Excerpts from Irenaeus of Lyons

September 8, 2012 · Robert Arakaki

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