Irenaeus

We owe to Karl Barth's masterful treatment of the doctrine of reconciliation in the fourth volume of the Church Dogmatics a sketch that is at once beautifully clear and remarkably comprehensive. It is not without shortcomings, however. This paper contains in seminal form some of the ideas developed further (and somewhat differently) in Ascension Theology and Theological Negotiations.

In this text I look at Eastern Orthodoxy pneumatology in relation to the theology of the Icon. I argue that the exclusivity of the Icon as the only expression of art within the Eastern Orthodox Church has inconsistencies with the doctrine of theosis and the Holy Spirit as the sanctifier of the whole of creation. Instead the pneumatology of Eastern Orthodox theology has the potential for a wider artistic expression.

In Book 5 of his Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses), Irenaeus envisions an eschaton that coheres with the beginning of creation and serves God’s purpose of perfecting man in His divine dispensation. For this argument, Irenaeus cites extra-biblical traditions about end times. His depiction of the earthly Messianic Kingdom demonstrates striking similarities to the eschatological visions in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch), a Jewish apocalypse written around the end of the first century, thus indicating shared traditions. In this regard, Irenaeus is rather unique among early Church Fathers. While others show influences of the strand of Jewish apocalyptic tradition that features heavenly journeys, spiritual ascents and angelic theoria, Irenaeus, on the other hand, shows to be heir to the strand of Jewish apocalyptic tradition that envisions an end with the blessing of union with God that is materially abundant, concretely earthy, upon this world created by God from the beginning.

Dans cette conférence, j'ai proposé un parcours transversal dans l’exégèse des premiers siècles (chez Irénée de Lyon, Origène, Eusèbe de Césarée et Hilaire de Poitiers) à propos des "impies", les "pécheurs" et les "pestiférés" nommés dans le Ps 1,1 : « Heureux l´homme qui n´est pas allé dans une assemblée d´impies, ne s´est ni tenu sur un chemin de pécheurs ni assis sur un siège malsain ! »

Irenaeus’ significance for the development of Christian theories about the Antichrist is well-documented.  His major work, Against Heresies, provides the first extensive Christian discussion of the Antichrist thus far extant, drawing together various passages in the Hebrew Bible  and New Testament  and synthesizing them into a coherent picture of one end-time human being who recapitulates all evil.  Even though it is likely that Irenaeus’ antichrist-ology served to preserve a set of traditions already established in the church, rather than representing any significant theological innovation on his part, his work still influences modern interpretations of these passages and forms the foundation for many persisting Christian beliefs about the “Final Enemy.”

Less studied, however, is the theological significance of the Antichrist in Irenaeus’ own thought.  Although the most extensive discussion of the Antichrist appears in Book 5 of Against Heresies (AH 5.25-30), Irenaeus returns to the topic throughout the work.  Irenaeus portrays the Antichrist as both a spiritual and political figure, a future historical leader whose free decision to “recapitulate in himself all diabolic apostasy” (AH 5.25.1) takes on cosmic significance.  Situated as this figure is in the redemptive economy of God—as the concentrated epitome of the evil that Christ will eventually vanquish—and in the historical economy of God—as a holder of political authority (AH 5.24.1-2) which he chooses to wield tyrannically—the Antichrist serves as a useful lens through which to consider aspects of Irenaeus’ political thought within the context of his theological framework.  Focusing on how Irenaeus’ writings on the Antichrist relate to recapitulation, the rule of faith, and the theologies of power, I argue that his discussions about the Antichrist reflect, in microcosm, the broader dynamics of Irenaeus’ social and political thought.

Irenaeus is an early church father who wrote to formulate Christian doctrine in opposition to the Gnostics. In his thought, the Holy Spirit plays a vital role in the Bible story from creation through to new creation. This essay focuses on his role in the believer as the presence of the age to come - that the indwelling of the Spirit is a deposit of what awaits.

