The details surrounding the life of Irenaeus are not well known. He was born in Asia Minor, probably around 135; but dates between 140 and 160 have also been suggested. From a letter to Florinus (a Roman presbyter), in which Irenaeus describes seeing Polycarp in his home, it is most likely that he grew up in Smyrna. In about 170, he moved to Gaul and took up residence in Lyon where he became a presbyter. In 177, he was asked to deliver a letter to Eleutherus, the bishop of Rome, and to mediate in a dispute about Montanism. When he returned home, he discovered that Photinus, the bishop of Lyon, had been martyred. Irenaeus became his successor.
While bishop, Irenaeus fought against heresy and defended the unity of the church. There had been a controversy with the churches of Asia Minor over the date for celebrating Easter. It isn’t clear whether Victor, the new bishop of Rome, had excommunicated them or was about to. Irenaeus wrote to a number of the Asiatic bishops and to Victor asking them to make peace. And then Irenaeus is never heard from again. He may have died around 202. Martyrdom is rumored.
Other than fragments, only two of Irenaeus' many works survive. These are his Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching and his Denunciation and Refutation of the So-called Gnosis. The latter is usually known by its Latin title Adversus Haereses, or Against Heresies.
The purpose of the Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching, known also as the Epideixis, is to strengthen the faith of believers. The work consists of an introductory confession of faith. This is then expounded, both systematically and historically. There follows an attempt to prove the faith from Scripture.
Irenaeus has been called the most important theologian of the second century and among the greatest of any century. However, he was not much of systematic theologian. Instead, his organizing principle went along more historical lines. Justo L. Gonzalez writes, “It is best to follow the order that Irenaeus suggests in his Epideixis: to start with the Creator and then to pursue the history of salvation up to its final consummation.”
Before exploring the historical orientation of Irenaeus theology, his second major work should be considered. Against Heresies is primarily aimed at Gnosticism. Although it addresses other forms, it is primarily taken up with that brand associated with the Valentinians. The work is divided into five books. The first of these describes Gnosticism. The next three refute it from: 1) reason, 2) the doctrine of God and Christ, and 3) the sayings of Christ. The fifth book deals with the resurrection of the body: a thing denied by all self-respecting Gnostics.
Both of Irenaeus major works are written with heresy in mind. Even his Epideixis states its purpose: to defend against heresy. While this preoccupation with heresy is a source of strength- it allows him to formulate and clarify correct doctrine, - it also proves a potential source of weakness- he overreacts and moves too far in the opposite direction. In the section of Against Heresies that defends the resurrection, he also defends chiliasm, that is, a future, physical Kingdom of God on this earth.
In another case, however, Irenaeus is not in error but has been misread. Johannes Quasten claims that Irenaeus did not believe in the immortality of the soul. Irenaeus had written:
And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days forever and ever. But he who reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognized him who bestowed, deprives himself of the continuance forever and ever (Against Heresies 2,34,3).
Quasten responds:
Irenaeus thought it necessary to refute the assertion of the Gnostics that the soul is immortal by nature independently of her moral conduct, and thus he was led to these false ideas.
But Quasten has not taken into account “the repeated assertions of Irenaeus that the wicked will exist in misery for ever.” As A. Cleveland Coxe notes, “It refers not to annihilation, but to deprivation of happiness.”
Other than the chiliasm, Irenaeus is orthodox in what he asserts. It is his intent to expound the doctrine of the church and only that. Gonzalez comments, “[Irenaeus] has no desire to be considered an original or speculative theologian.” Yet, despite this lack of originality, Irenaeus’ approach to theology carries with it a freshness that is all too rare in either liberal innovators or conservative systematicians. This is most apparent when his historical approach is seen in combination with his development of the doctrine of recapitulation.
