Holy Joys Podcast
A discussion of theology and ministry practice, all for a holy, happy church. A ministry of holyjoys.org.
Holy Joys Podcast
Brian Shelton on Irenaeus
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
A particularly Eastern Orthodoxy has this apocatostasis that from the fall we're coming down. But with the incarnation, right, it starts like a bungee, it starts bouncing and moving back up. And that's where we're supposed to be in our faith. Every day we're one step closer to heaven.
SPEAKER_02You're listening to a special episode of the Holy Joys Podcast. The following talk was shared with our AdFontase Reading Group for our 2021 Survey of the Church Fathers. Visit us at Holyjoys.org and stay tuned for weekly discussions of theology and ministry practice. All for Holy Happy Church. Alright, let's go ahead and get started. I'm Jonathan Arnold, one of your hosts this evening, and Dr. Fry, our co-host, will be introducing our speaker in a minute. But just wanted to say it's my personal pleasure to uh welcome Dr. Shelton to speak to Spell Irenaeus. Um Irenaeus was my gateway into patristics and uh helped me to really understand the doctrine of recapitulation and how it helps us to read the Bible as a unified whole. It's had a big impact on my uh reading of scripture and looking forward to uh to what we're going to be hearing tonight. Quickly, uh, want to introduce our ministry. The Ministry of Holy Joys is devoted to John Wesley's biblical vision of a holy, happy church. We believe that theology is for the church, and we enjoy helping ordinary believers in the local church to see the beauty of doctrine so that they can experience deeper satisfaction in God. And this includes a strong commitment to Methodist Catholicity, tapping into the riches of our ancient faith to help serve the needs of the contemporary church. And our Ad Fontes reading group has been one effort in this direction. Um, only a few here from our group, um, but we'll be sharing this recording with the 29 pastors, students, and educators who are reading along with us, and it will be published online for a wider audience. You can watch for that video at holyjoys.org as well as on the Holy Joys podcast, uh, which Dr. David Fry and I uh do together and have weekly discussions on theology and ministry practice. Dr. Fry will be moderating the QA later this evening, and I'm gonna turn it over to him at this time to introduce our speaker.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, thank you, Jonathan. Great to have Brian Shelton, Dr. Brian Shelton with us tonight. Thank you for coming on. Uh he is professor of theology and the department chair of Christian Studies and Philosophy at Asbury University. I think probably everyone in our group is pretty familiar with Asbury, and certainly a lot of uh shared history uh there. Uh Dr. Shelton earned his PhD in historical theology at St. Louis University. Uh his areas of interest include historical biblical exegesis, Western patristics, uh, early church martyrdom, and soteriology. Uh he's married to Sally, and I think you have three girls, right? Three daughters. Indeed, we do. All right, all right. Uh wonderful. Uh I have two myself. I appreciate Brian personally because when I was writing my uh actually getting near the end of my own PhD dissertation, uh he had just finished uh his uh publication on Pervenient Grace, and he was kind enough to send me the transcript uh prior to publication. So uh thank you. Uh I don't know if I ever formally thanked you or not, but uh thank you so much. Appreciate that. Uh that book, by the way, uh 2014, Pervenient Grace, God's Provision for Fallen Humanity. Uh every Wesleyan ought to read that, and every reformed theologian ought to read that. Uh certainly recommend that uh book to you. And uh he has other published books as well, Martyrdom from Exegesis and Hippolytus, uh uh 2008, uh Quest for the Historical Apostles, uh Tracing Their Lives and Legacies. That's a Baker Academic publication 2018. And then he also can you hold up the book there that you I think you just showed us a second ago? He authored the chapter uh in Shapers of Christian Orthodoxy. Uh he authored the chapter on Irenaeus, uh, which uh on which he is speaking to us tonight. Now, before he uh begins uh sharing with us, uh I want to throw this out to uh to everyone, but to Brian, uh that he um he you have a class uh on martyrdom or has martyrdom in the title, is that correct? I do not. It's sad that this is being recorded after that. You should have, but you've done a lot of you've done a lot of reading, you have a lot of interest in in martyrdom in the early church, and and so uh yeah, this this session tonight is about Ironaius. But if you want to throw in some comments at the end of your your monologue on martyrdom, uh I'd really be interested in hearing some of that as well. Uh but uh I know we have some questions lined up on Iron Ironaius, so we'll come back to that. But uh you're welcome to do that. So with that, uh welcome. Uh great to have you. Uh you can take it from here.