Both drawing from the biblical book of Genesis, Irenaeus of Lyons and Augustine of Hippo developed views on creation which have much in common.  Both see what God has made as being very good.  Both see Adam and Eve as having been given the good gift of free will.  Both see them made less than immortal but with the potential for immortality.  Going further, Irenaeus and Augustine agree that God foresaw the sinfulness of humans and that the process towards immortality for sinful humans includes suffering and death.  However, Irenaeus and Augustine diverge sharply in their views on the trajectory of creation and the role of death in creation. The perspective of Irenaeus merits further consideration given its consonance with Scripture and with modern science and given the contrasting and more commonly known perspective of Augustine.

The article interprets the so-called “Eucharistic section” in John 6:51–58 in the context of early Christian text on the Eucharist, especially Ignatius and Justin, but also Irenaeus and the Gospel of Philip. It interprets the Eucharist as a ritual by which, according to early Christian texts, canonical and non-canonical, the believers gain eternal life though their participation in Christ.

Tesis de Doctorado / PhD Thesis.
Since J. Parkes invented it in 1934, the expression “Parting of the Ways” has deeply rooted in the scholarship to study the distance between Jews and Christians during Antiquity. Indeed, issued from the same common background, which was the Second Temple Judaism, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism became two opposing orthodoxies which excluded each other and, largely, based their own identity in opposition to the other one, in a process started by the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in the year 70. This doctoral thesis analyses how this parting of the ways happened throughout the first three centuries of the Common Era in the different regional realities of the Roman Empire, taking as a main source the literature of the Church Fathers, though also other ones, as the rabbinic literature, the so-called “cycle of the Talmud”. So, despite their rivalries, Judaism and Christianity form a large spectrum where, in an extreme, we find the Rabbinic Judaism, for which Jesus represents nothing, and, in the other, different forms of Gnostic Christianity, which fully denied the identification between the Jewish Jahveh and the God Father preached by Jesus Christ and, because of that, refused all the Jewish heritage of Christianity. Between both extremes became established the self-proclaimed Orthodox Christianity, over the basis of the anti-legalistic thought of the Apostle Paul. This form of Christianity also felt obliged to harmonize Hebrew Scriptures as a part of the history of salvation with the idea that the Mosaic Law had been abrogated with the coming of the Messiah. This proto-Orthodox Christianity found in the method of allegory applied to the interpretation of the Old Testament the legitimation of its doctrine and its universalistic and uniformist wishes. On the other hand, the rabbis, with the Patriarch as their leader, got the decisive support of the Roman authorities in their purpose to proclaim themselves as the leaders of Judaism, which was decapitated after the disappearance of the Temple. This Judaism found its way of expression in the so-called Talmudic literature, where the Rabbis systematized an orthodoxy that excluded from the people of Israel all those who did not share their doctrines, as we can see, for example, in the Birkat ha minim, imprecation which, included in the liturgy of the synagogue worship, was pronounced against the Followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

Author: April Kelly
Publisher: CBE International

While imperfect and even contradictory at times, the church of the first five centuries helped define women’s sense of self, integrating their understanding of sexuality and marriage with the redemptive work of Christ in their own lives and communities, thus encouraging them to contribute to the work of the church.

The figure of Socrates features prominently in the works of earliest Christian authors and their attempts to negotiate a viable relation between pagan intellectual tradition and the exigencies of a newly founded religion. The analysis of all relevant ante-Nicene Greek and Latin texts shows that early Christian writers reconstruct "Socrates" with a striking degree of interpretative freedom. Although it is impossible to establish a unified perspective on Socrates in these texts – let alone a positive one, as many previous commentators thought –, the interpretations of the Athenian sage are not entirely haphazard. I argue that they are heavily constrained by apologetic aims of early Christian authors and closely connected to epistemic justification of faith by means of miracles, superior moral behaviour, divine inspiration and prophecy, and, finally, the emphasis that is placed on the limitations of human, all too human, wisdom.

