IRENAEUS OF LYONS
Dan Petty
Irenaeus (born ca. a.d.
120 or 140) was probably a native of Smyrna where Polycarp was bishop. Serving
as bishop of Lyons from ca.177 until his death in ca. 202, Irenaeus spend much
of his life dealing with the gnostic heresy. Of his two writings that still
exist, the best known is Against Heresies (A Refutation and Subversion of
Knowledge Falsely So Called), consisting of five books dealing with
gnosticism. Until the discovery of
Gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi in 1946, most information about gnosticism came to
us through Irenaeus’ writings.
Most
gnostics taught that the material world is inherently evil, having been created
by a being (demiurge) that fell away from God; that Christ did not come in
the flesh, nor experience a bodily resurrection; and that salvation is achieved
through a special knowledge (gnosis) that frees the human spirit from
the material body, and through strict denial of the flesh (asceticism). Many of
them rejected the Old Testament and much of the New.
In
responding to the Gnostics, Irenaeus emphasized the unity of the Old and New
Testaments, as shown by fulfilled prophecy and by the parallelism between Adam
and Christ. He saw the divine plan for the new covenant as a “recapitulation”
of the original creation. Adam was created in the image and likeness of God.
Sin resulted in the loss of the moral likeness, but not the divine image. Human
beings were created free and responsible beings. The incarnation of Christ was
not the result of sin, as the Gnostics said, but rather a remedy for sin. In
Christ the divine Word assumed a humanity like Adam possessed before the fall.
He became man so man could be made in the divine image. Salvation is a
restoration of what was lost in Paradise. The purpose of history to Ireneaus is
an on-going process by which God teaches, guides, and tutors man to a state of
communion with God. Mankind is growing to maturity, but mistakes were made in
man’s infancy. The fall was permitted as part of the discipline and growth
process. This was Ireneaus’ answer to the gnostics’ preoccupation with evil in
the world.
In responding to the Gnostics, Ireneaus also provided
reasons for accepting the authority of the New Testament books. He believed the
New Testament should be accepted because it rests on apostolic authority. “For
the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also
we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God. . . .” (Against
Heresies 3). “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation,
than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us [the apostles,
dwp], which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by
the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and
pillar of our faith” (Against Heresies 3.1.1). He acknowledged as
authoritative those books that virtually correspond to the 27 books of the
canon. He believed the Bible taken as a whole is self-evident and that we
should interpret scripture in the light of scripture.
Irenaeus went beyond scripture, however, and taught that
orthodoxy is also based ultimately on a succession of teachers, the bishops, in
any church founded by an apostle. This is called the doctrine of apostolic
succession. “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” (Against
Heresies 3.3.1). Since the teachings of the gnostics are of recent origin
and are not taught by the successors to the apostles, Irenaeus concluded, they
must not be orthodox. Irenaeus went so far as to provide a list of bishops of
the church at Rome, which he argued, proved an unbroken succession from Peter
and Paul down to his own day. “And this is most abundant proof that there is
one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from
the apostles until now, and handed down in truth” (Against Heresies 3.3.3).
Irenaeus also contributed to the concept that the tradition
of the church, passed down from the apostles to their successors, is
equally authoritative along with scripture. “For it is a matter of necessity
that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome, dwp], on account of its
preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the
apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who
exist everywhere” (Against Heresies 3.3.2). His argument was that the
authority of the church in Rome rested on the uniformity of its tradition with
the tradition of the church as a whole. This paved the way for the Roman
Catholic doctrine that revealed truth does not come through scripture alone.
“Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal
sentiments of devotion and reverence” (Catechism of the Catholic Church
[1995 ed.], 31).
Irenaeus’ theory of apostolic succession also contributed to
the development of creeds. These “summaries of Christian faith, known as Rules
of Faith, became common in the second half of the second century. . . . They
also provided theological material for defense against the heretics” (John
Leith, ed., Creeds of the Churches 20). Ireneaus believed heresy and
division could be avoided by retaining what he called the “rule of the truth”
acknowledged by the churches (Against Heresies 1.9.4). He was one of the
first to outline such a “rule of faith” (1.10.1), and taught that “the Church,
having received this preaching and this faith . . . carefully preserves it”
(1.10.2).
It was only natural, given Irenaeus’ emphasis on the
inherent authority of bishops as successors to the apostles, that efforts would
soon be given to organizing the church on the universal level. Churches that
were believed to be “apostolic churches,” whose bishops were direct apostolic
successors, enjoyed greater status than others. Notice Irenaeus’ statements
regarding the church at Rome: “. . . by indicating that tradition derived from
the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known church
founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and
Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to
our time by means of the succession of the bishops” (Against Heresies
3.3.2). The large city churches began to influence or take oversight of the
smaller churches in the villages or countryside.
The New Testament shows how churches in the first century
were organized and governed. Local churches were autonomous, each governed by a
plurality of elders (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5). The church was never organized
universally or beyond the local level. History’s lessons of efforts to
centralize the church should not go unheeded. Missionary societies, human
institutions or sponsoring churches violate the New Testament pattern as much
as the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. But so does the tendency of papers,
schools, elderships or preachers to wield undue pressure or influence upon the
affairs of other churches.
Apostolic authority is found in
the New Testament, not in any man. The apostles were uniquely called, appointed
and sent out by the Lord (Mark 3:13f) and were eyewitnesses of His resurrection
(Acts 1:15-26; 1 Cor. 9:1). Their powers were never passed down to others; but
their teachings helped form the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20) and have
been passed down in the New Testament. We continue in the apostles’ teaching
(Acts 2:42). The New Testament is thus all-sufficient as our guide in spiritual
matters (Gal. 1:6-9; Eph. 3:3-5; 1 Thess. 2:13).