Irenaeus: Catholic or Evangelical? (w/ Dr. Matthew J. Thomas)

[@NewNostalgia]

This episode was most enlightening as I've only heard quotes from Irenaeus on youtube in the past. I was delighted to see the professor had an Eastlake Victorian mirror in the background, probably attached to an Eastlake Victorian dress. I have an Eastlake Victorian dresser from my great grandmother that was purchased in about 1880 in Malta Ohio. My grandfather told me that he recalled when he was age 3 he could barely reach up to the dresser. The design of my 144 year old Eastlake Victorian piece of furniture in design is very much as shown in the background of this video.

[@kevinstauffer7223]

I follow this podcast faithfully - thank you Keith, it has been a lifeline for my questions. I am an Anabaptist - dipping my toes in the Tiber. My ears perked when Dr. Thomas mentioned Anabaptists and also having some of that in his background. Although we are in the protestant mileau, I would be so grateful to hear more specifically how former Anabaptists worked through their background and returned to the Church. That may not affect many of your viewers, but I would be extremely grateful if you could point me in the direction of anyone you know like that. Thanks again for all you do! Sheree

[@tbojai]

So after hearing this talk from Dr. Matt I ordered a copy of Against Heresies on Amazon. Since opening up the work, I feel like I have indeed “ascended into the heavenlies” as Matt said. What an amazing work! Thank you again for the “Irenaeus Reading Plan”. I’m so glad that I knew where to start.

[@John-el5jv]

Very good episode. That is the clearest explanation of the Quartodeciman controversy that I have ever heard. I am really looking forward to Dr. Thomas's book on Clement of Rome.

[@timmaddock2672]

Great interview! Always enjoy hearing from Dr Thomas... thanks Keith :)

[@jambangoni]

Loved it. Thank you

[@jonathanbohl]

Thanks!

[@timmaddock2672]

Btw Keith I spoke with Dr Thomas and he is making a formal complaint (through his legal representative Tim Maddock) against this episode’s title 😂 (but thanks again for the episode!)

[@Lya3588]

👍🙏

[@stmartin17773]

Dr Thomas' "I'm persuaded that there's not a more important theologian [St Irenaeus] in Christian theological [post-Apostolic] history". P.s. " Dr Thomas' book "Paul's 'Works of the Law'"......"theologically explosive" NT Wright

[@StayFaithful13]

Epic fat at 58:30 😂

[@paulsmallwood1484]

The Roman position that Apostolic Tradition is necessary to properly understand Scripture is identical to the claims of the Gnostics which Irenaeus set out to refute, yet his refutations somehow have been turned upside down to be presented as a ringing endorsement for the need for tradition! As for how Irenaeus believed we should approach the scriptures, and what he believed was the key to understanding them properly, it is best to allow him to speak for himself: “If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries…. “If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things.12””

[@tonyl3762]

"identical to the claims of the Gnostics which Irenaeus set out to refute" You really don't know what you're talking about here. The gnostics never appealed to apostolic tradition or apostolic succession, or at least not credibily, as Irenaeus did and as the Catholic Church has always done. That quote of Irenaeus does not prove sola Scriptura or a rejection of Tradition and Church authority. He's merely saying there are things hard to explain or reconcile in Scripture but that such things should not worry us. THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL THAT PASSAGE SAYS. Why even try to claim Ireaneus as your own on this point? Prepare yourself to be shocked by Irenaeus' complete view of authority, which is NOT limited to Scripture alone: “Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it *behooves us to learn the truth, [namely,] from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles* and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech. For *these also preserve this faith of ours* in one God who created all things; and they increase that love [which we have] for the Son of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensations for our sake: and *they expound the Scriptures to us without danger,* neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets.” (Against Heresies, 4, 26, 2, 5; Ch. 26 is entitled “THE TRUE EXPOSITION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CHURCH ALONE“) “And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently *read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine,* as I have pointed out.” (Against Heresies, 4, 32, 1) “Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not *have recourse to the most ancient Churches* with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? *For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?* ” (Against Heresies 3,4, 1) “These things, too, were preached to the Gentiles by word, *without [the aid of] the Scriptures:* wherefore, also, they who preached among the Gentiles underwent greater labour. But, on the other hand, the faith of the Gentiles is proved to be of a more noble description, since they followed the word of God *without the instruction [derived] from the [sacred] writings* (sine instructione literarum).” (Against Heresies, 4, 24, 2) “[W]e refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God. But our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these *Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation.* For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and *the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles.* For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as *the interpretation of the elders* contains them.” (Against Heresies, 3, 21, 3) “ *True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved* without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy….” (Against Heresies, 4, 33, 8; Chapter 33 is entitled “WHOSOEVER…DILIGENTLY *READS THE SCRIPTURES IN COMPANY WITH THE PRESBYTERS OF THE CHURCH,* IS A TRUE SPIRITUAL DISCIPLE; AND HE WILL RIGHTLY UNDERSTAND AND INTERPRET ALL THAT THE PROPHETS HAVE DECLARED RESPECTING CHRIST AND THE LIBERTY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT”) “When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce…. But, again, when *we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches,* they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth…. It comes to this, therefore, that *these men [heretics] do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition* ” (Against Heresies 3, 2, 1-2) "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up *the successions of all the Churches,* we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that *tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome* by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which *comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority,* that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." (Against Heresies 3, 3, 2)

