Author: Robert Arakaki (Page 64 of 89)

Ancient Roman Aqueduct Bridge

As a follow up on my previous posting: “Irenaeus of Lyons: Contending for the Faith Once Delivered,” I will be presenting excerpts from his Against the Heretics with some short comments about how they relate to our present situation.  In a comment thread I noted that Irenaeus’ Against the Heretics contains lengthy detailed discussions of the Gnostic heresy with nuggets of wisdom here and there.  I am presenting these excerpts as a convenience to the readers.

I drew the excerpts from a number of sources: Cyril Richardson’s Early Christian Fathers, Robert M. Grant’s  Irenaeus of Lyons, and volume 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers series — retail or pdf file.  In addition, I used On the Apostolic Preaching published by St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Irenaeus’ Creed

Now the Church, although scattered over the whole civilized world to the end of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples its faith in one God, the Father Almighty who made the heaven, and the earth, and the seas, and all that is in them, and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets proclaimed the dispensations of God (AH 1.10.1, Richardson 1970:360).

Comment: Here we see the outline of what would become known as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.  This creed was not so much a personal statement of faith as it was part of the Tradition of the Church received from the Apostles.  As a Protestant familiar with denominational diversity I was fascinated by the doctrinal unity of the early Church. Either one was Orthodox or one was a heretic.

Our Salvation in Christ

So, then, since the Lord redeemed us by his own blood, and gave his soul for our souls, and his flesh for our bodies, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to bring about the union and communion of God and man–bringing God down to men by [the working of] the Spirit, and again raising man God by his incarnation–and by his coming firmly and truly giving us incorruption, by our communion with God, all the teachings of the heretics are destroyed (AH 5.1.1, Richardson 1970:386).

Comment: A close reading of this passage shows that Irenaeus did not present salvation in terms of forensic justification but in terms of reconciliation and communion.  Salvation here is not understood in terms of legal righteousness but in terms of our being united with the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Here we also see the importance of the Incarnation: Christ assuming human nature for our salvation.

Our Calling in Life: to glorify God

 For the glory of God is a living man; and the life of man consists in beholding God.  (AH 4.20.7; ANF vol. I p. 490)

The glory of God is man fully alive; and man fully alive is man glorifying God.  (popular paraphrase)

Comment: This popular quote has often been taken out of context and understood to mean that by being ourself, i.e., doing our own thing, we are glorifying God.   But taken in its proper context it gives a compelling vision of human existence.  As live out our lives here on earth we do all things for the glory of God and the apex of our human existence is our giving God glory during the Liturgy.  What we see in Irenaeus is a sacramental understanding of human existence, i.e., that our lives, our whole beings are meant by God the Creator to be vessels of divine grace.

The Authority of Scripture

For we learned the plan of our salvation from no others than from those through whom the gospel came to us.  They first preached it abroad, and then later by the will of God handed it down to us in Writings, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith (AH 3.1.1, Richardson 1970:370).

So the apostolic tradition is preserved in the Church and has come down to us.  Let us turn, then, to the demonstration from the Writings of those apostles who recorded the gospel, in which they recorded their conviction about God, showing that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Truth, and in hin him is no lie…. (Richardson 1970:376)

Comment: What we find in Irenaeus is the not the dichotomy of Scripture over Tradition (the Protestant sola scriptura position) or Church over Scripture (the Roman Catholic papal magisterium position) but Scripture in Tradition.  For Irenaeus the New Testament and the four Gospels comprise Apostolic Tradition in written form.  As the written form of Apostolic Tradition, the New Testament writings did not supersede but complemented the oral form of Apostolic Tradition (see II Thessalonians 2:15).  As Irenaeus noted the Gospel was first preached (oral transmission) then later “handed down” in written form.  Scripture and oral tradition complement each other because they both belong to the Apostolic Tradition.

Holy Tradition

Even if the apostles had not left their Writings to us, ought we not to follow the rule of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the churches?  Many barbarian peoples who believed in Christ follow this rule, having [the message of their] salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without paper and ink (AH 3.4.1-2, Richardson 1970:375).

Comment: This is one of the clearest refutation of the Protestant sola scriptura from the early Church.  This does not rule out or exclude the importance of Scripture but shows that Christian missions can be done through the oral proclamation of the Good News of Christ.  The history of Orthodox missions contains examples of Orthodox missionaries who first proclaimed the Good News of Christ in oral form then later on translated the Gospels into the native language, e.g., Herman of Alaska and the Unangax̂ or Aleuts.

Ordination of Deacon

Apostolic Succession

The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world, can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth.  We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and their successors down to our time, none of whom taught or thought of anything like their [the Gnostics] mad ideas (AH 3.3.1, Richardson 1970:371).

