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).

I am still awaiting for you to tell me that this is an absolute requirement. Why are you restricting me? There is PLENTY of precedent in the Scriptures - Jesus HIMSELF was circumcised and circumcsion is the predecessor of baptism. Read Col 2. The Jews would have seen baptism as a natural replacement for circumcsion, since both rituals brought people into the respective communities.

Only Jewish men were circumcised. What about the women? And let's be clear, circumcision has never gotten any Jew a pass into heaven, and thus neither has baptism. Hell is filled with circumcised and uncircumcised, baptized and unbaptized alike. Paul states clearly in Romans 4:9-11 that the "blessedness of the faith of Abraham" came before he was circumcised. Thus he "believed the word of God" and then was "circumcised" as a "sign" and a "seal" of that which he received before he was circumcised. Abraham "believed and was circumcised". And thus we who believe the "Gospel that was preached before to Abraham" are to follow suit and "believe and be baptized".

But let's look further at those who perished in the wilderness of Sin[ai]. Paul in Corinthians says that all of those circumcised men "were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did eat the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink." [I Corinthians 1-4]. In addition to circumcision, they were baptized and had their holy communion of bread and drink, and yet what happened to them? "With many of them God was not well pleased for they were overthrown in the wilderness".

Their traditions did not get them to where they wanted to go. They had their sacraments of circumcision, baptism, holy communion, and the Scriptures at their disposal in the ark, but they all died without entering the promised land.

Paul goes on to say: "Now these things happened unto them for examples and they are WRITTEN for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages is come."[10:11]

Later in Hebrews Chapter 3 and 4 Paul identifies what kept them from entering into that land which God had promised first in spoken word and affirmed in the permanent written record in the Ark of the Covenant. It was their "evil heart of UNBELIEF" [Hebrews 3:12]. They had all the sacraments that they were doing on a regular basis, but the most important thing was the Word of God in their midst which they refused to believe.

Forty years later a generation of the uncircumcised and without those sacraments in the wilderness entered into the Land of Promise because they believed the Word of God and acted on it.

So I ask you. Which is more important to getting one into the land of God's promise: the sacraments that didn't get the circumcised children of Israel out of the wilderness or the belief in the Word of God that did as "It Is Written"?

Only Jewish men were circumcised. What about the women? And let's be clear, circumcision has never gotten any Jew a pass into heaven, and thus neither has baptism

Well, now we are discussing something totally different. "Being saved" does not mean one will enter heaven. Thus, some Jews who were circumcised refused to obey God's will, and some Catholics who were baptized refused to obey God's will - and both were cast out of the Kingdom. However, in both cases, entrance into the Kingdom, into the People of God, was by these respective rites. In both cases, they were performed on even infants as parents stood in proxy for the children's faith.

Their traditions did not get them to where they wanted to go. They had their sacraments of circumcision, baptism, holy communion, and the Scriptures at their disposal in the ark, but they all died without entering the promised land.

We were not speaking about the effectiveness of their traditions, but rather, "were they legitimate"? A given tradition or devotion does NOT guarantee heaven. The purpose of a tradition is supposed to be to move the mind of the believer towards Christ. IF that tradition does not have that as an intention, then it is a false one. I have already given you an example - Korban. Jesus does not condemn all traditions, just those like Korban. As in all things, we shouldn't condemn a legitimate tradition because it is not 100% effective in all cases. For some people, the rosary is a truly effective devotional tradition. Do I have to do it to be saved? No. But for some people it works. And that is the proper useage of the word "tradition". In this case, it is moving the person to God, so it is valid and shouldn't be condemned.

Paul goes on to say: "Now these things happened unto them for examples and they are WRITTEN for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages is come."

Yes, and I agree that Hebrews 3,4 say the same thing. That just because one "accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior" didn't guarantee eternal salvation. That is Catholic theology. Certainly, we are saved - healed - through the waters of regeneration. But the verses you posted clearly show that a believer can fall away or can choose to not continue in the Lord. Not sure what your point is here, because on this matter, we agree.