SPEAKER_00Thanks so much, David. Uh, I am teaching a historical theology course now, and we have a unit on martyrdom. Uh so I I don't need to play that down at all. Uh, let me also say, Dr. Fry, you are a model for everyone who is seven years behind and thanking someone uh for a favor. I was happy to do that then, and I appreciate your own work. Thanks to the Ad Fantes group for this great enterprise reading the Church Fathers. Uh, that's tremendous. Thanks to the Holy Jews group, and thanks for the invitation uh to talk about Irenaeus with you this evening. Uh I have about 15 minutes prepared, if that's okay. And then from there we'll go into uh some question-answer time, which is always the most exciting. Uh, in terms of what I have for you, I've got all things Irenaeus. So moving from the demonstration that I know the group read for tonight, as well as against heresies, you've got such a range of theology in Irenaeus. I'd like to touch a little bit on all of it so that people uh feel free to have questions formulated. Of all the second century church fathers, Irenaeus stands tall. In a nascent theological era, he uses scripture to construct a biblical theology, he systematizes theological tenets into really an unprecedented, coherent whole, and he touches on an immense range of theologies when he does this. In a pivotal era that some contemporary scholars frame to be a struggle for various Christianities, and either imply or insist the legitimacy of these voices that claim any version of Jesus, Irenaeus is a distinct figure. He helps to shape orthodoxy with that congratulations, or for some with condemnation. From his masterful treatise against heresies, and his smaller summative work, Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching, his theological principles were used by the church to frame doctrine for almost its entire history. God, creation, providence, history itself, economy, salvation, resurrection, church, basic pneumatology are all there in Irenaeus. He displays a doctrinal solidarity and accuracy that does not seem so different than that of historic and contemporary Christianity, in part because he grasps the whole of the faith early, we believe. And perhaps we continue to think in Irenaean fashion sometimes. This church father is both typical and influential that way. He's both descriptive, but he can be prescriptive for us. He's representative of an already established church tradition, so he writes of what is in place. But at the same time, the way that he organizes it offers something more novel. This orthodoxy or right doctrine, in turn, is supported by a sense of Catholicity for Irenaeus. That which is believed in all of the church is now as it has been up until now. That is a key component for him. In all of this, we cannot forget that he helps to solidify this tradition in defensive, informative ways over against Gnosticism. This seems to undermine the sources of authority for the church at the end of the second century. And ironically, as Irenaeus argues for a universal tradition that includes even a diversity of secondary theological things, his critics in contemporary scholarship accuse him of suppressing diversity by his rejection of Gnosticism. Let me tell you a little bit of bibliography on Irenaeus and then introduce the works to you and then some theological features. The details of Irenaeus' personal history are really sparse. Jackson Lasher's Marquette dissertation is probably the most thorough bibliography of late, but a basic framework of this church father's life can be deduced from some sparse details, and it looks something like this. In Against Heresies 3, he says that he is from Asia Minor, that probably the city of Smyrna, we think, because he claims that he heard Polycarp at a young age. He next comes on the timeline in Lyon, which is southern Gaul, where he is recognized as bishop, overseer. He may have studied and even taught at Rome under Bishop Anicetus. This can't be known for certain, but probably later diplomatic visits to Rome entail some familiarity with the Roman Church. And Polycarp's own visit may have served as a link for Irenaeus to Rome. What is certain is that the presence of his leadership there serves as an important link between East and West. A Greek Christian with that Eastern mindset brings a legacy of the apostolic tradition to the West. So appropriately so, J. A. Cerrado calls Irenaeus a scion of the East. And by being East and West, he offers an important principle of universality in the life of the church. Eusebius suggests that Irenaeus became bishop of Lyon and Vienne in southern Gaul after a return from Rome in 177. He arrived to hear about severe persecution under the authority of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. He arrived to an empty bishopric because of the martyrdom of Pontinus there. Eric Osborne actually suggests Irenaeus may have been bishop over Vienne, but he became bishop over both. And so history remembers him in that dual capacity. And as a result, in addition to his dialogue with Rome, he seems to be the most distinct monarchial bishop, that is, one overseer of multiple churches in an area up till his time. Two defining theological events are on the timeline of Irenaeus. First, in 177, he mediated before Eleutherius of Rome about Montanism. Controversy had arisen in the Asian minor churches over the teaching of Montanus, which included signs and visions. They're waiting in the desert for the return of Christ, and they become marginalized in the mind of the mainstream church. It seems Irenaeus represented the churches of southern Gaul in defending the Montanists, and he did so by calling for the unity of the church. This is not a defense of Montanism, but rather he's he's speaking against an intra-church marginalization, that is, the church excluding part of the other church. That's in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, chapter 5. In the late 180s, he appears again in Rome, this time mediating before Victor, about the Asian Court of Simeons. This is the dating of Easter. Victor had threatened to break communion with them because they were dating Easter on the 14th of Nissan, that is the date of the historic date of the Passover of the crucifixion, instead of the following Sunday. Well, Irenaeus reminded Victor that previous bishops never broke fellowship over things like this. So despite their agreement, they seemed to depart in peace. And Eusebius, the historian, can't pass up the opportunity to say Irenaeus, who was truly well named, became a peacemaker. Irene is, of course, Greek for peace, exhorting and negotiating on behalf of the peace