What common elements were there among the various heresies which Irenæus sought to address? Evaluate the theological devices he used to refute them.

Introduction

Irenæus of Lyons based his theological arguments on an appeal to history, using the orthodox beliefs and traditions of the church and apostolic succession to establish his points. He “believed that he could undermine contemporary Valentinians by showing that they had forerunners and that these forerunners were wrong and perverted”.[1] Gnosticism was not “a pagan misunderstanding of Christianity, but … a sectarian movement within the Church itself”[2] – and therefore, Irenæus used Scripture to argue against the Gnostic heretics. Since the Gnostics were using the Bible (albeit a heretical interpretation) to defend their position, Irenæus tried to point out their errors of interpretation of theology using Christian orthodoxy and Scripture. He did this by first listing the various errors of the different sects within Gnosticism, then attempting to point out the places where the Gnostics had strayed from orthodox Christianity. This was done out of a belief that “‘in the Church, … God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers,’ and all the other means through which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behavior”[3] and a desire to bring those who had strayed from the truth back to catholic orthodoxy.

On Christ’s birth and if He could die

The one thing all the sects of Gnostic heretics had in common was the belief that the person of Jesus Christ could not have been fully man and fully God. In its most fundamental form, Gnosticism held to a dualist view of the world – a “divine world of which ‘spirit’ was held to be a displaced native”.[4] Some took the side the Christ was from the Father and had simply passed through his mother Mary, from which “we may trace back to the Gnostic period the Apollinarian error … that Christ was not derived from the blessed Virgin, but that it was of heavenly substance, and was only brought forth into the world through her instrumentality”.[5] The argument was that Christ certainly could not have been her true son, since it would be impossible for Him to be sinless and yet born of a human (and therefore sinful) woman. Common on this side as well was the belief that Christ was not actually human himself – that he was visible, but not a real body and not a real man. The Saturninus and Basilides went as far as to say that Christ did not suffer death, but that Simon (of Cyrene) took his place and died on the cross (since evidently God as Christ could not die) while Christ received the form of Simon and lived.[6] According to this tradition, Christ also could not feel pain; “With men he seemed a man, though not a man; he seemed to suffer in Judea, though he did not suffer”.[7] The Cerinthus took a slightly different approach on the same idea that Christ could not have died – that “at the last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being”.[8] Others held to the argument of the Carpocrates, who said that Jesus was the real son of Joseph, and since being born of Joseph and Mary as a human could not have actually come from the Father and been God. Instead, they equated Jesus to be on level with Peter and Paul, who possessed much self-discipline but were likewise not a part of God.[9]  Irenæus’ counter in this situation was simple and powerful, coming directly from Scripture, orthodoxy, and tradition – “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”.[10] The Gospels, accepted by the Gnostics as Scripture, were clear.

On the dualistic view between matter and spirit

As Irenæus pointed out, “the Gnostics taught a doctrine of two Gods, denying both the goodness of the Creator and the omnipotence of the Father of the Pleroma. In their eagerness to segregate matter from spirit, evil from good, the Gnostics dissolved at once the unity of the world and the unity of God”.[11] This dualist philosophy, Irenæus pointed out, ignored “that if the Lord had known many fathers and gods, he would not have taught His disciples to know [only] one God, and to call Him alone Father”.[12] In addition to citing the Lord’s singleness of loyalty to one Father, Irenæus called in the prophets – whom the Lord said were “from one and the same Father”[13] as He Himself was. One of these prophets, Irenæus points out, wrote that “‘I am a jealous God, making peace, and creating evil things’”[14] – thereby showing that denying the ability of one God and Father to be at once creating peace and evil things denies the authenticity of not only the prophets, but also of the Lord. By showing that the Father – who had unquestioned legitimacy – had both sides of this nature, the argument that it was impossible to contain both natures was refuted by the very good combination of Scripture, the prophets, and God the Father.

On the interpretation of Scripture

Another common thread between different sects of heresies was the interpretation of Scripture to fit patterns of numbers. Irenæus explains the Gnostic’s position, that “they endeavour to bring forward proofs … sometimes through means of numbers and the syllables of names, sometimes also through the letter of syllables, and yet again through those numbers which are, according to the practice followed by the Greeks, contained in [different] letters”.[15] This, he believed, showed only “the untenable and perverse character of their [professed] knowledge”,[16] not any success on their part in explaining the scriptures and certainly no gain. The number 30 was particularly central, and was thought to be the number of Ӕons included in the one Pleroma. Irenæus’ method of theological refutation was unusually weak in this area – his argument that the number 30 was not significant centered on his personal belief that Christ “did not want much of being fifty years old”[17] since he was referenced as being “not yet fifty years old”.[18]

The idea of an Æon, 30 or no, was not well grounded – the Valentinians “maintain[ed]… that in the invisible and ineffable heights above there exists a certain perfect, pre-existent Ӕon”[19] – but had nothing to show to back up the idea of this existence. These æons, it was believed, had a common essence being neither human nor born, but were sent forth by emanations by means of conjunction until there were thirty of them.[20] Each one was an “Ӕon who never grows old and exists in a virgin spirit”,[21] according to the Gnostic sect Barbeliotes. They were thought to be ‘ever-existing’, “an emanation from the divine substance, subsisting coordinately and co-eternally with the Deity, the Pleroma still remaining one”.[22] Irenæus’ solid refutation was that this point was intrinsically contradictory; if the Pleroma was all one, then the Ӕons would be equal with God the Father – impossible, even by heretical standards. The Ӕons, Irenæus concluded, had no grounding in any authorized tradition or part of Scripture.

Conclusion

The Gnostic heresies that Irenæus sought to refute centered on some of the most basic beliefs of Christianity – the authenticity of Christ being who He said He was, the nature of God, and the interpretation of Scripture. His major problem was that when the “Gnostics were confronted with arguments based on these apostolic Scriptures, they would reply that the Scriptures could not be properly understood by anyone who was not privy to ‘the tradition,’ that is, the secret body of knowledge not committed to writing but handed down from the apostles to the successive generations of the Gnostic perfect”.[23]  His default response to the heresies that he encountered “was to appeal to ‘that tradition which is derived from the apostles’”,[24]claiming that “The true gnosis is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the church throughout the world, and the character of the body of Christ in accordance with the succession of the bishops”.[25] He also appealed to history as “the life-giving faith … preserved and transmitted in truth in the church from the apostles up till now”.[26] Taken from the realm of apostolic tradition and orthodoxy, Irenæus’ arguments are a valuable source in refuting Gnostic heresy and set an example for others who wish to learn how to counter those who challenge Scripture and Christian belief.

---

[1] R.M. Grant, Irenæus of Lyons, p. 12.

[2] R.A. Norris, Jr., God and World in Early Christian Theology, p. 71.

[3] Irenæus, Against Heresies, qtd. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, p. 458.

[4] R.A. Norris, Jr., p. 76.

[5] Irenæus, p. 325.

[6] ibid., p. 349.

[7] J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), p. 83.

[8] Irenæus, p. 352.

[9] ibid., p. 350.

[10] ibid., p. 427.

[11] R.A. Norris, Jr., p. 79.

[12] Irenæus, p. 463.

[13] ibid., p. 514.

[14] ibid., p. 523.

[15] ibid., p. 593.

[16] ibid., p. 393.

[17] ibid., 392.

[18] ibid..

[19] ibid., p. 316.

[20] ibid., p. 317.

[21] ibid., p. 353.

[22] ibid., 316.

[23] ibid., p. 115.

[24] ibid..

[25] ibid., p. 120.

[26] R.M. Grant, p. 125.