Sure, all of these thinkers are more complex than I can possibly acknowledge in a quick lecture like this. But Irenaeus is widely recognized as arguably the first theologian to really codify the idea of apostolic tradition as the rule of faith, so in that sense he rightly serves as the founder of theological voluntarism. Also, your description of the "gnostics" (we should retire that term entirely IMO) as promoting "heretical beliefs" indicates exactly my point: there was no such thing as orthodoxy or heresy. These were being constructed by people like Irenaeus to force groups like the Valentinians and Sethians out of the "true Christian" community. It didn't have to be that way. These demiurgical groups were actually not all that different from the supposedly "orthodox" party. Both groups had demiurges in their divine pantheon, disparaged bodily existence, longed for a spiritual redemption from the flesh, etc. The sharp differences we see in the record of folks like Irenaeus is a retroactive creation designed to justify their exclusion. It exemplifies the work of orthodoxy as violent authoritarianism.

@@dwcongdon but my point relying on Behr and the original understanding of heresy (original Greek heresia) was that Irenaeus didn’t isolate them, they isolated themselves. I understand that you’re using him sort of as a spring board for your broader point but I still feel like that an important distinction to make that nature of heresy is less about holding wrong beliefs but refusing unity. By contrast Protestants didn’t really isolate themselves the people were abandoned by the clergy and Luther and others attempted to “return” to something older that would have a place for the common man while still recognizing Catholics and orthodox as fellow Christians

@@bradleymarshall5489 Behr's work is great, but I disagree with that framing. That's what I was trying to explain. Except for a handful of Nag Hammadi texts, our main sources about these demiurgical groups are written by the orthodox party that had a vested interest in rejecting them. Were some of these demiurgical groups elitist in their own sense of spiritual superiority? Undoubtedly that was likely the case. But that doesn't mean the "orthodox" party had some kind of grand humility and openness to others. They clearly did not. The most generous reading of Irenaeus and others would lead me to argue there are two different forms of elitism or superiority going on here, based on different criteria of truth: the orthodox party wants to define truth based on the testimony of a select group of apostles who they claim had privileged access to divine revelation, whereas the alternative parties claim that they have access to divine revelation outside of the apostles. It's analogous to a distinction today between traditional Reformed Protestants and Oneness Pentecostals. There are important theological differences between these two, but framing the Pentecostals as the ones who separated themselves is an overly prejudiced and ideological framing of the distinction, which already presumes the very framework of orthodoxy and heresy that these Pentecostals (or ancient "gnostics" by analogy) are calling into question. Does that make sense?

@@dwcongdon ya that does make sense although I think it somewhat relies on an assumption of truth being more difficult to find then it actually is which might be where we have to agree to disagree. I mean if I want to know about cars I would think the grandson of Henry Ford (Irenaeus) would be a more reliable than someone from a third world country who only rode in a car once and then considers himself an expert (bad analogy but hopefully that gets across my point). To think that Irenaeus is being dishonest and relying on “authoritarianism” relies on a certain view of human nature I’m not willing to accept and very strong case can be made wasn’t held by most significant Christian figures irregardless of denomination

@@bradleymarshall5489 I understand your point, but the only reason we regard Irenaeus today as more authoritative is because the "orthodox" party were the victors thanks to what we would have to regard as a propaganda campaign that eventually led them to gain imperial recognition. It's anachronistic and ahistorical to assume Irenaeus was obviously a more authoritative at the time. That was not the case. There was no orthodoxy then. There are dozens of different groups all claiming fidelity to Christ. We also can't forget how similar the "orthodox" party was to the Valentinians and Sethians. Arguably Irenaeus and Tertullian would not have engaged in their campaign if Marcion had not been the first to develop a canon. Their dislike of his canon led them to offer a counter version, and eventually more people came to agree with the Irenaean side. That doesn't mean he has greater access to truth. It just means he was more persuasive, particularly to those in positions of power.

If you watch my lectures you'll see that I interpret the Reformed tradition in precisely the opposite way that you do. I have no interest in "keeping the heritage" alive, as if this tradition is in itself something to preserve. The tradition is only a witness to a reality that is utterly beyond it, and much that is historically Reformed ought to burn like so much chaff. If nothing else, I hope my lectures hasten the necessary burning that is long overdue.

Very much so, at least in the way most people use that phrase. That idea of individual salvation typically involves believing certain doctrines or performing certain rites (such as baptism) that are assumed to be the exclusive vehicles of saving grace. There are intellectualist alternatives, but most people dismiss them as outside of Christianity. See my book, Varieties of Christian Universalism. My chapter on “existential universalism” is an intellectualist account of salvation.

@@dwcongdon will do. Thank you!