Recapitulation is taken from Paul’s doctrine of the two Adams. The term means “to place under a new head.” Irenaeus’ treatment, however, goes beyond a mere statement of Federal headship (not that Paul’s is limited to this). He sees in Christ the replaying of human history beginning with Adam and ending at the consummation. In order for Christ to effect the salvation of his people, he must be, at the least, everything that Adam was when he was created. From this starting point, Christ does right what Adam and humanity had done wrong. In so doing, he becomes the head of a new humanity.
Christ’s recapitulation begins with his virgin birth. Irenaeus draws the analogy to Adam, comparing Mary with the virgin soil from which the first man was created. He writes:
If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin (Against Heresies 3,21,10).
On the one hand, Adam is the model for Christ. On the other, the reverse is true. Irenaeus speaks of the imago Dei in his Epideixis, “As the image of God hath he made man; and the ‘image’ is the Son of God, in whose image man was made.” Gonzalez gives an explanation that has a thoroughly eschatological bent. He writes, “It is as if in creating humankind God has used the future incarnation of the Word as a model.”
Even at the creation, Christ was the intended goal for humanity. Adam was, by Irenaeus account, not created perfect. Instead, it was intended that he mature into the fullness of this image. However, when Adam fell, the opposite took place; hence, the need for Christ to step in as the second Adam and recapitulate the intended history of humanity in himself. We grow to maturity because the second Adam has proven himself to be mature. It is apparent that Irenaeus’ view of recapitulation and of Christ as the goal of creation explains his organization of theology along historical lines. The history of salvation takes place on a double level. It plays out in time, in that it inevitably leads to the incarnation of the image of God; and it plays out in the life of Christ himself.
I agree with Irenaeus’ doctrine concerning the relation between Christ and Adam; with his view of salvation history; and with his view of the image of God as the eschatological model for the creation of man. I am not so sure that I agree with the idea that Adam was created in order that he might mature towards the image of God. At least, not insofar as he was the original Federal head. But then, perhaps I should not fault Irenaeus too much, since I am thinking more of ideas that came into existence after the development of Federal theology. Basically, I see no room in a “maturing” paradigm for the strict fulfillment of the Covenant of Works. Irenaeus spends much time drawing the necessary parallels between the first and second Adams; however, one of these parallels must be in relation to their office. This must be the same for both. If Christ does not mature as the Federal head, neither does Adam. He either does what he is told, or he does not.
God's living Word is powerful
And sharper than a sword,
It strips us bare before the eyes
Of him who is our Lord.
Though man would make his Word to be
Of no effect, we learn
That, from his mouth it has gone out
And void shall not return.
He is the Lord above all things:
By him all things consist.
He has created all that is:
For him all things exist.
Proclaim that Christ was crucified
To meet our greatest need.
Yet, even more, proclaim the cross-
Jehovah's greatest deed.
Sow not the Word because mankind
Is worthy it be sown,
But sow the Word because our God
Is worthy to be known.
Then Christ will have preeminence
As we obey and go,
For all of God resides in him-
The Father wished it so.
Over on Semper Ubi Sub Ubi there is a post on the potential response of America and of the church to the Massachusetts ruling that has legalized same-sex marriage. It's an overall conservative Christian piece of writing, but I'm going to disagree with it. Consequently, I need to establish some identifying marks to ground my own perspective: I profess Christ; I believe, in accordance with scripture, that homosexuality is a sin; I am opposed to recent events in both the Episcopalian and the United Methodist Churches; I am an American.
How will America react? It's hard to tell. My primary reaction, as an American, has nothing to do with the morality of same-sex marriage. I am more interested in whether or not the Massachusetts state constitution was correctly interpreted and, if not, whether this was an honest misreading or a case of judicial activism. The same problem would exist if the situation were reversed; that is, if an activist judge struck down a law allowing for same-sex marriage. A nation, especially one structured as is ours, can survive laws that allow for immorality much longer than it can survive ignoring the rule of law.
