Against Heresies 1.22.1 (trans. Roberts and Rambaut in Coxe, arr., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, 347). See also Against Heresies 4.20.1.

[43] Roch Kereszty, “The Unity of the Church in the Theology of Irenaeus”, The Second Century, 4 (1984), 212-213.

[47] Against Heresies 5.20.2 (trans. Roberts and Rambaut in Coxe, arr., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, 460).

[48] Against Heresies 3.25.7 (trans. Roberts and Rambaut in Coxe, arr., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, 460).

Kinda causes problems when someone who knew someone who knew an apostle tells you that the See of Rome is the touchstone of orthodoxy, huh?

And just how would we know if that someone who knew someone told someone or anyone for that matter that the See of Rome is the touchstone of orthodoxy? Where is the documentation for that?

And how did Peter and Paul and John forget to put something so important into their epistles? Perhaps this is what Irenaeus means when he uses the word "tradition" --- a tradition of forgetfulness on the part of those chosen spirit-filled apostles that left room for subsequent generations to invent doctrines, create documents and make things up as they go along.

I appreciate you posting all of this. Let's look more carefully at what Irenaeus has to say on this matter.

Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 4)

The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.

1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

Is he saying here that what gives the Church its authority is that it has the "written documents" of the apostles? That those written documents are the "tradition of the truth"? and that heresies are things that evolve over time that cannot be traced to those written documents of the apostles?

And when he uses the phrase the "course of the tradition" handed down to the Churches, he seems to be referring to the "tradition" of deferring to those "written documents" as the "deposit of apostolic authority" in the churches, not some oral teaching handed down from mouth to mouth.

Am I misreading that or is that essentially what Irenaeus is saying here? And is that which Irenaeus calls "tradition" here the same as what the RCC means by it.?

No. The Church preceeded the New Testament. Jesus establised His Church upon Peter and the Apostles in union with Peter.

That Jesus - see Gospel of John - told Simon Barjonas he would be renamed Kepha/Cephas/Peter was of great significance.

Did you know that, prior to Peter, that name had never been used for any man...

Brother, Chip. I gave a link to many writings of the Earky Church Fathers. Take some time to read them with an open mind and don't be too quick to argue against them. The more you read the more rational will sound the claims of the Church I fear you may think is not being honest with you

I made my counter arguments to Campion and I do not see them refuted (see post 14). Throwing quotes at each other is not an argument. Points must be debated, not buried under old dusty words perhaps taken from context, perhaps not.

I understand that defending ones point can make you perceive that you made your point, and indeed won. I would argue that you may be not reading and understanding the opposing view, intentionally or not intentionally. I will also state that as persons of differing faiths, our diction is different. I.e. Grace does not mean the same to you as to me. This is something that always comes up in interfaith discussions.

AND you are free to switch topics whenever you want, but I would not mind further discussion.

Am I misreading that or is that essentially what Irenaeus is saying here? And is that which Irenaeus calls "tradition" here the same as what the RCC means by it.?

I'd have to look a little more closely at his argument to understand the exact thrust of what he is saying. I'll try to answer your question when I have more time.

But I think it will be easier to understand his position (and certainly the RC position) by not drawing too stark a line between "tradition" and "Scripture" as if they necessarily had to be dimetrically opposed. For example, many churches have a Wednesday night Bible study...in one sense that's an extra-biblical tradition, but of course it in no way contradicts or harms the Scriptures themselves.

The way we look at it, Scripture and tradition are really both expressions of a single source of divine revelation. That the Apostles who wrote the Scripture also passed down a tradition of the faith to the presbyters and bishops they appointed. In a sense, as bornacatholic has been saying, the tradition handed down by the Apostles was what went into the NT (e.g. Mark as the scribe and disciple of Peter).

There's a quote from St. Paul "hold fast to what we have taught you, whether by letter or by spoken word." What is important there is not so much which of the two ways you got St. Paul's teaching, but that you held to it regardless. Does that make any sense?

In a sense as bornacatholic has been saying, the tradition handed down by the Apostles was what went into the NT

But that is not what the RCC teaches regarding "tradition". From the Catholic Dictionary of my Catholic Bible: "Tradition: Revealed truths of faith and morals given by Christ or the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and transmitted from them to us without being written in the inspired books of the Bible".

The "tradition" of the RCC encompasses those things "without written apostolic documentation". Irenaeus in the above quotation calls "tradition" those things that have "written apostolic documentation". There is a disconnect between what he means by "tradition" and what the RCC means by the word.

Well that brings us to what Paul means by his use of the word "tradition", which in the Greek [paradosis] means "near precept, or a precept in the proximity or vicinity", as opposed, so to speak, to "commandment" which in the Greek [entole] means "a precept in a fixed and immovable position".

Paul writes in II Thessalonians 2:15 "Stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle." The traditions that he is talking about there are those that have to do with the Day of the Lord and the Man of Sin which he told them about when he was with them [verse 5], and then just got finished reinforcing by written documentation in that very letter.

The facts regarding the Day of the Lord and the Man of Sin is the "tradition" that he is referring to in his letter, which was a long-standing tradition from the prophet Daniel. Note later in the same epistle [Chapter 3:6] that he says "withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition received from us.". Note "received" is past tense, and "from us" not from presbyters and bishops a hundred years from now. That which he told them when he was with them was just put into "written documentation" so that it could not be changed by oral transmission nor misunderstood nor forgotten by later generations. Does that make sense?

But that is not what the RCC teaches regarding "tradition".

I think you misunderstood me. I did not say that all of tradition was written in the NT. I am saying that the NT came from the fount of tradition which the Apostles preached. Much of it was not written. Remember John 20:30-31: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name."

John says quite explicitly that not everything was written down...and that the NT was not meant to be an exhaustive account of what Jesus did, but rather a way of calling people to belief.

Thanks for the ref. I think you are unnecessarily compartmentalizing this verse though. Read all of the end of 2 Thess 2, and it's clear that statement is occuring in a generic sense of believing in Christ and not the specific sense of the prophecy:

But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting encouragement and good hope through his grace, encourage your hearts and strengthen them in every good deed and word.

The traditions there seems to be referring to "our gospel". There's no indication he was only speaking about the prophecy.

On 3:6, of course tradition is past tense...it couldn't be any other way. We don't believe in progressive revelation, but a revelation delivered once for all, delivered orally (part of which was then written). And as to "from us" not meaning the people who came afterward, well, Irenaeus certainly didn't see it that way!

And as to "from us" not meaning the people who came afterward, well, Irenaeus certainly didn't see it that way!

I think that Irenaeus did see it that way as he writes in the following discourse posted earlier:

"On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?"

The "writings of the apostles" were "the authority" according to Irenaeus here. The writings that had already been handed down [past tense] were the "tradition of the truth" and the "course of the tradition handed down to those to whom they committed the Churches", per Irenaeus. He says clearly that if there is a dispute over an important question, the churchmen should defer to the "writings of the apostles".

Ireneaus didn't mean the Scriptures when he referred to the authority of "Tradition". Look back up at post #22 above, where he makes a clear distinction between the heretics following *neither* Scripture nor tradition. Why would he make that distinction, if all he meant by tradition was the written word of the Bible?.

Look at this excerpt also:

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.

He is clearly saying there is a tradition from the Apostles which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters. This cannot be talking about written Scripture, but only the Apostolic Succession.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.