[@paulsmallwood1484]

He was neither Roman Catholic or Evangelical. He was part of the primitive church.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

Ireneaus was neither a contemporary Roman Catholic or a contemporary Evangelical. There is no reason to make him a Roman Catholic or make him a contemporary Evangelical. By the way Roman Catholic is not the same as catholic since the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in the first centuries)

[@CPATuttle]

The Catholic Church in 2022 still doesn’t call itself “Roman Catholic”. It’s the Catholic Church. And it has the Latin Rite and 23 different eastern rites. That are all under the Bishop of Rome as one world wide Catholic Church. It’s not the name that makes the church true. It’s the apostolic succession like Ireneaus taught. And it’s the Catholic Church can trace every Pope to Jesus without any period of interruption.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@CPATuttle I think holy scriptures trumps Ireneaus. There is nothing about an historic succession of bishops in scripture with lists that go back to the apostles and therefore only these specific individuals can infallibly teach. However, there is.certainly the need for each generation of pastors to be faithful to apostolic teaching as enscripturated in the Bible. That is true apostolic succession.

[@CPATuttle]

@@paulsmallwood1484 I don’t recall anyone writing Ireneaus was a heretic. Or anyone refuting his writings on his apostolic succession. He actually wrote of what scripture and what’s not. He wrote that he use to hear Polycarp preach. He’s consistent with scripture, one authority, along with the oral tradition of the church not written. Look at the Old Testament. Succession of authority is explicit. It’s divine. Jesus is the new Moses. He models the church from it. Numbers 27:12-23 in particular the last verse

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@CPATuttle Chris you are right. Ireneaus was not a heretic. But like all the church fathers, he was not infallible and in this matter he made a mistake. The mistake didn’t rise to the level of heresy for sure. There were all kinds of things going in the Christian community at that time with regard to fighting false teachers. I am sure this was an attempt to respond to that.

[@CPATuttle]

@@paulsmallwood1484 And there’s divine succession of authority, the high priest, in the Old Testament, with the laying of the hands too. This happened until the destruction of the second temple. Jesus started the third

[@BornAgainRN]

Irenaeus also did not believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

[@EpoRose1]

Source, please. All I found was what he wrote *against* a heretic- St. Irenaeus (+202), Father of the Church, recorded that Cerinthus “represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while He nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men.”

[@EpoRose1]

Against Heresies

[@EpoRose1]

From the University of Dayton’s website, under the article- Perpetual Virginity in the Early Church There are suggestions that Irenaeus (d. circa 220) and Justin (d. circa 165) may have alluded to Mary's virginitas in partu, but there are no explicit statements by either author.

[@EpoRose1]

Your turn!

[@EpoRose1]

I said “All I found was..” I didn’t actually claim there was definitive proof either way, however the original commenter claimed Irenaeus didn’t believe in the perpetual virginity with no source, which I’m still waiting for. You asked for source, and I provided. Would you happen to know the source the original commenter used?

[@aGoyforJesus]

False dilemma

[@yonlee6960]

👍🙏