Setelah zaman para rasuli, Gereja mula-mula terus bergumul dalam upaya untuk memahami dan memformulasikan konsep Allah Tritunggal di tengah konteks polemik dengan pemahaman heretic yang berkembang pada masa itu. Pemahaman konsep Allah Tritunggal secara lengkap seperti yang kita miliki sekarang belum di jumpai dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Rasuli, antara lain Clement dari Roma, Ignatius, Polycarp. Konsep Allah Tritunggal baru mulai terlihat dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Gereja pada abad ke-2 dan ke-3 seperti Justin Martyr, Irenaeus dan Tertullian. Dalam sejarah perkembangan doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari abad ke-2 sampai abad ke-5, pada awalnya perdebatan teologis berlangsung antara Gereja dengan ajaran heretic modalisme, yang berpandangan bahwa Allah Bapa, Allah Anak dan Allah Roh Kudus adalah satu pribadi Allah dengan tiga peran. Ajaran ini dilawan oleh Tertullian. Pada tahap berikutnya Gereja berhadapan dengan ajaran heretic Arianisme yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Allah sejati, sehingga terselenggara Konsili di Nicaea (325), yang kemudian merumuskan Pengakuan Iman Nicaea. Salah seorang Bapa Gereja yang berperan penting dalam konsili Nicaea adalah Athanasius. Di dalam Pengakuan Nicaea ditegaskan bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Anak Allah, Allah sejati dari Allah sejati, yang mempunyai substansi yang sama dengan Allah Bapa. Setelah Konsili Nicaea, ternyata Arianisme tetap berkembang dan di dalam periode ini Bapa-bapa Kapadokia meneruskan perjuangan Athanasius. Pertikaian teologis dengan Arianisme berakhir di dalam Konsili Konstantinopel (381). Pada masa yang sama, perdebatan teologis lainnya yang dihadapi oleh Gereja adalah dengan ajaran heretic Macedonianisme, yang tidak percaya bahwa Roh Kudus juga adalah Allah sejati. Perdebatan ini juga diselesaikan dalam Konsili Konstantinopel. Perdebatan teologis berikutnya berlangsung ketika Gereja harus menghadapi ajaran heretic Apollinarisme, yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai jiwa manusia (human soul). Apollinarisme juga juga ditolak dalam Konsili Konstantinopel Sesudah itu, Gereja bergumul untuk memahami natur dan pribadi Kristus. Pergumulan ini dipicu oleh ajaran heretic Nestorianisme yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai dua pribadi dan dua natur yang terpisah serta natur gabungan Allah dan manusia di dalam diriNya. Ajaran heretic ini ditolak di dalam konsili Efesus (431). Dan terakhir, Gereja menghadapi ajaran heretic monofisit yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus hanya mempunyai satu natur. Ajaran ini kemudian ditentang di dalam Konsili Chalcedon (451), dimana para Bapa Gereja mencapai pemahaman serta perumusan final mengenai dua natur (Allah dan manusia) di dalam satu Pribadi Yesus Kristus, yang diyakini oleh Gereja Universal hingga hari ini. Pada pertengahan masa antara Konsili Nicaea dan Konsili Konstantinopel, hiduplah seorang Bapa Gereja Agustinus (354-430), yang memformulasikan doktrin Allah Tritunggal secara lebih rinci dan komprehensif di dalam bukunya, On the Trinity. Dengan demikian Gereja Universal kini memiliki warisan mengenai doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari Agustinus dan mengenai dua natur Kristus dari Konsili Chalcedon.

Few individuals in church history are as popular as Augustine of Hippo. His impressive body of work on diverse subjects, combined with his tremendous influence on Roman Catholics and Protestants, have led believers to imbue Augustine’s writings with great authority. Consequently, he is frequently cited by those seeking support for their particular position on theological matters. This practice is especially observed in the creation versus evolution and age of the earth debates. Young-earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, old-earth creationists, and intelligent design proponents have each claimed Augustine as one of their own and each of these scholars has provided quotations of Augustine which seem to support their view. The famous church father wrote four separate commentaries on the first chapter of Genesis. This paper surveys these works and demonstrates that Augustine was not concerned with the modern controversy. Nevertheless, his purpose for writing each commentary and t...

