28 June 177 A.D. Day of Remembrance: Irenaeus of Lyons

28 June 177 A.D.  Day of Remembrance: Irenaeus of Lyons

His Against Heresies  is available at:  http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Irenaeus-Lyons-Against-Heresies/dp/1453624600/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1403978349&sr=8-1&keywords=irenaeus+against+heresies.   A kindle version is available at:  http://www.amazon.com/Against-Heresies-St-Irenaeus-ebook/dp/B007OUPNWO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1403978349&sr=8-2&keywords=irenaeus+against+heresies.  

Mr. Graves gives it his take.

Graves, Dan. “Remembering Irenaeus: Bishop of Lyons.” Christianity.com. Apr 2007. http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/remembering-irenaeus-bishop-of-lyons-11629603.html.  Accessed 5 May 2014.

Irenaeus' heart was full. He wished his friend Marcianus could be with him so that they could talk about Christ, but that was impossible. So he picked up his pen. They might be separated by distance but a letter could capture his feelings. He dipped the quill in ink and began to write:

"Knowing, my beloved Marcianus, your desire to walk in godliness, which alone leads man to life eternal, I rejoice with you and make my prayer that you may preserve your faith entire and so be pleasing to God who made you."

Irenaeus wrote many things, not only to Marcianus, but to others. These writings are of the utmost importance, for they show the state of Christianity in the second century after Christ.

False teaching (heresy) had gained destructive power. In another lengthy writing, Irenaeus listed these and gave Christian answers to their false claims. One of his arguments was that only the universal church had the truth which it had passed from bishop to bishop. Irenaeus was in a strong position when making this claim. He had personally known Polycarp, the martyred bishop from Asia Minor who in turn had known St. John and other apostles.

One heresy of the day that Irenaeus took the trouble to answer was Gnosticism. Gnosticism claimed that one needed a special, hidden knowledge if one's soul was to be saved. Irenaeus must have had this in mind when he wrote Marcianus:

"This then is the order of the rule of our faith, and the foundation of the building, and the stability of our conversation: God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith. The second point is: The Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord...And the third point is: The Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led forth into the way of righteousness; and who in the end of the times was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man unto God.

"And for this reason the baptism of our regeneration proceeds through these three points: God the Father bestowing on us regeneration through His Son by the Holy Spirit. For as many as carry (in them) the Spirit of God are led to the Word, that is to the Son; and the Son brings them to the Father; and the Father causes them to possess incorruption."

Irenaeus became a leader in the church in Lyons, France. In 177, the Lyons' leadership sent him to Rome with a message. While he was away, heathen authorities arrested his bishop and many other Christians and killed them as martyrs in the arena in a savage spectacle. These included Blandina, one of history's best known martyr women.

Ireneaus' writings powerfully declared that the true church had the truth because it had Scripture on its side as well as sound reason, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the memories of those who had known the apostles.

His feast is on this day, June 28.

Bibliography:

1.      Aland, Kurt. Saints and Sinners; men and ideas in the early church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970.

2.      Butler, Alban. Lives of the Saints. Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1981, 1956.

3.      Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. Penguin Books, 1967.

4.      Clerjon, P. Histoire de Lyon. Laurent, 1829.

5.      Hort, Fenton John Anthony. Six Lectures on the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press, ca. 1972.

6.      "Irenaeus, St." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford, 1997.

7.      Poncelet, Albert. "St. Irenaeus." The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton, 1914.

8.      Various encyclopedia and internet articles.

Last updated May, 2007.

Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Henry Chadwick's "Ancient Church:" Ch. 1-2

Chadwick, Henry. The Ancient Church. New York: Dorset Press, 1967.

A 320-page, 1993-edition from Penguin is available at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-Church-Penguin-History/dp/0140231994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377048323&sr=8-1&keywords=henry+chadwick. We have the 304-page, 1967 edition.

1. From Jerusalem to Rome—Jewish background, the earliest church, Gentile church, and encounter with the Roman Empire, pages 9-31

• Continuity with the Old Testament. Election, unmerited grace, a priestly society to the nations, exclusivity, the OT canon, and negative attitude to pagan religions as cults of evil spirits

• Foreign domination and a poor Palestinian economy facilitated the Jewish diaspora from Cadiz to Crimea. There were 11-12 synagogues in Rome in the 1st century and 1 million Jews in Alexandria and Egypt. Jews sent annual donations to the Temple in Jerusalem.