Related to this last point is the distinction that should be made between laws that allow for immorality and the actual practice thereof. I do not see this event as "a serious tear in the fabric of society." That there is a serious problem in society, I will allow. Nevertheless, the legalization of same sex-marriage is not, in this case, the tear. It is, rather, the light exposing the tear. Setting aside the issue of whether this particular ruling was constitutionally viable, the problem is not that the state has decided to legalize same-sex marriage. It is that, upon the effective decriminalization of all but non-consensual sex, society confused the state's tacit confession that it was not equipped to equitably punish this sort of thing with the declaration that it was all okay.
The author, Todd Pedlar, writes that he finds himself "incensed at those who profess Christ but claim that somehow gays and lesbians deserve all the civil benefits of marriage..." Implicit here is the notion that those who think so are acting in contradiction to their profession. I do not believe that this has been established. It would first need to be demonstrated that these benefits are inherently the right of married [heterosexual] couples. It is not enough to point out that they currently enjoy them. If there is in marriage, properly defined, a right to civil benefits, then it is wrong to argue that homosexual couples have this same right. However, I find nowhere in the institution of marriage an entitlement to tax breaks and healthcare. And since this is the case, then giving such benefits to anyone else could not possibly harm marriage. I am not opposed to these benefits for married couples, but I don't see why they should be connected to marriage as such. It makes more sense to me to reward these benefits solely on the basis of close financial interdependence.
Finally, I disagree with the assessment of the church- that it has lost "the will to speak out when things are so obviously wrong." I am far more concerned with a church that has become so caught up in society and the affairs of state that it neglects to speak up when things are so obviously right. The church does not exist to ensure a moral America. It is here to declare the gospel. It is the bride of Christ; its purpose is the glory of the groom. It is not called to spend its time saying to the world, "Live like this." Nothing could be more shallow. The church's message is, "The Bridegroom is coming; repent, and join us at the wedding feast."
This is the longer version of my response to Nick's questions on Ranting to/dev/null. See this post for more background. He asked, "Is it possible for a government to steal? The government is to punish theft. Is there any _moral_ restriction on how the government may take (or otherwise control the use of) somebody's property? Would a Christian in government be under any _moral_ obligation to refrain from taking the property of others for a particular purpose?"
The shorter answer is that it is possible for a government to steal (the answers to the other two questions flow from this). However, this possibility results, not from some inherent restriction on a government's actions, but on the particular form a government has taken. Two ideas should be considered: 1) the right of private ownership and 2) the responsibilities of government.
The first premise, which is implied in what has already been stated, is that there is no inherent right to private property or private ownership of any kind. I can already hear the objections- hasn't he ever read the Ten Commandments? One Reformed ideology states the objection like this:
We believe that in the prohibition of stealing, God has ordained the institution of private property. We believe that the Christian church should teach against theft in all its forms (Ex. 20:15).
We deny that the institution of private property is a human invention. Rather, it is the result of a biblical understanding of God's ordination of private property. But because man is fallen, the institution of private property, like all God-ordained institutions, has been much abused (Eph. 5:5).We believe that the root cause of political disregard for the institution of private property is envy and covetousness (Matt. 20:1-16). We deny that theft can be sanctified, even if it is done in the name of civil justice (Is. 5:20). If the civil magistrate oversteps the boundaries established for him in Scripture, one result can be various forms of theft, including oppressive taxation.
A single counter-example will do: Library Book. If it is possible to steal public property, then the prophibition of stealing does not constitute the ordination of the institution of private property. It certainly allows for private property; it does not, however, require it. The only implication that I am allowed to draw from this commandment is that lots of things are not mine. Personally, I think that free-enterprise and low taxes and private property are a great idea; nevertheless, I cannot sanction scriptural proof-texting to turn this into an article of the Christian faith.
