In what sense are they attempting systematic theology?

See other text - am Armenian catechism from 1904

Its in some sense systematic but in what sense?
From Smyrna, east to werst under Polycarp writing in greek and acting as a bridge from the two
sides of the hemispheres
Against heresies is in the 180s detection and fefutation against knowledgs so called Gnosticism of
valentinius
He is acutely aware of the pluriformity of Gnosticism it forms part of his polemic fragmentation is
a proof of their stupidity
Sequential ans systematic but the text is a bit messy
Book 1: an attempt to go over some of the gnostic sects that exist
Book 2: an attempt to refute all of this on the basis of reason
Book 3,4,5 are doctrinal and exegetical
The divisions are an editors choice including the headings
Counter cultural doing a doctrinal systematic job with biblical texts, which many are not taught to
do
The point of the polemic is to define catholicity, how does he do this?
A complex account of the relationship between scripture and tradition and its a dynamic tradition
partly connected to apostolic and human authority passed on and the people of faith who gather
round texts, with certain assumptions which leads to certain faithful living
There is a living presence
Certain texts are better than others and there is a way of reading these together in the living
presence of Christ by the spirit
The valentinius - they have betrayed the text because their exegesis is wrong
Is he supercessionist? They are wrong but these are the scriptures, prophecying Christ but more
importantly is the rehabilitation of Yahweh there is one God
Creation out of nothing is an important polemic, creation is contingent and teleologically ordered,
against ideas of eternal matter or accidental creation
The text gives you a story which you then take back to the text to interpret it, hermeneutical spiral
His method yields a strong sense of the one gods action that is purposeful and is progressively
ordered to Christ - which has revolutionised reality - if you dont get this then tough both jews and
valentinius
For Irenaeus, the gnostics are too hung up on cosmology creation is about teleology which is what
we find in Jesus, the purpose of all reality is esus. So you work back from the last adam to the first
Unless it is the one god the whole thing unravels salvation is the key to creation itself
The progressive pedagogy of creation to the great climax of jesus, the jews have not learned what
they should have learned but does not dismiss them
Covenantal theology
Gnostics are a smug elite private against a public faith, they are idolators creating more and more
divinity as they go irenaeus sees them as worshipinh their creation a polemic

Salvation
Recapitulation material enfleshment of divinity is very impotant, the gnostics want to leave this
behind, jesus is the ultimate benediction of matter
Harnack irenaeus believed in physical redemption, incarnation is salvific, momentarily which is
wrong, there is a lived life, a process, there is a progressive sanctification going on, he sanctifies each
stage of the human condition recapitulation, anakephalaiosis summing up the sum is at the top
of the calculation eph 1.10 figure at the top of the cosmic equation is jesus.
You spell that out by talking about the last adam by going over the life of the first by going over the
firsts life and doing it differently living this fleshly
Irenaeus is not an exemplarist, - he is changing stuff, not just to be a picture on the wall and to
admire not enough constitutive, ontological occurrence , reality has changed gnostics dont get
this they want jesus to be an enlightener a phantom figure who does not live this life and cant do
because he is calling you out of this life
The material is precious to god and gets changed by god against the gnostic escapists
Role of death is the climax to the life of obedience, - no sense of it being satisfaction or substitution
part of the story but the resurrection of the crucifiesd one, is vital and the gnostics cant cope with
that they want a spiritualised salvation, asetism in this life to escape
Divinelt willed climax to this life, the divine telos, cross is not the moral scandal of later theology -
its the whole story is an atoning event which has major ramifications on the faith communities
life- calls community to holiness at all stages who confess him- in the material physical history they
find themselves but not to claw their way after him in a pelagian sense but it is still a summons to
us in moral terms
Constitutive dogmatics is also an ethic
Systematic narrative from stories here and there, and one overarching story its not philosophical
or a propositional around loci, nor is it comprehensive it is a summary from exegesis and its triadic in
structure, if he sees himself as part of a tradition there is no need to start a new train of thought
we are passing on not just moral but doctrinal as well. Its historical and very sophisticated for its
time a Trinitarian theology of the doctrine of the creation/redemption conceptual gloss on
Scripture giving a plain sense historical reading of scripture
Is systematic properly conceived some high philosophical attempt notr non ethical but an attempt to
do a summary of scripture, from biblical theology
Millennialism stresses physicality,
ultimate result is to share in the life of god, theosis to get the likeness back
is his trinity just an economic trinity no god for us is wrong gods action on the outside is the
only way to talk know about him on the inside how he acts in history
no spiritual exegesis plain sense in the most part but a Christian reading of jewish scripture not
plain forward exegesis


















Origen
Trained philosopher and linguist Platonist influence
Alexandrian intellectual, easy to exaggerate the Platonism of origen Mark Edwards, origen against
plato
Recalibration of discourse- semantic reframing of Platonist terms
Tyhere is aPlatonist metaphysic in origen but it is hugely problematic for a Platonist
Travels widely and has a large following
He is a biblical scholar and commentator
On first principles- we have it in Latin version
Sets out what we can agree on in a tradition again and then to set out an orderly set of doctrines in
refutation of error mainly again Gnosticism though he gets accused of this too clever
There is something definitely dogmatic/systematic going on he is setting out
God
Creation/material world
Fall/redemption
Anthropology
Eschatology
All set out over and against what is wrong
Philosophical approach reasoning about something, developing a much greater high flown
argument but scripture is important
He knows that scripture is contested so the task of exegesis is still non negociable important for
systematics, but it is more complex than that. Iren just debunks them, where as origen realises that
lots of Christians read the texts and come to diff conclusions and is aware of the possibility of
fragmentation of the Christian community
Emphasis on the rationality of god aimed at intellectual platonists who can get their head around
this, the scriptural story is rationally coherent because thay are given by the action of the rational
one, and internally coherent.
Irenaeus was more about is being in history
But you need spiritual enlightenment to make sense of them purposively structured world logos
theology
Christology: incomprehensibility of the logos becoming flesh not least because of his Platonism
book 2 v7 his whole intellectual world is telling him this cant happen
Jesus is the incarnation of the logos, in the form of the union with materiality with an unfallen soul
that pre-existed (plato our souls pree-existed) Logos is in union with this unfallen soul and this body
Platonism lurks in Christology, christ the ultimate pre existant one
Aporatastasis
Ultimately origen has a strondger emphasis on the spiritual
A philosophical methos but is reading scripture / in a natural way the building blocks are from
many different influences which
Get book on prayer