• Israel was a “religion of the book.” An “exegetical tradition” developed with the scribal class.

• The earliest church. Mr. Chadwick offers the obligatory summary of Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, the Jewish War, and Rabbi Paul. Most of the apostles “disappeared” from history, although Peter, John and James get press. There were stories of Thomas in Persia and India, Andrew in Scythia of southern Russia and various other medieval legends. See Eusebius as well.

• John lived and died in Ephesus. By 200, the Ephesians would point to his tomb. Philip the Evangelist died in Phrygia. James the Just was martyred in Jerusalem in 62 A.D.

• Paul was a man who could “translate the Palestinian Gospel” into something “intelligible in the Greek world.” We think this a gratuitous overstatement by Mr. Chadwick.

• Some Jewish Christians continued their Sabbaths, circumcision, and annual feasts. Jerome translated into Latin a Jewish “Gospel According to the Hebrews,” a document that differed very little from the canonical Gospels. Eventually, these Christians sank into oblivion. Yet, Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho sees the Jewish Christians as a continuing force. They kept their Jewish distinctives while noting their differences with Gentile Christians. From Irenaeus’ onwards, they were viewed as a Christian sect.

• Mr. Chadwick does an obligatory review of Emperor worship, the cult of Isis (Egypt), Mithras (Persian deity of light), and the Anatolian cult of Attis and Cybelle. The Romans were tolerant towards Christians—initially.

• Emperor Domitian (81-96). He claimed to be the “Master and God.” A customary oath was “by the genius of the emperor.” Sounds like Tudor and Stuart kings. Sounds like Obama and other state-worshippers. But the 3rd century, Christians were viewed as atheists.

• Emperor Trajan (98-117). We read of the concern of the Governor of Bithynia, Pliny. The economy was adversely affected by the abandonment of pagan temples, e.g. sales for sacrificial animals was down. Complaints were registered about these Christians who met on Sundays, sang an “hymn to Christ” as to God, and took oaths to moral rectitude. A tiresome increase of complaints, including anonymous accusations, came to Pliny. Pliny had put some Christians to death. He wrote the Emperor for legal guidance. Trajan directed Pliny not to search for Christians, but if accused and they confessed, then death was allowable. By the 2nd century, being a Christian became a “capital offense.”

• Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, martyred in 117. Telesphorus, bp. in Rome, martyred. Polycarp of Smyrna, a Christian for 86 years, was martyred in 155. Justin Martyr of Rome was martyred between 162 and 168. By 177, there was savage violence in Lyons and Vienne of the Rhone Valley.

• Tertullian would quip, “If the Tiber rises too much or the Nile too low, the cry is, `The Christians to the lion.’”

2. Faith and Order—Bonds of unity, Gnosticism, Ministry and the Bible, Forms of Ministry, to pages 55

• Corinth. Mr. Chadwick suggests that incipient Gnosticism lay behind the Corinthian chaos and hubris. The super-apostles deemed themselves the “spiritual aristocrats” with a “more profound wisdom” and “deeper mystical experiences.” The Spirit was everything and good while the body was nothing, if not evil. We are more of the view that it was Jewish-forces, perhaps Gnosticized, but Jewish, e.g. 2 Cor. 11. But, precisely what or whatever the super-apostles were, they opposed apostolic authority as supremacists and contrarians.

• Colosse. Again, a syncretistic and theosophic movement consisted of elements from the mystery cults and heterodox Judaism. We wish Mr. Chadwick offered a fuller analysis. There were intermediate angels or heavenly/astral bodies coupled with strict ascetic practices.

• Rival sects emerged in 80-150

• The questions are: (1) Did Greek philosophy get grafted onto the Christian message? Or, (2), were these Christians who adjusted their message to accommodate Greek elements and philosophy?

• The Gnostics were a varied, imprecise and syncretistic lot. In the elect, there was a “divine spark” imprisoned in “matter.” Salvation was the attempt to rouse people from “sleep walking.” The present world was “utterly alien to the supreme God” of the OT (35). A perilous journey through the several astral spheres would lead to the heavenly home by the use of secret passwords and amulets. The rival Gnostic sects hated each other and vied with one another by a better set of code words.