Forty years later a generation of the uncircumcised and without those sacraments in the wilderness entered into the Land of Promise because they believed the Word of God and acted on it.

Oh, but they DID have the SAME sacraments! God punished those who refused to believe. But the same rituals were practiced by those leaving Egypt as by those born in the desert and survived the trek through the desert to the Promised Land. The difference was that the former Jews did not choose to trust in God, despite the aid they received from these sacraments, while the others DID trust in God.

Which is more important to getting one into the land of God's promise: the sacraments that didn't get the circumcised children of Israel out of the wilderness or the belief in the Word of God that did as "It Is Written"?

Neither. It is man's response to God that is important. The tools, whether sacraments or the scriptures, are merely tools to aid man to come into communion with God. You are worshiping the tools, rather than God Himself.

Regards

Let's use Paul's terminology: they refused to believe God's Word and obey it.

and both were cast out of the Kingdom.

No, they never entered into it because of their unbelief and subsequent disobedience to God's Word.

However, in both cases, entrance into the Kingdom, into the People of God, was by these respective rites.

No read Paul again: "Belief aka Faith" followed by circumcision, baptism, obedience, whatever, and then continuing to believe and obey the Word of God. It wasn't just a one time event, but a continuity of belief in God's Word that started at that one time event.

In both cases, they were performed on even infants as parents stood in proxy for the children's faith.

The first circumcision was on Abraham after he believed God's Word. While infants were circumcised, any grown non-Israelite or sojourner who wanted to be part of the commonwealth of Israel could do so by choosing to be circumcised. In those cases circumcision followed a decision to be part of the faith of the God of Israel.

But that is not what the RCC teaches. It says that the "grace necessary for eternal life" is imparted through the sacraments, right?

I have already given you an example - Korban. Jesus does not condemn all traditions, just those like Korban.

Jesus is perfectly clear. The tradition of Korban, like many of your sacramental traditions, made the Word of God of no effect.

As in all things, we shouldn't condemn a legitimate tradition because it is not 100% effective in all cases.

The traditions that reinforce the meaning of the Word of God are definitely good, like standing while reading the Scriptures in our churches, but sitting while they are preached about. But any tradition that replaces or mocks the truth of Scripture, like the teaching that infant baptism remits original or any other kind of sin, should be set aside.

For some people, the rosary is a truly effective devotional tradition. Do I have to do it to be saved? No. But for some people it works. And that is the proper useage of the word "tradition".

Sure it is for Buddhists and Muslims from whom that tradition came, but not for Christians who take their faith seriously.

In this case, it is moving the person to God, so it is valid and shouldn't be condemned.

Sure, closer to Buddha and to Allah and others honored by such pagan repetitions, but not the God of the Holy Scriptures.

You mean "born again by the incorruptible Word of God"

But the verses you posted clearly show that a believer can fall away or can choose to not continue in the Lord. Not sure what your point is here, because on this matter, we agree.

40 posts and we finally find something to agree upon?

Forty years later a generation of the uncircumcised and without those sacraments in the wilderness entered into the Land of Promise because they believed the Word of God and acted on it.

No. Read what the Scriptures teach. The generation that followed Joshua into the Promised Land had not been circumcised and the sacrament of manna ended in the wilderness before they entered the land.

That's not true. What did Paul say was the reason that they entered not into God's rest?

Apparently, we are getting way off topic. Rather than continue through such diverse subjects, I suggest we stick to the original thread subject. The topic moved around Apostolic Tradition and its place in the overall scheme of what the Apostles taught and what we are expected to believe as part of the apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ. I will try to answer such questions from your last post that refer to this topic. If you would like to discuss other issues addressed, please do so elsewhere.

I wrote: We were not speaking about the effectiveness of their traditions, but rather, "were they legitimate"? A given tradition or devotion does NOT guarantee heaven. The purpose of a tradition is supposed to be to move the mind of the believer towards Christ. IF that tradition does not have that as an intention, then it is a false one.

You responded: But that is not what the RCC teaches. It says that the "grace necessary for eternal life" is imparted through the sacraments, right?