Comment: What validates a church?  What markers point to a bunch of people being a church?  The Protestant approach is to take the Bible in hand and attempt to show that what they believe is in line with what the Bible teaches.  For many just having a Bible there in the services and a speaker talking about the Bible qualifies them to be a church.

For Irenaeus these are not enough. For him a church is validated if they can show they are part of a chain of apostolic tradition.  This chain consists of one bishop succeeding another and so on.  Apostolic succession is more than a connection based on proper ritual but on the faithful transmission of the Apostles’ teachings, e.g., the Gospel, right doctrine, worship, and church order.  Irenaeus’ position on the episcopacy is supported by Ignatius of Antioch, an early Christian who knew the Apostles, who insisted that nothing be done apart from the bishop.

Calvin insisted that the true church is marked by the right preaching of Scripture, the right administering of the Sacraments, and church discipline but oddly enough made no mention of the episcopacy.  Here Calvin has parted ways with Irenaeus and the early Church.

Many Protestants believe that they have apostolic succession because they share in the same teachings as the Apostles.   But this is a highly problematic claim in light of what Irenaeus wrote.  First, the theological differences among denominations, many contradicting each other, makes their claim that they have preserved the “pure teachings” of the Apostles suspect.  Second, their approach is disembodied.  Like the Gnostics they focus on the intellect and disregard the bodily reality (the historic Church).  Third, Protestantism’s origin in a schism with Rome rules out any historic succession.

The Unity and Catholicity of the Christian Faith

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house.  She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth (AH 1.10.2, Richardson 1970:360).

Comment: This passage was probably one I read years ago and stuck in my mind since then.  It haunted me because as a Protestant I was keenly aware of the denominational diversity among churches and even within denominations.  When I was an Evangelical seeking to bring biblical renewal to the liberal United Church of Christ I was struck by the clashing theologies within the same denomination and how in the early Church doctrinal orthodoxy and church unity formed an organic whole.

Baptism

So, faith procures this for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us; firstly it exhorts us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, [who was] incarnate, and died, and was raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God; and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and rebirth unto God, that we may no longer be sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and everlasting God….  (On the Apostolic Preaching 1.1, p. 42)

Comment: For many Evangelicals baptism is symbolic, an outward sign of an inward grace but for the early Christians baptism was means of our rebirth in Christ and our receiving the forgiveness of sins.  Baptism in the early Church was part of the Tradition received from the Apostles through their successors the bishops.

Eucharist

Vain above all are they who despise the whole dispensation of God, and deny the salvation of the flesh and reject its rebirth, saying that it is not capable of incorruption.  For if this [mortal flesh] is not saved, then neither did the Lord redeem us by his blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of his blood, and the bread which we break the communion of his body.  ….  For when the mixed cup and the bread that has been prepared receive the Word of God, and become the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ, and by these our flesh grows and is confirmed, how can they say that flesh cannot receive the free gift of God, which is eternal life since it is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and made a member of him?  As the blessed Paul says in the Epistle to the Ephesians, that we are members of his body, of his flesh and his bones (AH 5.2.2-3, Richardson 1970:387-388).

Comment: In the Evangelical circle I moved in it was understood that in the Lord’s Supper the bread and the grape juice were just symbolic and nothing else.  But reading Irenaeus taught me that the early Christians believed that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.  A close reading of this passage by Irenaeus shows how for him the Eucharist is key to our flesh (physical body) receiving incorruptibility through union with Christ.

Salvation Through Repetition

So the Lord now manifestly came to his own, and, born by his own created order which he himself bears, he by his obedience on the tree renewed [and reversed] what was done by disobedience in [connection with] a tree; and [the power of] that seduction by which the virgin Eve, already betrothed to a man, had been wickedly seduced was broken when the angel in truth brought good tidings to the Virgin Mary, who already [by her betrothal] belonged to a man (AH 5.19.1, Richardson 1970:389).

Comment: Why the Incarnation?  The Western answer is that Christ took on human nature so that he could suffer on the cross as a substitutionary atonement for the sins of humanity.  Furthermore, it is believed that Christ’s legal merits could be transferred over to those who believe in him.  Here Irenaeus is teaching that Christ took on human nature so he could be the Second Adam who lived out the life the First Adam failed to live.  If we join ourselves to Christ through baptism we are no longer part of the First Adam who sinned and fell into corruption.  We are part of the Second Adam who lived completely for God and who enjoyed unbroken union with God the Father.