• The Gnostics depreciated the OT, especially the God of the OT. Marcion especially fit this mold although he didn’t develop Gnostic cosmogonies or angel-obsessions. He was excommunicated at Rome in 144. He wrote the Antitheses; he accused God of vacillating, needing to interrogate Adam as to his whereabouts in the Garden, and had to descend to Sodom and Gomorrah for investigative purposes. The God of the Jews was the creator of a miserable world. It was inconceivable to Marcion that Jesus was born of a woman. He denied OT prophecy. In Marcion’s “evaluation of the Old Testament there lurks a constant overtone of anti-Semitism” (40). Marcion became a proto-NT textual critic—like Bart Ehrman we would add. Marcion dismissed the OT. Marcion dismissed Mt, Mk, and Jn. He felt that Judaizers corrupted Luke’s Gospel so he pruned anything savoring of the OT. He threw out other books. He produced his own NT canon—like the 19th-20th century liberals.

• The Valentinians accepted the four canonical gospels but added another Gospel. They viewed portions of the OT as inspired while others were not. They had their own esoteric oral tradition.

• The Ministry of the Word and Bible, pages 41-45. “Authority was the central issue.” Who sat in the apostolic chair? Who were the governors of the church?

• Ignatius of Antioch stressed the bishop as the “focus of unity.” The bishop was God’s man.

• Clement of Rome, the presiding presbyter or bishop of Rome, stressed the connection to the apostles as the authorized representatives of the faith. The apostles had authority. Their representatives in succession had authority. The Gnostics proliferated, but were mutable and changing. The Apostolic word was the unbroken tradition. We would add the canonical Gospels, Acts and the Epistles as well.

• The formation of the canon. The authority of the OT and the Words of the Lord were the impulses to governance and adjudication. There were four canonical Gospels. Justin Martyr uses Mt-Luke, but his disciple, Tatian, coordinates John in the 4-fold stream of authority. The 4 Gospels had “achieved” a wide and general acceptance.

• “Apostolicity” was the strict canon. This strict canon would also lead to the exclusion of 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas—these were profitable for private reading, but were not canonical like the Apostles. Hence, “apostolicity” of authorship was the “canon of orthodoxy.” Sorry, Mr. Ehrman, throw your hat into Marcion and the Gnostics’ ring.

• The “Rule of Faith” was created, a short summary of revelatory events in redemptive history, for use with catechumens.

• A transition is operational also. Ignatius refers to a “monarchial bishop” (Mr. Chadwick’s terms) in Antioch and Asian churches. The transition from apostles, prophets, and teachers to bishops, presbyters, and deacons is “obscured” (46). Clement of Rome was a bishop-presbyter, perhaps a presiding presbyter. Philippians speaks of bishops and deacons. The Didache, 70-110, advises congregational appointment of bishops and deacons to perform the ministry of the apostles, prophets and teachers. The deacons in Justin Martyr’s time took the elements of Holy Communion to the sick. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, deacons presided at the Eucharist; however, by the Council of Arles (314) and the Council of Nicaea (6th canon, 325), this was frowned upon; the Holy Communion was to be served and led by the local presbyter. According to the Apostolic Tradition in Hippolytus’ time in Rome (200-220), the bishop and presbyter would lay hands on a presbyter at ordination; however, only the bishop would lay hands on a deacon at ordination; it would appear that these were decisions not of necessary canonical authority other than for “good order, appropriate governance, and control” (our quotes). Somewhere, the bishop acquired a superiority He may have been a “senior member of the presbyterial college,” a “first among equals.” In Jerusalem, there was a “president” above but equal to the presbyters. The variety of church order and liturgy was the legacy of the missionary and developing church.

• A 3-tiered ministry emerges in the 2nd century without controversy. 1 bishop in a city with presbyters and deacons. By the 3rd century, dignity attached to apostolic centers: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. According to the 6th canon of the Nicene Council, these patriarchies or metropolitan jurisdictions were larger than provincial ones. These developments occur while Montanism was emerging—irrational ecstatics who viewed themselves as mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit with high expectations to be received as those mouthpieces.

• Hippolytus of Rome addressed the divisiveness of the Montanists against the holy, universal, and apostolic churches. He stated that conversion was the supernatural miracle and believers had the Holy Spirit. He underscored the ministry of the Word and sacrament. These “irrational ecstatics” led to “pride and censoriousness” like our modern charismoes and Penties. Somethings just don't change.

• The apostolicity of the canonical writings, dependence on those writings, the closing of the NT canon, the dominance and readings of the OT and the Apostolic records, the Rule of Faith, and church structures are evident...in the holy, catholic and apostolic church...during the deviant and antagonistic heyday of Gnosticism, Marcionism, and Montanism.