Setelah zaman para rasuli, Gereja mula-mula terus bergumul dalam upaya untuk memahami dan memformulasikan konsep Allah Tritunggal di tengah konteks polemik dengan pemahaman heretic yang berkembang pada masa itu. Pemahaman konsep Allah Tritunggal secara lengkap seperti yang kita miliki sekarang belum di jumpai dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Rasuli, antara lain Clement dari Roma, Ignatius, Polycarp. Konsep Allah Tritunggal baru mulai terlihat dalam tulisan Bapa-bapa Gereja pada abad ke-2 dan ke-3 seperti Justin Martyr, Irenaeus dan Tertullian. Dalam sejarah perkembangan doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari abad ke-2 sampai abad ke-5, pada awalnya perdebatan teologis berlangsung antara Gereja dengan ajaran heretic modalisme, yang berpandangan bahwa Allah Bapa, Allah Anak dan Allah Roh Kudus adalah satu pribadi Allah dengan tiga peran. Ajaran ini dilawan oleh Tertullian. Pada tahap berikutnya Gereja berhadapan dengan ajaran heretic Arianisme yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Allah sejati, sehingga terselenggara Konsili di Nicaea (325), yang kemudian merumuskan Pengakuan Iman Nicaea. Salah seorang Bapa Gereja yang berperan penting dalam konsili Nicaea adalah Athanasius. Di dalam Pengakuan Nicaea ditegaskan bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah Anak Allah, Allah sejati dari Allah sejati, yang mempunyai substansi yang sama dengan Allah Bapa. Setelah Konsili Nicaea, ternyata Arianisme tetap berkembang dan di dalam periode ini Bapa-bapa Kapadokia meneruskan perjuangan Athanasius. Pertikaian teologis dengan Arianisme berakhir di dalam Konsili Konstantinopel (381). Pada masa yang sama, perdebatan teologis lainnya yang dihadapi oleh Gereja adalah dengan ajaran heretic Macedonianisme, yang tidak percaya bahwa Roh Kudus juga adalah Allah sejati. Perdebatan ini juga diselesaikan dalam Konsili Konstantinopel. Perdebatan teologis berikutnya berlangsung ketika Gereja harus menghadapi ajaran heretic Apollinarisme, yang menyangkal bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai jiwa manusia (human soul). Apollinarisme juga juga ditolak dalam Konsili Konstantinopel Sesudah itu, Gereja bergumul untuk memahami natur dan pribadi Kristus. Pergumulan ini dipicu oleh ajaran heretic Nestorianisme yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus mempunyai dua pribadi dan dua natur yang terpisah serta natur gabungan Allah dan manusia di dalam diriNya. Ajaran heretic ini ditolak di dalam konsili Efesus (431). Dan terakhir, Gereja menghadapi ajaran heretic monofisit yang berpandangan bahwa Yesus Kristus hanya mempunyai satu natur. Ajaran ini kemudian ditentang di dalam Konsili Chalcedon (451), dimana para Bapa Gereja mencapai pemahaman serta perumusan final mengenai dua natur (Allah dan manusia) di dalam satu Pribadi Yesus Kristus, yang diyakini oleh Gereja Universal hingga hari ini. Pada pertengahan masa antara Konsili Nicaea dan Konsili Konstantinopel, hiduplah seorang Bapa Gereja Agustinus (354-430), yang memformulasikan doktrin Allah Tritunggal secara lebih rinci dan komprehensif di dalam bukunya, On the Trinity. Dengan demikian Gereja Universal kini memiliki warisan mengenai doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari Agustinus dan mengenai dua natur Kristus dari Konsili Chalcedon.

In this article I provide an executive summary of Irenaeus’ larger pro-material doctrine of creation. His affirmation of the goodness of the material world can be seen in at least six ways: 1) the demiurge (i.e., creator) is identified as the true Father, 2) God creates the world directly with His own two hands (i.e., the Son and the Spirit), 3) creation is accomplished ex nihilo, 4) the material world is given as a gift to humanity, 5) God will renew the present earth to its pristine condition in a literal millennial kingdom, and 6) God will create a perpetual new heavens and new earth in the eternal age.

