|
Listen to this post:
|
Just one more installment on Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon at the end of the 100s, a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple of Papias, who was a disciple of the apostle John).
Sometimes in his flailing away at the gnostics, Irenaeus pauses to cite a common creed, presumably baptismal creeds, at any rate, summaries of belief which he says are used by catholic Christians in the late 100s.
Here are parts of three of them:
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” [Ephesians 1:10] and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow… and that every tongue should confess” [Philippians 2:10-1] to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all… Against Heresies I. 10.1, p. 330
The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist…the Father made all things by Him… For God needs none of these things, but is He who, by his Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence, – He who formed the world… is the God of Abraham… above whom there is no other God… He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ… Against Heresies I.22.1, p. 347
…carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who… condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered… and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory… Against Heresies III.4.2, p. 417.
Question time:
- Is the one true God here a Trinity of equally divine persons? (trinitarian) Or is the one true God the Father? (unitarian)
- Father, Son, and Spirit are confessed in these creeds. Do they in some sense compose the one God? (trinitarian) Or is the one true God the first and preeminent member of this “Trinity”? (unitarian)
- A being here is asserted as the unique, ultimate cause of the cosmos, the only being who is Creator in the absolute sense. Who is it? Is it the Father only? (unitarian) Or is it the three co-equal divine persons together, the Trinity? (trinitarian) Or is this unique, ultimate source both Father and Son, or Father and Son and Spirit? (confused trinitarian)
And looking back at these first four posts in the series, on the whole, is Irenaeus a unitarian, trinitarian, both, or neither?
Pingback: A Simple Guide to the Differences between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism | Defunct Creakings of a Cog
When we look at Irenaeus citing that rule of faith, we need to consider the context of his other writings such as AGAINST HERESIES 3:19:2:
“He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him.”
Blessings,
Jim
@ Dale [#24, March 8, 2013 at 9:53 am]
And who, pray tell, would be the “Son” before the Incarnation of God’s Logos in/as Jesus of Nazareth? Who would be the “Spirit”? Perhaps two “persons”, if not eternal, at least “pre-existent”? And where, pray tell, do you find all this in the NT? And where, pray tell, do you find all this in the beliefs and practices of early Christianity? When will you realize that the problem, before it is with the (late) dogma of the “co-equality and co-eternity”, IS in the very notion of the “pre-existent personality” of the Son and with the “personality” of the Spirit? This “trinitarianism” is the worst, the most pernicious form, because, while the “trinitarianism” of Constantinople 381 is the manifest product of the attempt to cure the “original sin”, it is the “original sin” itself that you stop short of rejecting.
MdS
Hi Aiden,
Thanks much for your comments; you are always welcome here.
“implausible and anachronistic”
I wonder if this is just because of associations you have with with the word “unitarian” (e.g. that it means anti-trinitarian, or quasi-deism, or… something modern) But I use it only with the explained meaning. I refuse to let the UU people ruin a perfectly good word.
“fundamentally trinitarian confessional, sacramental, liturgical, and ascetical praxis of the Church”
“Trinitarian” as in having to do with the Father, Son, and Spirit – yes. But “trinitarian” as in involving belief in a tripersonal God – no.
“you underestimate the soteriological and evangelical concerns that drive trinitarian reflection.”
I certainly haven’t discussed the speculations to the effect that Jesus could not save unless he was divine, which I see starting with Irenaeus. Interesting topic, to be sure. I also see beginning with him the idea that the incarnation itself did something to accomplish salvation – just the uniting of the natures. A very difficult idea, despite its familiarity.
Both? 😛
Dale, I want to thank you for raising this question about whether St Irenaeus was a trinitarian Christian. It’s been a long while since I read him, and as a result of your blog I expect I will eventually find myself reading him again over the next year or two (God willing).
I do find your argument that Irenaeus, and along with him the mainstream 2nd century Christian Church, was unitarian in belief and practice implausible and anachronistic; but I imagine you would say the same about my own trinitarian convictions. It seems far more likely to me that Christian theologians of the second and third centuries were struggling, in second order reflection, to make sense intellectually and theologically, with only relative success, of the fundamentally trinitarian confessional, sacramental, liturgical, and ascetical praxis of the Church in the collision with Hellenistic apprehensions of deity. And I find it exceptionally unlikely that the trinitarian theologies of Athanasius and the Cappadocians became the “orthodox” theology because of either their excessive dogmatism and zeal or because of imperial coercion. I believe you underestimate the soteriological and evangelical concerns that drive trinitarian reflection.
Hence I believe that Leonard Hodgson’s statement that “Christianity began as a trinitarian religion with a unitarian theology” far closer to the truth than the suggestion that 1st and 2nd century Christianity was a unitarian religion that somehow was taken captive and radically transformed into a different religion altogether.