Yes, but it is not limited to the sacraments alone. First, you must understand that Baptism IS a sacrament, one by which we are healed of original sin. Thus, in one sense, even infants are saved from this - entirely a gift from God through the Church's ministry. NORMALLY, one must be baptized to enter the Church. However, the Church also states that one is considered part of the Church IF that person WOULD have become baptized had they known about it. The Spirit blows where He will and God is not bound by the sacraments - says St. Augustine vs. the Donatists. NORMALLY, one receives the sacraments - but it is not the only way that God can act.

Jesus is perfectly clear. The tradition of Korban, like many of your sacramental traditions, made the Word of God of no effect.

Which sacramental tradition makes the Word of God no effect? Quite obviously, you misunderstand the sacraments, because if you knew what they did and how they act, you wouldn't say such things. ALL sacramental action is done with the intent of moving the recipient's mind to God. We don't have any such actions that CIRCUMVENT the Commandments, like Korban. Which Catholic practice makes adultery OK? Which Catholic practice makes murder OK? Korban made ignoring your parents OK...

It remains your opinion that infant baptism "mocks" the Word of God. Fortunately, we don't need to reinvent the wheel and throw away the understanding of God's teachings because YOU PERSONALLY don't get it... What is Irenaeus' take on such matters? When reading Scriptures, WHICH paradigm do we read it under??? I clearly addressed this on my first response to you. YOUR personal opinion is not what is at stake. What is important is how the CHURCH, the community of believers, sees the matter - this community that has a tradition, a history of viewing Scriptures a particular way.

I see Baptism as a natural replacement for the sacrament of the Old Covenant, circumcision. Are you saying one must EARN being baptized by having "x" amount of faith? Where did that faith come from??? God, correct? So why cannot God heal someone based on the request of another, as He did with the Roman Centurion's servant? Or the Paralytic who was brought down through the roof?

Back to the matter at hand, either one reads the Bible based on their OWN paradigm and opinions - which means exegisis of Scripture, contorting it to fit your own little theology (as Irenaeus noted about the Gnostics) or we read Scriptures based on the way it was presented by the Apostles and their successors to the people. Not our own opinions. Being Catholic means we place our personal opinions aside and follow the paradigm taught by the Apostles as handed down. The teachings of the Apostles are as a deposit given to us - this deposit is BOTH written and oral - which we can understand as HOW we interpret the written word.

Thus, either YOU interpret the Word of God to the exclusion of anyone else and FOR yourself, OR the Church interprets the Word of God FOR the People of God. Scripture doesn't support the first method, but rather, the second. Regards

Which sacramental tradition makes the Word of God no effect?

Infant baptism is a later tradition that violates not only the Scriptural injunction to "believe first then be baptized", but it also violates the earlier tradition of the apostles in the book of Acts in which no one was baptized unless he or she believed the Gospel first.

At what point is the Gospel believed in your sacraments? If it is after baptism then your church has it backwards and makes the Gospel ineffective. It is both scripturally and traditionally incorrect.

Wasn't it Tertullian who taught that the believer should wait for a significant period of time before being baptized and not be too hasty with it.

When do you fulfill the tradition of the apostles who were all baptized after they believed in Jesus.? When was the last time a Catholic fulfilled that apostolic tradition? of actually choosing as an adult to be baptized after believing the Gospel?

Ah there's the rub and the difference between us. The Holy Spirit inhabits individuals not corporate entities like the Roman Church, or Greek Church, or any other Church. He gives those in whom He dwells the power to understand the meaning of the writings that He authored. That is both tradition and Scripture --- two witnesses are better than one.

That remains your unproven opinion. You have absolutely no evidence that infant baptism was a "later tradition". We have written evidence that it was the teachings of the Apostles from Ireneaus and Origen. Also, you have yet to show me anywhere from Scriptures that one MUST first believe before being baptized. Some Christians received the Spirit BEFORE being baptized, for example.

Wasn't it Tertullian who taught that the believer should wait for a significant period of time before being baptized and not be too hasty with it.

Obviously speaking to catechumens. This doesn't rule out infant baptism.