The True Gnosis (Knowledge)

This is true Gnosis: the teaching of the apostles, and the ancient institution of the church, spread throughout the entire world, and the distinctive mark of the body of Christ in accordance with the succession of bishops, to whom the apostles entrusted each local church, and the unfeigned preservation, coming down to us, of the scriptures, with a complete collection allowing for neither addition nor subtraction, a reading without falsification and, in conformity with the scriptures, so interpretation that is legitimate, careful, without danger of blasphemy (AH 4.33.8, Grant 1997:161).

Comment: What we see here is how Irenaeus’ theology was simultaneously both evangelical and catholic.  This passage describes well Holy Tradition as an integrated package so to speak.  The local church cannot exist apart from Scripture, the Apostles’ teachings, and the bishops the successors to the Apostles.  What Irenaeus described here is so different from the understanding I had as an Evangelical that the church consisted of a group of people who came together on their own to study the Bible, pray and sing songs of worship.  Irenaeus’ emphasis on Apostolic succession was so different from Evangelicalism’s emphasis on Bible commentaries, theological journals, radio preachers, and televangelists with their easy to understand messages.

The Challenge for Protestants

Reading Irenaeus is both inspiring and challenging for Protestants.  His defense of the Christian Faith against the early heretics is inspiring.  Yet reading Irenaeus is also challenging because he did not operate on the basis of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) but on the basis of Apostolic Tradition.  While I was at seminary I could not ignore Irenaeus because he was regarded as the best Christian theologian in the second century.  Furthermore, Irenaeus gave me a window into how the early Christians did theology.

Reflecting on Irenaeus helped me to appreciate the Orthodox Church.  Initially, I thought the Orthodox Church was strange and off-based, but after reading Irenaeus I came to the realization that if Irenaeus were to visit a Protestant church today he would think that it was Protestantism that was strange and off-based!

The fact that even Calvin differed from Irenaeus made me reconsider my Protestant theology.  Did I prefer a theology that was formulated in the 1500s or in the second century?  Did I prefer a theology formulated by university trained scholars or by those who learned from the Apostles of Christ?  In time questions like these helped me in my journey to Orthodoxy.

Robert Arakaki

Irenaeus of Lyons

Today’s posting was originally published in Again Magazine.

St. Irenaeus is considered by many to be the greatest Christian theologian of the second century.  Irenaeus is well known for Against the Heretics — a theological classic in which he defended the Christian Faith against the heresy of Gnosticism.  He was a third generation Christian, a disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John.  He was born between 130 to 140 and died sometime after the year 200.  He lived early enough to see the four Gospels become part of the biblical canon.  His proximity to the original apostles makes Irenaeus an invaluable window for Christians interested in the early Church.

Many Protestants believe that soon after the last of the apostles died, the early Church (assumed to be Protestant) fell from the simplicity of the pure gospel and turned into a religious institution that would become the Roman Catholic Church.  Roman Catholics assume that a fundamental continuity exists between the early Church and contemporary Catholicism.  However, a careful reading of Irenaeus shows that the early Church was neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic.  Also, a traditioning process was in place with safeguards to protect the integrity of the Christian Faith.

The Traditioning Process

Irenaeus held a high view of the inspiration and the authority of Scripture.  He referred to Scripture as “the foundation and pillar of our faith” and spoke of Scripture being “perfect.”  He was one of the first Church Fathers to construct a biblical theology making use of both the Old and the New Testament.  However, it should be noted that Irenaeus did not hold to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura “the bible alone.”  His interpretation of the Bible was not based on an inductive method but was guided by the “rule of faith” he had received from Polycarp.

He saw Tradition as consisting of a written and an oral tradition: the two complementing and supporting one another.  Living in Gaul where he was doing missionary work among preliterate peoples, Irenaeus was familiar with the effectiveness of oral tradition.

Even if the apostles had not left their Writings to us, ought we not to follow the rule of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the churches?  Many barbarian peoples who believed in Christ follow this rule, having [the message of their] salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without paper and ink.

This understanding of tradition as both written and oral is consistent with Paul’s admonition: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (II Thessalonians 2:15).

Evangelical and Catholic

Irenaeus’ theology was both evangelical and catholic.  The evangelical side can be seen in his high regard for the authority of Scripture.  It can also be seen in his affirmation of God as Trinity and his endorsement of Christ’s divine nature.  He writes:

… unlike all men of the past the Christ is properly proclaimed as God, Lord, eternal King, Only-begotten, and incarnate Word, by all the prophets and apostles and the Spirit itself.  The scriptures would not give this testimony to him if he were a mere man like all others.

His evangelical zeal can also be seen in his firm belief that Christ came to save the world, and his willingness to be a missionary bishop on the Western frontiers of the Roman Empire.