Another case, which might be made in favor of private property, actually pervades scripture. This is the whole theme of the inheritance of the land. There is the division of the land amongst the tribes and to families within the tribes. Furthermore, to insure perpetual ownership, there is the provision of the year of Jubilee and of the kinsman-redeemer. And this would make a compelling argument if the political and economic situation of ancient Israel were normative for modern nations. But it is not. The nation of Israel was a theocratic kingdom, the purpose of which was to be a typological foreshadowing of our final and eternal inheritance of the earth when we shall reign with Christ.
I grant that I have not proven that private property is not an inherent right. But the burden is not mine. Unless the question of a government's ability to steal is purely academic, then it is a matter of injustice; a question of grounds for revolution. It is not enough to deny the premise; the opposite must be proven at least to the point of justifying civil disobedience.
The next thing to consider is government itself. One of the best statements that I know of outlining the purpose of government is found in the preamble to the US Constitution. It lists: establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. The question then is this: is it possible for a government to fulfill its purpose while denying the existence of private property?
As for establishing justice, if private property is an inherent right, then it is obviously unjust for a government to take a form that would deny this. Circle back to the first premise. The next purpose, to insure domestic tranquillity, might be the strongest argument in favor of private property. If we grant that the government has the right to eliminate private property, can it do this and keep the peace? This is a question of prudence.
Then there is the provision of common defense. This necessitates the right on the part of the government to claim some property. Adequate defense requires adequate funds. Beyond this, it becomes another question of prudence. If a government lays claim to all the property, will the economic situation be such that the common defense can be supported?
The promotion of the general welfare is the most relevant. How is never stated. Capitalism is not the only option. Even if it can be shown that an overly socialist state fails to promote the general welfare, it cannot be shown that all degrees of socialism have failed. Note that the general welfare does not need to mean that people are rich, only that their needs are met.
The blessings of liberty could easily be taken in an individualistic sense and, in the specific case of our present government, this would be appropriate. There is a strong case to made here for an individual's freedom to own property. However, this is a matter of how our government has defined itself. My claim is that the form of the goverment determines the extent or existence of private property, yet, I had included this in a list of the responsibilities of all governments. I stand by that inclusion by noting that the original intent of this phrase was probably not so centered on the individual as on the state. The thirteen colonies had just won their freedom from the Bristish sovereign. Without banding together, they could not hope to retain this freedom. One of the duties of a government, related to the common defense, is to prevent being taken over by a foreign power. Freedom is, or at least was, not so much about individual rights as it was about domestic vs. foreign rule. [For a fuller treatment of the idea that the original intent of the Constitution was not geared toward the individual, see this post.]
Even under those governments in which private property is granted, there is still eminent domain, which is defined as "a right of the government to take private property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction." If I am living in an economic system in which my private property is the means to my welfare, then a government that exercises the right of eminent domain must compensate me to the extent that my welfare has been compromised. At the same time, if I live in such a society, I am generally expected to take care of myself. But say I live in a socialist state. The government has the right to tax me as much as it wants to. If it does, though, it bears the responsibility of my welfare. There is still the possibility in both cases of a government acting immorally. Whether or not it is guilty of stealing might be a technicality. In any event, those governments that fail to act in accordance with their own standards would be guilty of deriliction of duty. Still, until this actually happened, we are called to submit as unto the Lord. We're not allowed to revolt over our political or economic theories, no matter how sound.
Sacrifice. But wouldst thou have it
From a heart as vile as mine?
O my God, in lovingkindness
Take this heart and make it thine.
I acknowledge my transgressions
Done, O God, within thy sight.
Lord, I need thee, don't forsake me.
Love me, Father, make things right.
Spirit free and everlasting,
With thy joy my being flood;
Ravish thou my soul's desire,
Drown me in thy saving blood.
Open, Lord, my lips in singing;
Let my mouth show forth thy praise.
Then shall sinners be converted
And transgressors learn thy ways.
Cleanse thou me with hyssop's purgings;
Wash me whiter than the snow.
Grant me this, my deepest passion:
Known of God, my God to know.