In my internet searches on Irenaeus I found this one dissertation that may be of interest: The Trinitarian Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons. FYI.
I have enjoyed reading your blog pieces. I like being challenged by thoughtful people.
@ Helez [#20, March 6, 2013 at 8:43 am]
Your understanding of Jesus Christ, his origin and his role is so radically different from mine, that there is no point carrying on. But there is a point, that of Incarnation, on which I would like to understand your point a bit more, if at all possible.
[a] John does NOT say that “God created someone who acted as God’s most important spokesman”, John says, precisely and crystal-clearly, “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), the very same Word of which (which …) John had said that it (it …) was “[i]n the beginning”, that it “was with God” and that it “was God”.
[b] It is at least dubious that the author of the Book of Revelation is the same as the author of the Gospel of John. But why would the Book of Revelation have been “evidently” written before the Gospel?
[c] The Prologue to the Gospel of John does NOT speak of a “person [who] came to earth”, BUT of the “Word [that] became flesh”.
[d] What is this supposed to mean? What about the “time”? What about the “universal audience”?
MdS
MdS,
Heb 1:1-3 and Col 1:13-16 both speak explicitly about “the Son”, and 1Co 8:6 speaks about the person called “Jesus Christ”, not just “the Word”, and not by way of prolepsis. So, indeed, Scripture makes clear that God created “through” or “by means of” the Son. Was this pre-existence only ideal, in the mind of God?
Further, we have every reason the believe that the Word in John 1:3 refers the prehuman Son of God, as this one was with God in the beginning (it’s a bit of a silly thing to say that someone’s actual word is with that one as an entity being distinct from that one) and because that Word became flesh (v. 14).
I reject all of these “incarnation”-theories, in which the (actual) word of God (or worse, God Himself) “incarnates” in/as a human being. I don’t believe this is a sensible nor scriptural concept. I simply understand that God created someone who acted as God’s most important spokesman, and as such was given the title “The Word of God” (compare Re 19:13, also written by John, evidently before he wrote his Gospel). That person came to earth. This understanding is also much more fitting if we keep in mind the time John wrote his Gospel and the universal audience he was addressing.
In regard of your second point, I believe we have every reason to comprehend that the need for a Messiah, both as Mediator and Savior, directly relates to human sin and mankind’s fallen state. Why would there be a need for a specific foreordained perfect human being to “lead man to the full harmony with the One and Only God,” if the earth would have been filled with perfect human beings perfectly able of living in full harmony with the Almighty? Why assume that Jesus role as Mediator would have happened even if mankind had not fallen? The very first Bible prophecy, (Ge 3:14-17) which also introduces/points to the Messiah, was a direct response to sin.
Peace.
@ Fr Aidan Kimel [#17, March 5, 2013 at 6:25 pm]
Instead of getting trapped in wild speculations about the God and “the Logos … eternally internal to God”, I think you and all others should seriously consider the historical-creedal facts, which are perfectly accounted for here:
“Since the second century, Christian creeds included affirmation of belief in “God the Father (Almighty)”, primarily as his capacity as “Father and creator of the universe”.[Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Creeds Longmans:1960, p.136; p.139; p.195 respectively] Yet, in Christianity the concept of God as the father of Jesus is distinct from the concept of God as the Creator and father of all people, as indicated in the Apostle’s Creed where the expression of belief in the “Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth” is immediately, but separately followed by in “Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord”, thus expressing both senses of fatherhood.[Symbols of Jesus: a Christology of symbolic engagement by Robert C. Neville 2002, page 26]” – Wikipedia > God the Father (bolding added)
Does the above entail any implication on the “personal pre-existence”, or even eternity of Jesus Christ? Not one bit.
MdS
” Can you conceive of God the Father apart from Jesus of Nazareth? I suspect he would answer no.”
Hard to say. If I’m right that he presupposes a two-stage logos theory, then the Logos was eternally internal to God, and was expressed only because God wanted to create, by these “hands”, one of which is the Logos. So if God, being free, hadn’t decided to create, the eternally, Logos and Wisdom would remain internal. But then, he’d say that there couldn’t be an incarnation – God the Father is too transcendent for that. And there would be no *personal* Logos. So then would say Yes – he can conceive of it, in his view it is possible that there be the Father but not the Son, Jesus. On the other hand, he may try to pass off this stage 1 internal attribute as Jesus… And God can’t be without his Logos.
“I’m afraid that’s a non sequitur, my friend. Plato didn’t have these terms: universals, libertarian free will, divine simplicity. But we can argue about whether or not those terms rightly describe his theories. The question surely can be formulated; it has been.”
