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).

Holy Father Irenaeus has just nailed the Roman Catholic Church and its historic use of these things called TRADITIONS that run counter to the Scriptures as being sourced not in the Church or its patriarchs, but in the Gnostics and Heretics and Marcionites of his day.

Uncle Chip, you do your argument a vast disservice by plucking sentences out of context and pretend they support your position without reading ALL of what Holy Father Irenaeus has to say. I hate doing quote dumps, but you have made it necessary. So let's look at the entire section in full (which is, tellingly, called: "The heretics follow neither Scripture nor Tradition")

. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
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. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Wherefore they must be opposed at all points, if perchance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

You are 100% right that Irenaeus criticizes those who claim they received some "special understanding" by way of unwritten tradition. BUT, he says that when the orthodox answer the Gnostics by saying "Ok, let's look at tradition then", then suddenly the Gnostics say that the Catholic tradition is *valueless* and adulterated and false, and they and they alone "discovered" the pure, unalloyed doctrine that--presumably--had lain dormant in the Church till then.

You are only looking at one side of Irenaeus's argument--he used BOTH Scripture AND tradition to assert orthodoxy against the Gnostics--to "oppose them at all points".

He appears to assume that what his church at that time believes and teaches is a traditional and in line with Scripture when some of it clearly is not.

Well, so says Uncle Chip, but I'm not sure Uncle Chip can necessarily make that determination any more than I can! :)

We have a tendency to look at the early Church with certain assumptions about what it *must* have been like (based on our own interpretations of Scripture), rather than looking at it for what it actually was. Clearly, Irenaeus thought that what he was saying was right in line with what the Apostles taught. I'm not sure we're in a great position to contest him on that point...especially since we don't find his contemporaries writing tracts saying that he was dead wrong.

The Orthodox says that the Church never had a strong Pope. The Roman Catholics say they did. This was such an area of contention it has kept both groups apart for another 1,000 years. Well, if you're following traditions of the Church doesn't this seem like a silly argument?

Sometime ask the Orthodox the question Jesus asked Peter, "Who do men say that I am? ... Who do you say that I am?" in reference, not to Jesus, but to the Pope.

There are almost as many answers as there are Orthodox.

I think the problem is that our understanding of what the Roman primacy means has diverged, and it was diverging for quite some time before 1054. So, some of the Orthodox might say that would be happy to recognize a Roman primacy that operated they way they think the Roman primacy operated before, say AD 800. Problem: even if we could understand accurately how the east viewed the Roman primacy before AD 800 and reproduce it today, that's not necessarily the way the West viewed it before AD 800, to say nothing of the way the West views it today.

Overlapping (not identical) tradition, but different ways of understanding it, especially in the area of ecclesiology and church government.

Holy Father Irenaeus has just nailed the Roman Catholic Church and its historic use of these things called TRADITIONS that run counter to the Scriptures

Nice taking of Irenaeus out of context, there, Uncle.

Here's the next paragraph:

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. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. (Book III, Chapter 2, verse 2)

Clearly, Irenaeus thought that what he was saying was right in line with what the Apostles taught.

If he had the Scriptures in his hand and actually read them he would have known that no where did the Apostles Paul or Peter or any other Apostle teach that the Church of Rome was to be superior to the others. More than likely, this "tradition" that he was pontificating was part of the "Confession of the Church of Rome" of his day that all churchmen had to assent to if they wanted to hold a church office. For he provides no Scriptural basis for this "tradition". It may have been a "tradition" to him and those in the Church there in Rome, but it was a tradition no where else.

I'm not sure we're in a great position to contest him on that point...especially since we don't find his contemporaries writing tracts saying that he was dead wrong.

Sure we are. We have the benefit of hindsight and history that he did not have. Those contemporaries of his probably did not know of some of these things that he labelled "traditions", as I'm sure his writings were not circulated as religiously as the Scriptures were.

And even if they did read his writings, his writings were not inspired by the Holy Spirit, as even he would admit unequivocably. And for those who did read what he said about the superiority of the Church of Rome, most of the Church in his day and later did say "that he was dead wrong" --- by their actions day after day, by ignoring not only what he said in that regard, but also in ignoring the pontifications of presbyters of the Church of Rome in favor of their own presbyters and Scripture itself.

We have the benefit of hindsight and history that he did not have.

And he has the benefit of learning his faith from a man, Polycarp of Smyrna, who knew the Beloved Disciple personally.

If he had the Scriptures in his hand and actually read them ...

A moment ago you were touting him as a proto-Protestant and a devotee of sola scriptura, and now you think didn't have the Scriptures or didn't bother to read them? A bit fickle of you, I'd say.

most of the Church in his day and later did say "that he was dead wrong" --- by their actions day after day, by ignoring not only what he said in that regard, but also in ignoring the pontifications of presbyters of the Church of Rome in favor of their own presbyters and Scripture itself.

You were there?

I think the problem is that our understanding of what the Roman primacy means has diverged, and it was diverging for quite some time before 1054.

It simply points out that "tradition" isn't all that it's cracked up to be. There are obvious different interpretation of those traditions. How do you know the west is following the right traditions? Someone's right and someone's wrong and both state they're following tradition. Why it's enough to make a Protestant dizzy.

Of course Irenaeus would say to follow the Bishop. The church was small and these were honorable men. Not to slam the Church for we all have our problems, but I wonder if he would say the same thing about Bishops who covered up pedophile priests?

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.