Oh boy. When? The Scriptures note Catholics being baptized quite often. Historical writings reveal this tradition continued up to this day. I currently am teaching a class of 17 adults who will become baptized or complete the sacraments of initiation during Easter Vigil. The Rites of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) goes back as far as one cares to go in Christian history. You are always welcome to choose to become baptized after you have faith in the Gospel, if your parents didn't plead your case to God when you were an infant.

The Holy Spirit inhabits individuals not corporate entities like the Roman Church, or Greek Church, or any other Church. He gives those in whom He dwells the power to understand the meaning of the writings that He authored. That is both tradition and Scripture --- two witnesses are better than one.

Wrong. It actually is more proper to say that the Spirit inhabits the entire Church as one man. Thus, we are united in Christ, since the Church is the Body of Christ. Sure, the Spirit comes to us individually, but more often than not, Paul refers to the entire community as if it is one body inhabited by the Spirit, such as when he says WE are the Temple of the Holy Spirit (not individually, but as a corporate organization that is visible).

Yes, two witnesses are better than one. Thus, Apostolic Tradition gives us proper understanding of Scriptures. This takes us back to my very first response to you - one that you continue to ignore the implications of. Without a living authority, anyone can bring their own theological constructs to the table and claim that the Scriptures back them up. Thus, 30,000 Protestant denominations all claim to be correct...

Either there are 30,000 Holy Spirits, or there are a lot of people who think they are being guided by the Spirit but are not. The problem is that you can't tell which one is correct, if any! God didn't leave us in such confusion. He left a visible Church that vouched for His Word. You are free to enter into it more fully - or you can continue to reject those whom He sent.

Regards

You are always welcome to choose to become baptized after you have faith in the Gospel, if your parents didn't plead your case to God when you were an infant.

Let's get real here. No Catholic that I ever knew who was baptized as an infant was ever rebaptized as an adult by their Catholic Church. As a matter of fact it was simply not even entertained as a point of discussion.

Their certificate of infant baptism was their evidence of having met their requirements of entry into the faith through baptism [though without their willful consent as scripture and the tradition of baptism requires]. Those who were baptized as infants and wanted to be baptized as adults and especially in the traditional way of the apostles had to convert to another Church or denomination.

If you are saying that that the RCC rebaptizes as adults those who had been baptized as infants, then that is a "new" tradition that undermines the old, and is being done by the RCC not willingly but reluctantly because so many in your RCC are doing the unthinkable and reading their Scriptures and seeing the insufficiency of your infant baptism.

It actually is more proper to say that the Spirit inhabits the entire Church as one man. Thus, we are united in Christ, since the Church is the Body of Christ. Sure, the Spirit comes to us individually, but more often than not, Paul refers to the entire community as if it is one body inhabited by the Spirit, such as when he says WE are the Temple of the Holy Spirit (not individually, but as a corporate organization that is visible).

This sounds like Roman Catholic Communism that rules the individuals with its mystical "Collective Mind". And Catholics wonder where Socialism and Communism comes from? We enter the world one at a time, and we leave one at a time, and stand before God one at a time. Your problem is "Group Think". Your Church wants everybody to fall in line and serve "the collective entity" as if it will be eternal, but the Church of Rome will fall taking those in it with it, while the Kingdom of Israel that rises from Jerusalem will stand forever as will those individuals who want to be part of it, as "It Is Written".

No Catholic that I ever knew who was baptized as an infant was ever rebaptized as an adult by their Catholic Church. As a matter of fact it was simply not even entertained as a point of discussion.

That's because we know we were saved at Baptism. We don't need to worry whether it "took", unlike those who rely on their own faith to determine whether they were saved.

Those who were baptized as infants and wanted to be baptized as adults and especially in the traditional way of the apostles had to convert to another Church or denomination.

Why be baptized a second time? Once baptized, you are a child of God. It doesn't depend on anything YOU do, but on God Himself. Did the servant of the Roman Centurion look to be healed in PERSON? Because HE didn't ask Christ, did it mean anything less??? He was HEALED! You clearly don't understand the concept of family or community in the bigger picture of Scriptures.