Fair enough, Dale. I had to go back and find your definition of unitarianism. I found this: “unitarian Christian would be defined as an Abrahamic unitarian who accepts the this one true God’s Messiah is the man Jesus.” By this definition then Irenaeus certainly falls into this category, but I suspect he wouldn’t be happy about being classified as such. The question I would want to put to Irenaeus is: Can you conceive of God the Father apart from Jesus of Nazareth? I suspect he would answer no.
@ Helez
First, God created everything by means of His Word, but there is no need to assume that, when the preincarnate Word is referred to as “Son”, or “Christ” (in particular by Paul), this is other than by way of prolepsis (=representation of something or someone as existing before its proper or historical time).
Second, there is no need to assume that the Incarnation of God’s Eternal Logos in/as Jesus Christ happened ONLY in response to human sin. As Duns Scotus (1266 –1308) affirmed (and I with him), the purpose of Christ is, primarily (that is as part of God’s “fundamental plan”), to be the Mediator between God an man, who leads man to the full harmony with the One and Only God, the Father Almighty, even to man’s “deification” (theosis). Because of the fallen state of mankind (contingent, NOT necessary, and fruit of man’s freedom), this deification is only possible, though, if Jesus Christ rescues mankind from its fallen state: so Jesus cannot be Mediator unless he is Saviour.
The role of Jesus as Mediator is more fundamental than his role of Saviour, because it would have happened even if mankind had not fallen.
MdS
MsD,
As noted before, I assume your are familiar with the scriptures written by Paul and John, including citations of Jesus himself, that, at least apparently, speak of Jesus existing as a person before his birth in Bethlehem.
In regard of this specific issue, I think it is enough to refer to the scriptures stating that God created everything “through” or “by means of” the Son. If the Son’s prehuman existence is only notional or ideal, this would mean that God must have known, eternally or before creation, that there would be a need for a Messiah.
Hi Aiden,
“My immediate response to your questions is … they cannot be answered as formulated, because they assume an understanding of the Holy Trinity that did not get formulated for another two hundred years.”
I’m afraid that’s a non sequitur, my friend. Plato didn’t have these terms: universals, libertarian free will, divine simplicity. But we can argue about whether or not those terms rightly describe his theories. The question surely can be formulated; it has been. 🙂
And you understand it, and answer, I believe: neither – that Irenaeus is neither trin nor unit. That is a possible answer, as is “both” (although, then he’d have a self-contradictory view). But please review the definition of “unitarian” I’m assuming (linked in the first post in this series) – Irenaneus’ views DO fit that concept, do they not? I
“He doesn’t ask the kinds of questions that were later asked in the fourth century. Hence any attempt to put him into either the Nicene or Arian camp is anachronistic.”
I’m afraid you’re assuming that our discourse must be confined to standard theological categories. I have not trouble with those, so long as they are descriptive and helpful; they need to divide the subject matter at the joints, so to speak. I think my suggested terms (really – they’re not mine – they’re common coin) do this. I was not classifying Irenaeus as either a Nicene or as an Arian – but only as a unitarian.
“Hence I would have to describe Irenaeus as an incipient trinitarian. What he presents us is a trinitarian-narrative identification of God utterly driven by soteriological concerns.”
So, he’s neither, if I’ve understood you – but also, he’s an “incipient trinitarian”? I understand that the point of this is to put him in a camp together with, or somehow to bring him near fully developed catholic trinitarianism. But what does this term mean? What does it take to be an “incipient” trinitarian? That doesn’t imply that you’re a trinitarian, right? Is it compatible with being a unitarian, as I’ve defined it?
@ Helez [#12, March 5, 2013 at 6:05 am]
Care to provide scriptural quotations in support of your claim of “Jesus’ prehuman existence, as presented in the Bible”?
Thanks
MdS
MsD,
In short, if Jesus’ prehuman existence, as presented in the Bible, is only notional or ideal, this would mean that God must have known, before creation, that there would be a need for a Messiah. Subsequently, he must have foreknown that Adam and Eve, before their procreation, would abuse their free moral agency and would sin against God, with the subsequent results in regard of the condition of humanity and life on earth.
@ Helez [#10, March 5, 2013 at 5:00 am]
Care to expand and explain? What is the link between “denying the actual prehuman existing of Jesus as a proper and distinct person” and “predestination”?
Thanks
MdS
MsD,
Besides, denying the actual prehuman existing of Jesus as a proper and distinct person generates other unsolvable major issues. (Like requiring belief in a form of predestination, which, IMO, is intrinsically incompatible with the free moral agency of God’s intelligent creatures.)
MsD,
I obviously disagree. I believe I simply take them how they were meant by the inspired writers themselves.