This paper was originally delivered at DSPT's 2017 Colloquium, and then subsequently as a public lecture at Regent College in 2018. It offers an overview of the contemporary use of Irenaeus' famous misquotation, and explores the sense in which the fully alive human being does indeed manifest the glory of God. The audio version with Regent is up for free here: https://www.regentaudio.com/products/is-the-glory-of-god-man-fully-alive-irenaeus-the-human-life-and-the-vision-of-god?_pos=1&_sid=371ef424b&_ss=r

This is a survey of the view of Irenaeus' view of Scripture and tradition as detailed in Against Heresies. Also addressed is whether this accurately reflects a major 2nd century view of the relative authority of Scripture and tradition for Christian faith and practice.

Drawing from Irenaeus, the Gospel of John, and various other sources, this paper presents a theological interpretation of the imago Dei as a dramatic role whose mission is to mediate God's blessing to the world through embodied communicative action. The paper was presented at the Society for the Study of Theology Postgraduate Conference in January 2014 at Oxford, England. A preliminary version of the paper was also presented at the Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies Seminar, University of Birmingham, December 2013.

Once upon a time (when theology was a 'thing' and doctrine mattered, but before anyone thought it should actually help us exist as those who pretend to believe and live differently because of Christian faith), I taught courses in Christian Theology.

At schools like Wheaton College, Northern Seminary and several guest lectureships at institutions I promised I'd never advertise I was invited to contribute my thoughts, I taught coursework and graduate seminars on the subject of theology. This introduction to the task of theology was just another hand-out serious students would pretend to read and colleagues would use to raise suspicions about 'fit' and statements of faith to Provosts and Deans. So I share this with you in hopes of steering you away from criticism and you, like so many others, will learn to 'just blame Callahan' for this or that.

The Marcosian ‘redemption’ afterlife practice, described by Irenaeus (Haer. 1.21.5; see also, 1.13.6), exhibits striking similarities with the Bacchic Gold Tablets. This article exploits this largely neglected comparative opportunity to interrogate how the Marcosian redemption would have been recognisable to people in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean, thus bypassing the common focus in our field on ‘origins’ or ‘influences’. The Christians who participated in the Marcosian redemption emerge as people engaged in a broader genre of Greco-Roman religiosity that is associated with independent experts who adapted known mythic resources and offered access to afterlife benefits. This article thus pursues a level of social analysis we often take for granted in Early Christian Studies by attending to the constituent practices of the Marcosian redemption as well as to the social conditions within which it could have been intelligible or compelling. It furthermore leverages this analysis to suggest the fruitfulness of similarly redescribing other, more familiar early Christian materials in terms of practices.

The development of Christology has a rich history, and there are many fine works that cover this study. My interest is to develop a study of this doctrine through the early church. My intent is to provide an introduction into the most significant developments in Christology during this period. This task is primarily meant to be a historical account rather than a systematic account. Nonetheless, good historical construction invites one to delve into the rich primary documentary evidence. This summary will lean upon two kinds of documentary evidence—treatises and correspondence between churchmen. Where possible, I will cite dependable and authorized English translations of texts. Throughout this account, I will mention another significant kind of documentary evidence but only in passing. That kind of documentary evidence is made up of the the various declarations, definitions, and statements crafted by the body of catholic and Orthodox church leadership. These documents were the final authority concerning Christological developments. You will see why I have selected to pass by this evidence for the sake of this study when I come to my closing reflection on the history that I have constructed.

Perhaps during the course of this historical journey through the sources, I will uncover a neglected perspective on Christology or even an overlooked development which invites renewed appreciation. Suffice is to say, my goal is to present a historical summary that highlights the most crucial developments of Christology, developments that affect our thought on Christology today, whether we are familiar with all the details of the development and sources or not. I have chosen to organize my summary of the early church’s Christological development around the heresies that developed and the responses to them. Once again, you will see the purpose for this organization when I reflect on my findings.

This paper closes with a reflection that, rather than summarizing a summary, functions as a reflection on the conditioning of Christology in the early church. The reflection engages the methodology of my entire project, assessing where it lacks, because of my own sapiential shortcomings, and how it might be slanted, as a result of the private judgments I exercised. This closing exercise is for the sake of raising awareness. Every account of historical development is fundamentally an exercise in private judgement. Regardless of the historian’s sincerity and the equitability of his or her endeavor.