I never said the Church rebaptizes. Perhaps you misunderstood me. RCIA is for those who have NEVER been baptized AND for those who are converting from another Christian denomination. For the former, they receive Baptism, along with Confirmation and the Eucharist (the sacraments of Initiation). For the latter, they do not receive Baptism, they already WERE baptized and ARE members of the Church, but not completely. Thus, they complete their initiation with Confirmation (does what it sounds like) and the Eucharist.

This sounds like Roman Catholic Communism that rules the individuals with its mystical "Collective Mind".

Sorry if you disapprove of Paul's take on the Church, the Body of Christ. Have you read 1 Cor 12 or Rom 12? How about Ephesians? Paul calls the members of the Church as parts of a Body, the Body of Christ that is mystically joined - "when one suffers, everyone suffers; when one is honored, all rejoice". There is a connection between all the members of the Body because we share in the life of Christ. This applies not only to those members walking in this world, but those who have entered into eternal life - nothing can separate us from Christ. If you have problems with the analogy that SCRIPTURES make, what can I say?

Catholics wonder where Socialism and Communism comes from?

Is that the best you can do? Blame the Church for the rise of a revolutionary government that FIRST seeks to destroy its own members? WHO is one of the primary enemies of Communist revolutions? Who are among the first killed? Prominent Catholics and priests are among the first targets and remain so during the existence of Communist regimes. Judging by this answer and your knowledge of Church history, you need to do some seriously reading on history before spouting off such nonsense...

Your Church wants everybody to fall in line and serve "the collective entity" as if it will be eternal

Not only are you not aware of Church history, you don't even know much about God Himself, who ALSO is a "collective entity". Ever hear about the Blessed Trinity??? For someone who claims to live by the Bible, it is amazing how little you know about Him who Is.

Your Church wants everybody to fall in line and serve "the collective entity" as if it will be eternal, but the Church of Rome will fall taking those in it with it, while the Kingdom of Israel that rises from Jerusalem will stand forever as will those individuals who want to be part of it, as "It Is Written".

You sure you read Romans 11? We are joined into the root, we, the wild shoot. There is no separate "kingdom of Israel" and "Church of Rome"....

I'd like to stay and chat, but this conversation has lost its value to me. You already have your mind made up and nothing I write will change it, even pointing out your numerous errors and your inabilitiy to answer my questions. Even Christ didn't convince the Pharisees, so what chance do I have with someone like yourself? Clearly, you need to consider looking at your tagline and following your own advice. Open yourself to truth, not your opinions.

Adios

The Catholic Church was doing very well before Constantine. Certainly, it grew all the more when people were no longer killed for their faith. But so what? What does that have to do with Arianism? The Pope didn't owe Constantine anything. The Church answers to God, not secular power. If Rome was so beholden to the Emperial Court, we would not today be calling Jesus God. It was the Bishop of Rome, along with men such as Athanasius, that maintained the true faith, not the faith expressed by some people who tried to figure out the Scriptures without Apostolic Tradition.

When the Church became a recognized religious body in the empire, Constantine as emperor had to be recognized as its de facto head. As that head he convened the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and set its agenda, gave the opening speech, and presided over it in a golden chair between the parties.

He was the head of the Church as well as head of the pagan priesthood, the Pontifex Maximus, the title passing on to those who followed in this position. He was honored by the Christian prelates as "Bishop of Bishops", and called himself "Vicarius Christi" [Vicar of Christ], the title later passing on to the Pontiffs of the Roman Catholic Church.

He even gave the Catholic Church its name, calling it the "catholic" [universal] Church in which pagans and Christians would be united ecumenically. The famous "Chi-Rho" insignia that Catholics honor is the cross symbol that his astrologers saw in the stars before his infamous battle.

There is too much historical tradition that cannot be unwritten on the matter of Constantine and the Roman Church, no matter how hard the magisterium tries to deny the connection with its founder.

He even gave the Catholic Church its name, calling it the "catholic" [universal]

Wrong!Constantine did not give the Catholic(universal)Church its name. The Church was called Catholic before Constantine was born.

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177). "[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

Farewell Brother,I,ll pray for you to open your heart to the truth.

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.