One of the reasons I really like Irenaeus is because he was kind of a wild man. He was a little wide-eyed and unsafe. I can identify. What makes me think that? His assault on the Gnostics. His reproof of their doctrine was not the kind of calm, cool, nice approach that many modern people are so accustomed for a pastor, elder, or bishop to have. Our culture likes our pastors nice and civilized, with no rawness to them. I like Irenaeus because he calls it like it is. He loathed the Gnostic teachings. He considered it both foolish and sinister, and made no qualms about his desire to expose and do away with it once and for all. In fact, most of his theology was forged from his pastoral concerns over Gnosticism rather than intellectual matters.
In order to expose Gnosticism for what it really was, Irenaeus spent years studying at least twenty distinct Gnostic teachers and their schools. After much study, he wrote is famous Against Heresies.
Here is his critique in a nutshell. Through it, his theology will become visible.
His first line of attack is to reduce the Gnostic world view to absurdity. He shows that much of it was nothing more than made up mythology that was founded on nothing but clever imagination. He succeeded in exposing the contradictions and incoherence of Gnosticism.
Second, he showed that the Gnostic claim of authority was false. They claimed that they got their stuff from Jesus and the apostles. Irenaeus showed otherwise. Finally, he totally embarrassed the Gnostic interpretation of Scripture by showing it to be both unreasonable and impossible.
The reason Irenaeus attacked the Gnostics with such force is because he believed that he had a special role and position in the church. He was tutored by Polycarp, who was discipled by John. Irenaeus' direct link to the apostles made him both zealous for the truth and for their reputation.
The Gnostics claimed that John was a part of an inner group of the disciples who received secret teachings from Jesus, which was not available to most Christians, because they were not spiritual enough to understand it. Irenaeus pulled his Polycarp and John "card" and argued that if there was such a teaching, he would know about it.
Irenaeus also believed in the unity of the church. He saw the Gnostics as schismatics who were attempting to break the unity of the church and lead people astray. Because Irenaeus greatly valued the unity of the visible church that consisted in the fellowship of the bishops, who were appointed by the apostles, he vehemently attack the Gnostic claim of authority.
The Gnostics also thought very poorly of the physical creation. They denied that it's origin is in the supreme God of goodness and light. Most of the Gnostic schools introduced various levels of emanations from God, which eventually fell away and ended up creating the physical world. Irenaeus attacked this belief as well by affirming and expounding the Christian doctrine of God as both Creator and Redeemer of the material as well as the spiritual.
So, if any of you out there are thinking of picking up a copy of Ireneaus' Against Heresies, let me give you a heads up on some things. It is easy to get bogged down in. He spends a lot of time recounting the Gnostic beliefs, and it may be hard for the modern reader to plug through it. If you can, the read is worth it. Especially for the times when Irenaeus stops to make his humorous and sarcastic remarks. Here is a little taste for you. It is his parody of the Gnostic creation:
In order to expose Gnosticism for what it really was, Irenaeus spent years studying at least twenty distinct Gnostic teachers and their schools. After much study, he wrote is famous Against Heresies.
Here is his critique in a nutshell. Through it, his theology will become visible.
His first line of attack is to reduce the Gnostic world view to absurdity. He shows that much of it was nothing more than made up mythology that was founded on nothing but clever imagination. He succeeded in exposing the contradictions and incoherence of Gnosticism.
Second, he showed that the Gnostic claim of authority was false. They claimed that they got their stuff from Jesus and the apostles. Irenaeus showed otherwise. Finally, he totally embarrassed the Gnostic interpretation of Scripture by showing it to be both unreasonable and impossible.
The reason Irenaeus attacked the Gnostics with such force is because he believed that he had a special role and position in the church. He was tutored by Polycarp, who was discipled by John. Irenaeus' direct link to the apostles made him both zealous for the truth and for their reputation.
The Gnostics claimed that John was a part of an inner group of the disciples who received secret teachings from Jesus, which was not available to most Christians, because they were not spiritual enough to understand it. Irenaeus pulled his Polycarp and John "card" and argued that if there was such a teaching, he would know about it.
Irenaeus also believed in the unity of the church. He saw the Gnostics as schismatics who were attempting to break the unity of the church and lead people astray. Because Irenaeus greatly valued the unity of the visible church that consisted in the fellowship of the bishops, who were appointed by the apostles, he vehemently attack the Gnostic claim of authority.
The Gnostics also thought very poorly of the physical creation. They denied that it's origin is in the supreme God of goodness and light. Most of the Gnostic schools introduced various levels of emanations from God, which eventually fell away and ended up creating the physical world. Irenaeus attacked this belief as well by affirming and expounding the Christian doctrine of God as both Creator and Redeemer of the material as well as the spiritual.
So, if any of you out there are thinking of picking up a copy of Ireneaus' Against Heresies, let me give you a heads up on some things. It is easy to get bogged down in. He spends a lot of time recounting the Gnostic beliefs, and it may be hard for the modern reader to plug through it. If you can, the read is worth it. Especially for the times when Irenaeus stops to make his humorous and sarcastic remarks. Here is a little taste for you. It is his parody of the Gnostic creation:
Iu, Iu! Pheu, Pheu! - for well may we utter these tragic exclamations at such a pitch of audacity in the coining of names as he has displayed without a blush, in devising a nomenclature for his own system of falsehood. For when he declares: There is a certain Proarche before all things, surpassing all thought, whom I call Monotes; and again, with this Monotes there co-exists a power which I also call Henotes, - it is most manifest that he confesses the things which have been said to be his own invention, and that he himself has given names to this scheme of things, which had never been previously suggested by any other. It is manifest also, that he himself is the one who has had sufficient audacity to coin these names; so that, unless he had appeared in the world, the truth would still have been destitute of a name. But, in that case, nothing hinders any other, in dealing wit the same subject, to affix names after such a fashion as the following: There is a certain Proarche, royal, surpassing all thought, a power existing before every other substance, and extended into space in every direction. But along with it there exists a power which I term a Gourd; and along with the Gourd there exists a power which again I term Utter-Emptiness. This Gourd and Emptiness, since they are one, produced (and yet did not simply produce, so as to be apart of themselves) a fruit, everywhere visible, eatable, and delicious, which fruit-language calls a Cucumber. Along with the Cucumber exists a power of the same essence, which again I call a Melon. These powers, the Gourd, Utter-Emptiness, the Cucumber, and the Melon, brought forth the remaining multitude of the delirious melons of Valentinus...If any one may assign names at his pleasure, who shall prevent us from adopting these names, as being much more credible [than the others], as well as in general use, and understood by all?- Against Heresies 1.11