Mar 03 2010

Irenaeus on the Pedagogue of the Law

Category: IrenaeusPolycarp @ 11:59 am

But as many as feared God, and were anxious about His law, these ran to Christ, and were all saved. For He said to His disciples: “Go ye to the sheep of the house of Israel, which have perished.” And many more Samaritans, it is said, when the Lord had tarried among them, two days, “believed because of His words, and said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying, for we ourselves have heard [Him], and know that this man is truly the Saviour of the world.” And Paul likewise declares, “And so all Israel shall be saved;” but he has also said, that the law was our pedagogue [to bring us] to Christ Jesus. Let them not therefore ascribe to the law the unbelief of certain [among them]. For the law never hindered them from believing in the Son of God; nay, but it even exhorted them so to do, saying that men can be saved in no other way from the old wound of the serpent than by believing in Him who, in the likeness of sinful flesh, is lifted up from the earth upon the tree of martyrdom, and draws all things to Himself, and brings to life the dead. – Against Heresies 4.8

Tags: , ,


Mar 02 2010

Difficult Verses: John 12.32

Category: Athanasius, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, John Cassian, TheologyPolycarp @ 11:59 am

In discussing the doctrines of the afterlife, we find difficult verses, one of them being John 12.32. I will try not to draw a conclusion, but simply present information on this verse:

And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.

Continue reading “Difficult Verses: John 12.32″

Tags: ,


Dec 23 2009

The Virgin Birth and Irenaeus

Category: IrenaeusPolycarp @ 4:59 pm

Irenaeus is only a disciple of a disciple of the Apostle John, but still withing the framework of the early Church. (Just…. maybe)

Continue reading “The Virgin Birth and Irenaeus”

Tags: ,


Oct 26 2009

Irenaeus on Montanism

Category: IrenaeusPolycarp @ 8:03 pm

There is a notion that Praxeas, Tertullian’s enemy, was Irenaeus. It is an interesting thought proposed by a very few, but it does begin to look remotely plausible when we begin to examine Irenaeus’s fight to keep Montanism from out of Rome.

Daniel Jennings has produced a remarkable collection of quotes and sayings found among the early Church writers concerning Montanism (HT). Here is the Irenaeus’ words, must different than what we would hear from Tertullian.

Continue reading “Irenaeus on Montanism”

Tags: , ,


Aug 27 2009

Irenaeus and the only Son of Adam Who is God

Category: Godhead, Irenaeus, TheologyPolycarp @ 7:31 pm

Click to Order Those who claim that Jesus was a man…have not yet been joined in the Word of God the Father. I have demonstrated from Scriptures that there is not one son of Adam who is called God or Lord in an absolute and universal sense. But Jesus is God himself, by his own right, beyond any human being who has ever lived. He is the Lord, the eternal King….and the incarnated Word… He is the only Lord, the wonderful , the counselor, the one who is beautiful in appearance and the Almighty God. (Against Heresies 3.19.2  ACD vol 1 pg 68_

Tags: , , , , , , ,


Jun 29 2009

The Prophet Amos and the Resurrection

Category: Church Fathers, IrenaeusPolycarp @ 11:59 pm

At the Voice of Stefan, the blogger has began a series of posts on this passage:

Amos 9:11-12:

On that day I will raise up
the tent of Dauid that is fallen
and rebuild its ruins
and raise up its destruction,
and rebuild it as the days of old
in order that those remaining of humans
and all the nations upon whom my name has been called
might seek out me,
says the Lord who does these things. (NETS)

He sites Patristic evidence that the primitive Church saw this as referring to the Resurrection.

I have been taught, and have taught it myself, that this prophecy refers to the Church, but I am interested in seeing where it leads. Check it out, if you can.


Apr 14 2009

Irenaeus on Apostolic Succession and Doctrinal Development

Category: IrenaeusPolycarp @ 3:40 pm

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. (Ad. Hear. III.I.I)

The Gnostics (those who claimed a wide range of doctrines, abilities, traditions, and developments which were their own inventions) would say that the Apostles had secret mysteries or perhaps did not fully understand everything – yet Irenaeus defended against that, because he stood in succession from those same Apostles who had in turn given to the overseers what they knew who had given to their successors what the Apostles had known.