Many Evangelicals today would feel quite at home with his teaching on the end times.  Irenaeus held to a literal understanding of biblical prophecy.  He believed in the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the physical resurrection of the dead as actual events.  He also believed in the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of all flesh, and the final judgment.

The catholic side of Irenaeus’ theology can be seen in his high view of the sacraments.  In his time baptism was not a mere symbol, but a sacrament that conferred the Holy Spirit and spiritual rebirth.

For this reason the baptism of our regeneration takes place through these three articles (belief in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), granting us regeneration unto God the Father through His Son by the Holy Spirit: for those who bear the Spirit of God are led to the Word, that is to the Son, while the Son presents [them] to the Father, and the Father furnishes incorruptibility.

Baptism was also closely linked to the catechumenate.  Those who desired to join the Church were given “the rule of truth” — a body of doctrine — that would guide them in their understanding of Scripture and protect them from the heresy of Gnosticism.  We also find in Irenaeus one of the earliest witnesses to infant baptism in the early Church.  Modern Evangelicals’ reluctance to accept infant baptism and their belief that baptism is just a symbol shows how far they have departed from the historic mainstream.

The early Church believed that in the Lord’s Supper we partake of the actual body and blood of Christ.  The Gnostics, on the other hand, believing that the material and fleshly were corrupt and inferior rejected the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  In response to the Gnostic heresy Irenaeus wrote:

For when the mixed cup and the bread that has been prepared receive the Word of God, and become the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ, and by these our flesh grows and is confirmed, how can they say that flesh cannot receive the free gift of God, which is eternal life since it is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and made a member of him?

The Evangelical understanding of the Eucharist as just a symbol seems closer to Gnostic heresy than historic Christianity.

The catholic side of Irenaeus’ theology can also be seen in his high view of Mary.  In Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15, Paul wrote about Christ being the Second Adam who came to reverse the First Adam’s tragic error.  Irenaeus expanded upon Paul’s teaching when he described the Virgin Mary as the Second Eve.  He wrote:

…so the second [Eve] was given the good news by the word of an angel to bear God and obey his work; and as the first [Eve] was seduced into disobeying God, so the second [Eve] was persuaded to obey God so that the virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve.

Irenaeus saw Mary as the Second Eve who made possible the salvation of the human race; the Incarnation of the Son of God would not have happened without her consent.  He wrote that through her obedience Mary became “the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.”  He also described Mary as the advocate for Eve, an implicit reference to the intercession of the saints.  All this challenges the Protestant low view of Mary which tends to see her as an ordinary human being no different from us.

Our Salvation In Christ

Irenaeus is well known for his describing salvation in terms of “recapitulation.” Recapitulation means: “to repeat the principal points or stages of” or “summarize” (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition).  The term was used by the Apostle Paul.  In Ephesians 1:10, Paul describes salvation in cosmic terms, “…to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.”

Irenaeus’ understanding of salvation took as its starting point the Incarnation.  The Son of God became man so that we would be saved through his life, his death on the cross, and his rising from the dead.  As the Second Adam, Christ lived out the principal stages of human existence perfectly reversing the tragic error of the First Adam.

And the transgression which occurred through the tree was undone by the obedience of the tree–which [was shown when] the Son of Man, obeying God, was nailed to the tree, destroying the knowledge of evil, and introducing and providing the knowledge of good….

The significance of the Incarnation lies in the fact that Christ came to save the entirety of human existence, i.e., both physically and spiritually.

Irenaeus’ understanding of salvation is quite different from that found in Western Christianity which understands salvation in terms of Christ’s atoning death to placate God’s wrath against man’s sin.  For Irenaeus salvation means the restoration of communion with God.

For this the Word of God became man, and the Son of God Son of man, that man, mingled with the Word and thus receiving adoption, might become a son of God.  We could not receive imperishability and immortality unless we had been united to imperishability and immortality.  And how could we have been united with imperishability and immortality unless imperishability and immortality had first been made what we are, so that what was perishable might be absorbed by imperishability and what was mortal by immortality “that we might receive adoption as sons”?

Through the Incarnation human nature was joined to the divine nature in order to restore humanity to full relationship with God.  This forms the basis for the Orthodox doctrine of theosis, salvation as participation in the divine nature (see II Peter 1:3).