(Heidelblog): "Gnostic Dualism of Niceness"

By Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) R. Scott Clark, ever-astute.

http://heidelblog.net/2013/10/the-gnostic-dualism-of-the-god-of-niceness/

The Gnostic Dualism Of The God Of Niceness

Dave writes to ask how we should respond to this: “I embrace the all-loving God of the New Testament and not the mean pompous God of the Old Testament”?

We should respond to this proposition the way Christians have done since the early 2nd century, by recognizing the claim for what it is, paganism disguised as Christianity. Specifically, it is Gnosticism, a variety of loosely related persons and movements with common themes and interests that flourished in the second century in reaction to Christianity. Pro-Gnostic scholars have claimed for nearly a century that Gnosticism was the original religion (or “spirituality”) which was supplanted by Christianity, by force, as “orthodoxy.” The great problem with this claim is that there is virtually no evidence for it. The evidence is very strong, however, that, as the second-century fathers and apologists claimed, the Christian faith came first and then was attacked by the Gnostics, who tried to revise it radically. This debate has been renewed in the modern period. Peter Jones has been chronicling its renewal for years.

Gnosticism did not offer salvation from sin or the wrath of God to come, but rather they offered escape from our humanity via secret knowledge (hence Gnosticism, from gnosis or knowledge). They posited a sort of ladder of being between this existence and the next—it’s always a ladder isn’t it? No wonder a cross is so offensive!—According to the Gnostics, our fundamental problem is not legal (sin) but a lack of being, a lack of divinity. In effect, they were siding with the serpent, “You will be like God” (Gen 3:4–5). They posited a radical dualism between the immaterial (spirit) and the material. The latter was said to inherently evil. What we need, they said, is to escape it by climbing the ladder of gnosis. They set the “Old Testament God” of wrath, whom they regarded as a mere “demiurge” (not the real God) against the “New Testament God” of love. This, of course, is familiar to anyone who has experienced modern liberalism. If, said the Gnostics (and others), the material world is evil, created by a demiurge, then Jesus could not have been truly human. He only appeared (docetism) to be human. This theology led to radical extremes. If the body is evil and not quite real then either we must tame it via asceticism or we may indulge it completely via libertinism. Once again, this practically describes late modern life. Either we must starve ourselves or become Epicureans.

The Gnostics tuned Jesus from the God-Man Savior into just another teacher of mystical, esoteric secrets about how to climb the ladder of being into the One. They divided believers into classes, those who had the true gnosis (gnostics), psychikoi (the intermediate class), and the catholics (ordinary Christians—there was no reference to Roman Catholicism intended in the earliest use of catholic—and, finally, the sarkikoi. One sees analogous divisions in some forms of Christianity, where the fruit of the Spirit is for “mere” Christians but the “power” and the “gifts” of the Spirit are for those who’ve had “the [second] blessing.”

For the rest of this astute article, see:
http://heidelblog.net/2013/10/the-gnostic-dualism-of-the-god-of-niceness/

Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) E. J. Young: "An Introduction to the Old Testament"

Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.)
Edward J. Young
b. November 29, 1907–
d. February 14, 1968

Young, E.J. An Introduction to the Old Testament.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

          It is available at:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Old-Testament-Edward-Young/dp/0802803393/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376774951&sr=8-1&keywords=E.J+Young+Introduction+to+the+Old+Testament

Aside from Biblical content itself and gathering the information “under one roof,” are Marcionism and Gnosticism features of 2013?  Movements expressed by different names, but a recrudescence or reappearance of the same?  While many will eschew the question, we will not: is there demonic involvement in the anti-Old Testament movements?

Some notes from Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Young in this 432-page volume:

·        It is not a “General,” but a “Special Introduction” with an even more narrow focus on the literary qualities of each book

·        There are no discussions of chronology or archaeology, including the date of the Exodus

·        “There is an immediate need of the Church for knowledge of the contents of the Sacred Scriptures.”  If true at the publication in 1964, the problem in 2013 is magnified.

·        Mr. Young offers a quote from Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Keil, that old German Lutheran:  a study of the Old Testament “serves to confirm both the theology and the church in the belief in the integrity and authenticity of our canonical books.”