Tags: , , , , ,


Apr 08 2009

The Paschal Feast – Are we to follow the Apostles?

Category: Church Fathers, IrenaeusPolycarp @ 9:41 am

The Lord’s Passover approaches. It is a time for Christians to joyously celebrated that single moment in all of history which changed humanity’s fate. It is also one to reflect on the ancient traditions of the Church. We are connected to the Apostles not merely by the name that we wear, and the doctrine that we teach, but also by the Traditions that we share.

One of the earliest disputes in the Church revolved around the date on which to celebrate the Paschal Feast. The congregations of Asia Minor celebrated on the date, Nisan 14th, while more Western Churches celebrated it on the day of the week. Both are literal, and both are valid (although the latter was set by Rome and forced upon the entire Church by the pagan Emperor Constantine), but to which did the Apostles more likely hold to?

Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna was a disciple of the Apostle John and had spoken with many who had seen Christ. He was in direct line to the Apostles, what we would called apostolic succession.

From here:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom,departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,—a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, “Dost thou know me?” “I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.” Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, “A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

Polycarp was a direct disciple to the Apostle John. He learned his traditions of the aged Apostle and celebrated the Lord’s Passover on Nisan 14th. Below is the account of Polycrate’s discussion with the Bishop of Rome, Victor, concerning Victor’s attempted excommunication of those congretations celebrating the date of Nisan 14th. Polycrates and Irenaeus both condemned Victor’s assumption of power and the attempt to divide the Church.

Note, that Polycrates lists two Apostles, Philip and John, who had celebrated the Paschal Feast on Nisan 14th. From here:

But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:

We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.

He fell asleep at Ephesus.

And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna.

Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?

All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.

I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’

Polycrates is adamant that the tradition of the churches in Asia, Paul’s churches, observed by the ordinance of God, Nisan 14th. It was not merely him, but at least two Apostles, their disciples and the family of Bishops that Polycrates belonged to.

He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows:

I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus.

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.

But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.

So enteres Irenaeus who seemed to agree with Victor on the day of the celebration, but saw no need to seperate and divide the Church over it.

Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:

For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night.

And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to thefast confirms the agreement in the faith.

Irenaeus allows for plurality because the tradition was not strict.

He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert:

Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which you now rule. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it.

But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the presbyters before you who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it.

And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.

But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.

Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches

Tags: , , , , ,


Apr 01 2009

Irenaeus on the Economy of Creation

Category: IrenaeusPolycarp @ 12:56 pm

And since God is rational (logikos), therefore by the Word (Logos) he created all things that were made; and as God is spirit (pneuma), by the Spirit (Pneuma) he adorned all things; as also the prophet says, “By the Word (Logos) of the Lord, were the heavens established, and by His Spirit (pneuma) all their power (Psalms 32.6, LXX) – Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 5

Tags: , , , ,


Mar 18 2009

Creeds: Irenaeus and the Rule of Faith

Category: Church Fathers, Creeds, IrenaeusPolycarp @ 12:39 pm

Irenaeus gives us the clearest explanation of the development of the Rule of Faith – it was developed to prepare for the Scriptures. Irenaeus writing for Lyons in modern-day France, states that the Rule of Faith was developed to preserve the ancient tradition without paper and ink for those without Scriptures.

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

Irenaeus desires nothing to be add to what the Apostles had done, having given ‘all things pertaining to the truth’ to the Church already. The Gnostics were attacking the Church claiming true apostolic succession, but Irenaeus holds to the Rule of Faith as the tradition of the Apostles. Here he also makes the case to go to the source, the Apostles, to resolve any doctrinal disputes – not bishops or councils.

2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in

one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent.

Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 4, 1-2)

Like the previous creeds, the One God is essential, but here, Irenaeus adds more detail to God and Son of God, in that we believe in the One God through Jesus Christ, bringing to our mind the words of Christ in John 14.6. Remember, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

This confession of faith was held by those who could neither read nor write the language of the Church at that time, but would be required to hold to the same doctrine. It was because of this ancient tradition as preserved in the Rule of Raith that the ‘barbarians’ were able to maintain the exact same doctrine which been established by the Apostles and given to the Church.

Tags: , , , ,


Next Page »