The Gnostic Challenge Today

Gnosticism was one of the earliest and most dangerous heresies that the early Church faced.  It challenged Christianity in two ways.  One, it claimed a secret knowledge that was superior to that of the Church –in effect challenging the teaching authority of the bishops.  Two, it held that the spiritual was superior to the physical and that the true Christ was a pure spirit being — thereby rejecting the Incarnation.  As a heresy, Gnosticism threatened the Christian Faith not by outright rejection, but by distorting and redefining the essential meaning of the Faith.  It denied the virgin birth.  Gnostics believed that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary, but was superior to other men because of the purity of his soul.  They were moral relativists insisting that good and evil are a matter of perception.  And, they denied that Christ really suffered on the Cross.

The Gnostic heresy is very much alive and with us today.  Its influence can be seen in liberal Protestantism.  A friend of mine sent an e-mail describing a conference she had just attended:

At the Earl Lectures 2005 sponsored by the UCC-supported Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, CA, a minister stood up and declared he didn’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.  I asked him if he didn’t think it was possible.  “Oh, it was possible, just not necessary.”

Being a theologically astute Evangelical, my friend recognized the minister’s statement as a form of Gnosticism.  Robert J. Sanders wrote an e-mail article in which he describes the de facto theology of the Episcopal Church as Gnostic.  He points to the denomination’s “gospel” of radical inclusion which rejects the distinction between good and evil, regards creeds and morality as secondary, and practices open communion — inviting unbaptized and even non-Christians to the Eucharist.

The tendency towards Gnosticism can also be seen among Evangelicals.  A seminary friend of mine has expressed deep concern over Evangelicalism’s low view of the church, symbolic understanding of sacraments, low view of the creeds, faith in Christ as a personal experience, and emotional worship.  He sees all this having a striking similarity to Gnosticism’s mind/body dualism and the Gnostics’ giving priority to mystical experience over doctrine and structure.

Irenaeus’ defense of the Christian Gospel was multipronged.  Although the Gnostics claimed to be Christian, Irenaeus pointed out that none of them could trace a line of succession back to the original apostles of Christ through the bishops.  In other words, the Gnostics’ version of Christianity was a made-up religion, just the personal opinion of an individual.  Another line of defense was the unity and catholicity (universality) of the Faith.  Irenaeus boasted that no matter where one traveled throughout the vast Roman Empire one would find the same faith being confessed everywhere.

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house.  She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth.

Truth for Irenaeus was not pluriform — taking many differing, even contradictory expressions, which vary from one place to the next.  Christianity being grounded in the historical reality of the Incarnation of divine Son of God is true in all places for all time.  Also the Christian faith is a corporate faith, this is a consequence of the Church being the Body of Christ, the “pillar and foundation of truth” (I Timothy 3:15).

Irenaeus played a key role in defeating the Gnostic heresy and articulating a theological framework that would preserve intact the Christian Faith for generations to come.   For this he is honored today as a saint and a Church Father.

Learning From St. Irenaeus

As a church history major at an Evangelical seminary I often felt like an orphan, a wandering nomad with no family history to speak of.  Reading Irenaeus and the church fathers made me feel like I had entered into a foreign country with an alien language.  I began to wonder: “Am I related to them theologically?  Or, do I belong to a different faith?”  Thus, Church history is not an innocuous discipline, but one fraught with danger for Protestants.

I found the similarities between the Orthodox Church of today and Irenaeus’ second century Christianity daunting.  If the traditioning process worked as intended, then we can expect to find a church today that bears a striking resemblance to the Church of Irenaeus’ time.  That church is the Orthodox Church.  A careful study of church history supports Orthodoxy’s audacious claim that it has kept the Faith unchanged and that it is the true Church.

In my study of church history, I was struck by how much the Roman Catholic Church has changed over the years, especially under the influence of medieval scholasticism, the Counter- reformation, and the more recent Vatican II reforms.  Moreover, in reading Irenaeus I was struck by the absence of teachings that Protestants found objectionable: papal supremacy, papal infallibility, Mary’s immaculate conception, purgatory.  While Irenaeus did affirm the real presence in the Eucharist, he did not define it in terms of transubstantiation.  Irenaeus was Catholic, but not Roman Catholic.

Prior to becoming Orthodox, I was an Evangelical in a liberal Protestant denomination.  I often found myself struggling against liberal theology.  For this reason I felt a kinship with Irenaeus when I read his Against the Heretics.  However, I also found Irenaeus challenging the basis for my Protestant theology.  His insistence on the importance of the traditioning process and apostolic succession challenged the principle of the “bible alone” — the foundational principle of Protestant theology.  Also his description of the catholicity of the Faith in the early Church stood in stark contrast to Protestantism’s thousands of denominations, each contradicting the other.  This forced me to change my question from: “Do I have the right doctrine?” (which is a Protestant question) to “Do I belong to the true Church?”  This in time led to my joining the Orthodox Church and my taking Irenaeus as my patron saint.