This reflection develops the process by which doctrinal clarity unfolded, and it makes a very specific claim about doctrinal development. The final authority of a doctrine has always rested on the catholicity of that doctrine. That doctrine has always been received by a consensus of pastor-theologians; in the early church, we would call these people the ecclesial leadership, and they were always bishops. However, consensus emerged first from the voice of a solitary figure that represented the body ecclesial politic, championed Orthodox doctrine, and chose not to be silent. This person functioned as a personal trainer, who conditioned the church-catholic to exercise sound Orthodoxy, and this person functioned as a nutritionist, who helped the church cut out of its diet unhealthy heresy.

This is the third chapter of my contextual introduction to the New Testament, From Crisis to Christ (Nashville, TN: 2014), 51-74. It was published on the Bible and Interpretation site, May 2015 as an example of my new approach to biblical studies, which I call "second criticality." That essay is also posted on the Bible and Interpretation site.

This paper was presented at the Ratzinger Symposium on The Gospels: Christological and Historical Research, held at the Lateran University in October 2013 (draft). It is published in  The Gospels: History and Christology; the Search of Joseph Ratzinger—Benedict XVI, Vol. 2 (eds. Bernardo Estrada, Ermenegildo Manicardi, Armand Puig I Tarrech; Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2013), 63-81. The second link has the original printing, just posted on the GFU Digital Commons Website.

In this research thesis we will discover that Augustine’s opinion that concupiscence was an evil, hereditary stain of original sin was not in line with the agreed-upon tradition of the earliest of Church fathers but there are strong arguments for believing that this opinion was based on non-Christian or spurious sources, the most probable direct source being the “Ambrosiaster” document. On this shaky foundation of the inheritance of concupiscence, Augustine built the idea of the massa damnata. It was a novel doctrine, since it was incompatible with the earlier Orthodox tradition. Augustine's claim that this denial of limbo and the positive damnation of unbaptized infants was part of the Catholic tradition, was a novelty to the Church universal. It was unsupported by early sources. This leads me to conclude that Augustine’s threefold philosophical structure of concupiscence, massa damnata and the positive damnation of unbaptized infants was not in accordance with “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3b, NKJV). The lack of orthodox evidence supporting an idea of genetically inheriting sin substantially weakens the basis as proffered by Augustine.

*Published on the website Eclectic Orthodoxy.

Many of the critics of David Bentley Hart’s presentation of universalism in his That All Shall Be Saved argue that he doesn’t give nearly enough weight to church tradition. I agree. However, these critics, the latest one being the Eastern Orthodox priest Fr Lawrence Farley, tend to go on to say that not only does Hart not care about church tradition, but that the Orthodox Church Tradition speaks univocally against Hart’s universalist claims. The latter claim is where I demur. While Hart doesn’t much seem to care what church tradition has to say about universalism, it is nevertheless the case that there is a very strong stream of Orthodox Church Tradition (though certainly not the only stream) that supports him, not just in his universalism per se, but also in his arguments in support of it. I’m not just talking about St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Isaac the Syrian, but several others as well. In this response to Fr Lawrence Farley’s review, my goal is to show the deep patristic foundations of Hart’s book and to respond to many of Farley’s criticisms using mostly the church fathers, although my own voice will chime in briefly from time to time.

Rather than following the trajectory of Farley’s review, I will begin by looking at what Farley sees as Hart’s pitiful use of scripture and tradition and then move on to look at Farley’s analysis of Hart’s arguments and rhetoric. The reader should also remember that Hart’s book was written to the Christian world at large, and his references to church tradition don’t typically refer specifically to Orthodox Church Tradition. Nevertheless, since this review is a response to Fr Lawrence who is concerned solely with Eastern Orthodox Church Tradition, when I say Church Tradition in this post, unless I qualify it, I mean the Orthodox Church Tradition.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2021/02/02/the-deep-patristic-roots-of-harts-universalism-a-response-to-fr-lawrence-farley/