·        Or, again from Mr. Keil: “Yet the great want of our church…is a clear comprehension of the meaning of the Old Testament.”  We here interact with Misters Young, Keil and our current age with these questions: (1) does the spirit of Marcionism, that anti-Old Testament spirit, obtain in 2013? (2) Does Schleiermacher’s Marcionism obtain in American Episcopal contexts? (3) Has the 1979 Book of Common Prayer “air-brushed” substantial segments of the Old Testament from the regimen of readings, arising from the guild of “Cherry Pickers Union?”  (4) Sociologically, what is available in review of actual Old Testament literacy or non-literacy? (5) Is the “spirit of Marcion” a demon inasmuch as the Sovereign Redeemer has taught the “Parable of the Sower” and that the devil comes and snatches away the “Seed” of the Word?  Is Marcionism actually a demonic agent who works his anti-Old Testament agenda during other periods of history?

·        Mr. Young offers a lengthy quote from old Princeton’s divine, Mr. Warfield: the Old Testament is “…divine to the last particle” and has been instrumental to invoke humans to be “awakened, and justified, and sanctified, and glorified.”

·        Mr. Young observes that neo-orthodoxy, an issue for his time but for our time is a passé fad, is a cousin to Kant’s retreat into a world of nouema, that supra historical and supra temporal realm.  We would interact with Mr. Young here:  (1) was neo-orthodoxy and Kant a recrudescence or reappearance of Gnosticism, or, the retreat to another world by “mystical codes for the initiated?” (2) Can we draw connections to Pentecostalistic Montanism and medieval mysticism? (3)  Like Marcionism, is this Gnosticism also a “spirit” or demonic agent as well?  Just another version expressed by a different name and from a different time?

The books contents are as below.

List of abbreviations

Preface

Acknowledgements

     1.      Study of Biblical Introduction

Part One:  The Law of Moses

2.      General Observations

3.      Genesis

4.      Exodus

5.      Leviticus

6.      Numbers

7.      Deuteronomy

8.      Literary Criticism of the Pentateuch

Part Two:  Prophets

9.      Prophets

10.  Joshua

11.  Judges

12.  Books of Samuel

13.  Books of Kings

14.  Isaiah

15.  Jeremiah

16.  Ezekiel

17.  The Twelve Prophets

Part Three:  The Hagiographa

18.  Poetical Books

19.  Psalms

20.  Proverbs

21.  Job

22.  Song of Solomon

23.  Ruth

24.  Lamentations

25.  Ecclesiastes

26.  Esther

27.  Daniel

28.  Ezra-Nehemiah

29.  Book of Chronicles

Bibliography

Index

Questions for our time emerge from studying the Old Testament as indicated above.  They are under review.

We insert here some information from Wikipedia on Mr. Young.

Edward Joseph Young (November 29, 1907– February 14, 1968)^[1] was a Reformed theologian and an Old Testament scholar at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from 1936 until his death.^[2]

Biography

Young received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1929, a Th.B. (the equivalent of an M.Div.) and a Th.M. from Westminster Theological Seminary in 1935, and a Ph.D. from Dropsie College in 1943. He was an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA) from 1935-36 and then in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church until his death.

Legacy

Allan Harman notes three things about Young's career. He "held unswervingly to a high view of Scripture," he was "deeply read in the literature of his chosen field" and he "dedicated his outstanding gifts to the service of Christ's church and kingdom."^[3]

Young's commentary on the book of Isaiah is one of the finest available in the annals of conservative theological literature. A H.H. Rowley noted, "Professor Young is a scholar who is widely acquainted with views he does not share, and his work is a vade mecum of views that he accepts and rejects; few will not learn from it or fail to find it valuable for consultation." The Evangelical Quarterly commented, "The special value of the book lies in the fullness and depth of the exposition and the erudition of the footnotes...These alone justify its purchase by the layman, the minister, and the student." The book was last published by Eerdman's publishing company in three soft cover volumes.

Publications

• Old Testament Introduction (1949)
• The Prophecy of Daniel (Bible commentary, 1949)
• My Servants the Prophets (1952)
• The Authority of the Old Testament (1953)
• Thy Word is Truth (1957)
• The Book of Isaiah (Bible commentary, 1965-1972)

References

1.      ^ Longman III, Tremper (2007). "Young, E(dward) J(oseph)". In Donald K. McKim. Dictionary of major biblical interpreters (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic. pp. 1068–1072. ISBN 9780830829279.

2.      ^ Biography at Westminster Theological Seminary

3.      ^ Allan Harman, "Edward Joseph Young," in Walter A. Elwell and J. D. Weaver (eds.) Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century: A Selection of Evangelical Voices. Grand Rapids, Baker, 1999.