@ Helez [#5, March 4, 2013 at 3:18 pm]
Which is just you way of saying that you read all those passages through “pre-existence specs”, maybe even “trinitarian specs” … 😉
MdS
@ Fr Aidan Kimel [#4, March 4, 2013 at 1:41 pm]
[a] Very well said. But another question immediately issues from “distinguishing between God in his inner transcendent being, apart from creation, and God as he has revealed himself in the economy of creation and salvation”: is the doctrine of the “trinity” that was eventually established at Constantinople, 381 –what is referred to as the “immanent (or essential) trinity”– the true, genuine, scriptural account of “God in his inner transcendent being”, or is it not, instead, the inevitable mysterian consequence of the unscriptural homoousios of Nicea?
[b] Did Irenaeus really affirm the “Son” and Holy Spirit as persons (proper, distinct persons – or selves, as Dale prefers to say), OR does he rather not repeatedly affirm that they are the “hands” of the One God and Father Almighty, YHWH, God’s “limbs”, so to speak?
Of course, a God with “limbs” would not be simple, but is a “co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal god” simple? (Or, for that matter, a “tri-hypostatic, subordinationist god”?)
MdS
Fr. Kimel,
Is Fr. Hopko and Behr’s view namely, the One God is the Father not the Holy Trinity well received in the EO church? I listened to some podcasts from ancientfaithradio,and some EO clergy embrace the same view as the Latin west in my opinion.
MsD,
I assume your are familiar with the scriptures written by Paul and John, including citations of Jesus himself, that, at least apparently, speak of Jesus existing as a person before his birth in Bethlehem. And I’m already very familiar with the (unsatisfactory) way unitarians who deny the prehuman existence of the Messiah interpret these scriptures. I don’t think this is the right place or time to discuss these.
Peace to you.
My immediate response to your questions is … they cannot be answered as formulated, because they assume an understanding of the Holy Trinity that did not get formulated for another two hundred years. The catholic doctrine of the Trinity presupposes the distinguishing between God in his inner transcendent being, apart from creation, and God as he has revealed himself in the economy of creation and salvation. As far as I can tell St Irenaeus simply does not engage in that kind of speculation. He doesn’t ask the kinds of questions that were later asked in the fourth century. Hence any attempt to put him into either the Nicene or Arian camp is anachronistic.
Hence I would have to describe Irenaeus as an incipient trinitarian. What he presents us is a trinitarian-narrative identification of God utterly driven by soteriological concerns.
@ Helez [#2, March 4, 2013 at 12:14 pm]
Provide the quotations, then we can discuss them … 😉
MdS
“where do we ever find in the Christian Scriptures that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, […] would have somehow pre-existed as a person his conception, birth and existence on earth? ”
IMO, in the inspired writings of Paul and John. 🙂
[a] As already commented at the previous thread (“Irenaeus’s 2-stage Logos theory”) Irenaeus’ fundamental position (although there are some inconsistencies and oscillations in his texts), is that God’s Logos and Pneuma are NOT two distinct hypostases, BUT God’s “hands”, that is God’s two essential attributes (for comments on the use of the word “attributes”, and Dales’s objections, and my clarifications, see also the same thread).
As for the Apostles’ Creed, individual statements of belief included in the Apostles’ Creed – even those not found in the Old Roman Symbol (the precursor to Textus Receptus of the Apostles’ Creed) – are found in various writings, not only by Irenaeus, but also by Tertullian and Novatian and, later, after the original Nicene Creed of 325, by Marcellus, and even later, after the expanded Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, by Rufinus, and Ambrose, Augustine, Nicetus, and Eusebius Gallus.
[b] Neither the Apostle’s Creed, nor the various statements of belief included in the Apostles’ Creed and miscellaneously produced by various authors (see above) are per se “trinitarian”: they speak of “one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth” AND of “Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation” (without specifying that he was “pre-existent” the incarnation), AND of “the Holy Spirit” (without specifying that it ever was a distinct “person” – or “self”, as Dale prefers to say).
So, for the umpteenth time, the real question is: unless we read the NT (and the OT, for that matter) with “trinitarian/ tri-personal specs”, where do we ever find in the Christian Scriptures that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Incarnation of God’s Word and God’s Messiah would have somehow pre-existed as a person his conception, birth and existence on earth? IMO, nowhere.
The next question is: unless we read the NT (and the OT, for that matter) with “trinitarian/ tri-personal specs”, where do we ever find in the Christian Scriptures that God’s Holy Spirit was/is a distinct person (in the obvious sense of the word person – or “self”, as Dale prefers to say)? IMO, nowhere.
[c] Irenaeus is neither “unitarian” nor “trinitarian “: he affirms the “One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth”, essentially endowed with His two “hands”, His Word and His Spirit.
MdS
Comments are closed.