Irenaeus: How Can Man Understand or Know in His Heart the Unknowable God?

Early Church Father, Irenaeus (c. AD 120–202), served the Lord as bishop of Lyons. One of his greatest contributions to the Christian Faith was his apologetic engagement with Marcion and the Gnostics.[1] His detailed exposition of Gnosticism in book 1 of his Against Heresies is our greatest surviving description of this sect.

Irenaeus’ method of attack was to use the full range of apostolic writings, standing firm on the words of Paul and John. He defended biblical monotheism and the Oneness of God as the First Cause, whereas Gnostics taught that there were other gods (or personified aeons)[2] and another pleroma (the abode where God dwells).[3] Irenaeus observes that the vital error in Gnostic thought is they look for types and images beyond God and wander away, “never being able to fix their minds on the one true God.”[4]

Irenaeus, not in the most tactful manner, expresses how “stupid” and “foolish” such people are, allowing their “imaginations to range beyond God.”[5] But, a few paragraphs later he writes, “God cannot be measured in the heart, and incomprehensible is He in the mind.”[6] This raises a question: If one cannot comprehend God, how is one to imagine or know God? Irenaeus, likewise, realizing the problem, a few sentences later asks, “But if man comprehends not the fullness and the greatness of His hand, how shall anyone be able to understand or know in his heart so great a God?”[7]

Irenaeus understood that while “Christ himself … together with the Father, is the God of the living who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers,”[8] he had been hidden, only being revealed to us in the apostolic preaching, preserved and articulated through the medium of Scripture.[9] “The Father,” Irenaeus writes, “is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father.”[10] And to answer his question, humans need a ‘measure’ of the ‘immeasurable Father.’ Therefore, in the appointed time, God the Son comes in human measure, so that we can see the immeasurable Father.[11]

God created all things with his Word and Wisdom.[12] And while he gifted the world to humanity, his greatness is unknown. “But,” Irenaeus writes, “as regards His love, He is always known through Him by whose means he ordained all things. Now this is His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made a man among men, that He might join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God.”[13]

How does one come to know and see God? Irenaeus places this ability in God, not by human willing or power. He writes, “For man does not see God by his own powers; but when He pleases He is seen by men, by whom He wills, and when He wills, and as He wills.”[14] And that power through which God enables a finite creature to “behold Him [is] through faith.”[15] The apostle John summed up his prologue with these words: “No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him.”[16]

So, to Marcion, and all those who would let their imaginations carry them away from the One, True God, Irenaeus gives this exhortation:

. . . read with earnest care that Gospel which has been conveyed to us by the apostles, and read with earnest care the prophets, and you will find that the whole conduct, and all the doctrine, and all the sufferings of our Lord, were predicted through them.[17]

And to all of us in the 21st Century, do the same. And if we do, with earnest care, “read the Scriptures in this way, [we] will find in them in the Word concerning Christ and a foreshadowing of the new calling. For Christ is the treasure, which was hid in the field, that is, in this world—for 'the field is the world'—but the treasure hid in the Scriptures is Christ.”[18]

Look and listen to Jesus: “Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God” (Matt 5:8).

—Romans 11:36

__________________________________
[1] The name derives from the Greek word gnōsis, meaning “knowledge.” Gnostics sought a secret knowledge that was connected with human salvation, and most Gnostic teaching was rooted in the idea of a cosmic dualism. Everything in the universe was seen as falling into one of two categories: the immaterial or spiritual realm that was good or the material universe that was, by nature, evil. Various theories were suggested to explain the origin of matter, but Gnostics generally held that a God of pure spirit emanated spiritual beings called “aeons,” who had the power of emanation themselves. With each descending level of creation, the aeons became less and less like the pure God until one, generally called the “demiurge,” was so far removed from the wisdom of God that it created matter. Gnostics saw each person as a microcosm of the universe, containing both good (spiritual) and evil (material, i.e., the body) natures. “Gnosticism,” in Pocket Dictionary of Church History, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2008).
[2] Aeons were spirits or emanations of God, having with Gnostics, such as Valentinus, having a total of thirty aeons.
[3] Pleroma refers to the spiritual universe where God dwells, containing his divine powers and emanations.
[4] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.19.1 in Roberts Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Cox, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). Further citations designated as AH.
[5] Ibid.
[6] He cites Isa 40:12; Eph 1:21; Jer 23:23 as scriptural proofs.
[7] AH 4.19.13.
[8] Ibid., 4.5.2.
[9] John Behr, The Way to Nicaea, vol. 1 (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 112–13.
[10] AH 4.6.6.
[11] Behr, 1:114.
[12] Irenaeus refers to the Spirit as God’s Wisdom.
[13] AH 4.20.4
[14] Ibid., 4.20.5. He cites Luke 28:27. Cf. John 1:10–13.
[15] Ibid. Cf. Acts 15:9
[16] Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2020).
[17] Behr, 1:116. AH 4.34.1
[18] AH 4.25.1. Behr’s translation was intermingled in the quotation (Behr, 1:119).

Comments

Gregory of Nyssa: Trinity–Not Tri-deity

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,

St. John Chrysostom — for God is simple

Below is part of the introductory section to my exposition of John Chrysostom’s doctrine of God. I posted it because I thought it was fascinating to find such an important theologian known for avoiding (even having a disdain of) speculative theology refer to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity as common place in his thoroughly biblical doctrine of God. Toward the end I include a link to my full exposition. John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople. Being the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers, he fought against the ecclesiastical and political leaders for their abuse of authority. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden-mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons. [1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology. [2] On the Incomprehensible Nature of G

John 17:3 – Eternal Life is Knowing God and Christ–the One, True God

John 17:1–5. “ Jesus spoke these things, looked up to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with that glory I had with you before the world existed .”

A Brief Exposition of Augustine's Doctrine of Divine Immutability

To much of the Western world, Augustine has no rival. He is the preeminent—uninspired—theologian of the Christian faith. When reading the titans of the church—i.e., Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—Augustine’s theology and ideas are voluminously parroted all throughout their writings. His influence is unparalleled. Even the secular world sees Augustine as a mammoth figure in the shaping of human history. And its Augustine’s doctrine of God we will divert our attention to, looking specifically at his articulation of divine immutability Augustine’s doctrine of God is classical, through and through. He writes, “There is One invisible, from whom, as the Creator and First Cause, all things seen by us derive their being: He is supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and comprehensible by none save Himself alone” ( Ep . 232.5).[1] When reading his works, the doctrine of immutability is paramount, coming forth repeatedly. For Augustine, immutability, or God’s unchangeableness, is consequential

Gregory of Nazianzus: The Trinity - Not a Collection of Elements

Gregory of Nazianzus One of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330–389), given the title, “The Theologian,” was instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the distinct terms to describe the Persons of the Godhead (Unbegotten, eternally begotten, and procession). Gregory’s main contribution to the development of Christology was in his opposition to Apollinarius. He argued that when Adam fell, all of humanity fell in him; therefore, that fallen nature must be fully united to the Son—body, soul, and mind; ‘for the unassumed is the unhealed’. Gregory’s Doctrine of the Trinity His clearest statement on the Trinity is found in his Oration 25.15–18. Oration 25 is part of a series of sermons delivered in 380. As a gesture of gratitude, Gregory dedicates Oration 25 to Christian philosopher Maximus the Cynic, as a sort of ‘charge’ for him to push forward and remain strong in the orthodox teachings of the faith. And these sections are that or

First Timothy 2:12 - On Women in the Pastorate - A Critical Response to Nijay Gupta

Does 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibit women from leading and preaching over men in the church? I recently posted an article examining an approach to this question, specifically evaluating interpretive consistency. In the article, I looked at two passages that appealed to the Old Testament to support the claim being made in the text. The point of the blog post was to shed light on an inconsistency of interpretation by looking at one common argument from the Bible in favor of women in the pastorate and another biblical argument supporting the view of monogamous marriage, between one man and one woman. My general observation is that many Christians who advance this particular argument, allowing for women in the pastorate, also affirm the particular argument for the biblical view of marriage. They both have the same methodological starting point; however, both arrive at their conclusions in completely different ways, demonstrating interpretive inconsistency, which I conclude ste

Ambrose: A Nicene Defense of Jesus Not Knowing the Day or the Hour ~ Mark 13:32

Ambrose (c. 339–397), was Bishop of Milan (northern Italy). His name is familiar to many because of Augustine, in that it was through Ambrose’s preaching that Augustine was saved by the gospel. Ambrose was a rigorous exponent of Nicene orthodoxy, and as with his other contemporaries, he was an ardent opponent against Arianism. His works, therefore, were aimed at refuting Arian heresy, paying special attention to the exposition and defense of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. In his most prominent work, The Exposition of the Christian Faith (abbr. De fide ), Ambrose makes a lucid, scripturally saturated articulation of the Christian faith couched in Nicene orthodoxy. De fide is devoted to proving the full divinity of Christ, co-equal in substance, wisdom, power, and glory as God the Father, derived through elucidating the plain sense of the text. Ambrose’s aim is polemical and apologetic, addressing and refuting objections from the Arians. This post will ex

Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.” — Does God create evil?

My daughter watched a video this morning where a deconstructionist, an ex vangelical, was attempting to profane the goodness of God, by pointing out that Isaiah 45:7 says God creates evil. She was referring to the KJV version of this passage which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” So, what do we do with that? Below is a brief response. Proper biblical interpretation considers context when seeking the meaning of a passage. Furthermore, when it comes to difficult or obscure passages, a helpful rule of interpretation is to look to the plainer passages of the Bible and draw examples from them to shed light on the more obscure passages ( thanks Augustine ). We let Scripture interpret Scripture. The point is to remove all hesitation on doubtful passages. So, in this passage, on the face it seems to imply that God creates evil, thus making God evil. But is that what the Bible teaches about God? The plainer passages te

Boethius: The Logic of Unity and Plurality in One God

In the “Introduction” to a standard English translation of Boethius’ Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy , it is stated that “Boethius was the last of the Roman philosophers, and the first of the scholastic theologians” (X). Philosophy is aimed at explaining the nature of the world ( the natural ). Theology’s aim is to understand and explain doctrines delivered by divine revelation ( the supernatural ). Boethius was the seminal figure in preparing the way for the synthesis of these two disciplines, with philosophy serving the task of theology (i.e., the handmaiden to the King of sciences) .

Piper vs. Calvin: The Role of Good Works in Salvation

In his book Future Grace , John Piper writes, “Faith alone is the instrument that unites us to Christ who is our righteousness and the ground of our justification. But the purity of life that confirms faith’s reality is also essential for final salvation , not as the ground of our right standing, but as the fruit and evidence that we are vitally united by faith to Christ who alone is the ground of our acceptance with God.” [1] His purpose in writing that statement is to “explode the great error that says . . . [y]ou get your justification by faith, and you get your sanctification by works. You start the Christian life in the power of the Spirit, you press on in the efforts of the flesh.” [2] The emphasized portion above (and other such statements) has raised critical concerns over Piper’s Reformed theology in that his words seem to veer away from orthodox Reformed teaching. These critics contend Piper teaches a two-stage justification where one is “ initially justified by grace alon

Read. Reflect. Write.

Search This Blog