of the churches. The final piece of his timeline is a question of martyrdom. Jerome says in Isaiah commentary, for the first time, he calls, someone calls Irenaeus bishop of Lyon and martyr. There is a late 6th century, maybe 604, early 7th, a martyrology of Irenaeus. This is discussed in Van der Straten, a French writer, sans Irene Futilmartyr. And so we are just uncertain about the martyrdom. It is a later tradition, nonetheless. For Irenaeus, two works come. One is the detection and overthrow of falsely called knowledge. And the falsely called knowledge are the Gnostics. This is against heresies shortened. It is five books. For those who did all of the homework for tonight in the reading group, you were to read books three through five, which is really where he articulates a Christian orthodoxy. One and two are really anti-Gnostic, and I have a short passage I'd like to read to you on that. This is probably written about 190 to a dear friend. But a shorter work is the demonstration of the apostolic teaching, Epidexis. This is smaller, it's sumative. It doesn't have the anti-Gnostic components to it, as much as it functions as a proof, a proof of Christology, of the legacy of the fathers before him, the Old Testament used in the New. And some, in fact, Mackenzie describes this as a distillation of Irenean thought. And so that's tremendous that that was the work that y'all chose in the reading group. It lacks some of the polemics that you get in against heresies. Between Eusebius and Jerome, other works include commentary on the Ogdoad, this is on the number eight, which he shows that he was the uh the first to receive the original succession of the apostles. You've got on knowledge or against the nations or against the Greeks, on schism, on discipline, monarchy or sovereignty, apologetic work on evil. Um, these things are not as available to us particularly as as we wish. For Irenaeus, when you work in orthodoxy, you have to work a little bit in Gnosticism. I would like to read a short excerpt from Against Heresies for you, just one paragraph. I'm actually using I'm using the Anti-Nicene Father's version. If you have that, it's page 319. If you have your the Irene Bible uh before you, this is your introduction to Gnosticism. I'll read it quickly. Such then is the account they give of what took place in the play Roma, which is the divine. Such calamities flowed from the passion which seized upon the Aeon, and Aeon being an emanation of this divine, who was within a little of perishing by being absorbed into the universal substance through her inquisitive searching after the father, such the consolation of the Aeon from her condition of agony by Horos and Staros, and Lytrates and Carpestes, and Horethetes and Metagoges. Gnosticism is complex, it's very foggy, hard to systematize, it's a whole nother cosmology, and you're getting a piece of it. Such also is the account of the generation of the later Aeons coming from heaven, namely those of the first Christ and the Holy Spirit, both of whom were produced by the Father, the Gnostics say, after the repentance of Sophia, this is all wisdom, of the second Christ, whom they style the Savior, who owed his being to joint contributions of the Aeons. They tell us this knowledge has not been openly divulged because all are not capable of receiving it, but has been mystically revealed by the Savior through means of the parables to those qualified to understanding it, which of course is themselves. This has been done as follows. By the way, this is this is Book One, chapter three. I'm sorry. This has been done as follows. The 30 aeons are indicated by the 30 years during which they say the Savior performed no public act, and by the parable of the labors in the vineyard. Paul also, Gnostics affirm, very clearly and frequently names these eminences or aeons, and even goes so far as to preserve their order when he says, to all the generations of the aeons of the Aeon. Nay, we ourselves, when giving thanks, we pronounce the words to Aeons and Aeons, forever and ever. Do set forth the foreverness, the aeons. And in fine, whatever the word the Gnostics they find, the words Aeon or Aeons, whenever they occur, they at once refer to them as these eminences from heaven. So what the Gnostics have done is they've taken this cosmological worldview in which they've received this special knowledge, and they take Christianity and they syncretize it into this other cosmology, to which Irenaeus renounces, says no. And as he says no, you get several powerful orthodox components, which I summarize for you in closing. You get epistemology, you get tradition, a rule of faith, you get scripture, you get Catholicity. Irenaeus uses scripture, particularly Matthew's gospel. He's using the gospels uh with with greater detail, perhaps, than most writers before him. Uh he's working thoroughly from the New Testament. He's also bringing the old to read, uh to understand the new. With this scripture, you have the teachings of the apostles, and you begin to construct this tradition, this rule of faith, in which the church founder and his apostles, and the church since then has continued to teach four gospels. Not four gospels plus a revelation from heaven, which the Gnostics have. Not part of Paul, or not even the twisting of Paul, but rather here's what we say about the teachings of Paul. His own authority is at work as he says, I heard Polycarp, and Polycarp heard John. He anticipates this great quote by Vincent of Lorraine. Irenaeus is a forerunner. That which is being taught has been taught in all of the churches, everywhere, all the time, as a standard for the teaching of who we are as Christians over against Gnosticism. That's what Irenaeus is articulating. Interestingly, every time Irenaeus mentions Peter as founder of the church at Rome, he also mentions Paul, the beloved Peter and Paul, and never separates them, which is important for Roman Catholic use of Irenaeus. In terms of scripture and exegesis, his citations are invaluable because they demonstrate what was scripture at the end of the second century. Irenaeus's exegesis seems imperfect. There are four gospels, he says, because there are four corners of the earth, and there's not a fifth corner, so we couldn't have four gospels. God, creation, and providence. Irenaeus is a master, a master of creation. Creation is the great theater of divine activity in the world. Creation falls, uh, and yet it moves back towards the unfallen creation. Unfallen is the standard and the goal of the stewardship Christian life. In the theater of the creation, we see God working. He works as father, son, and spirit. You do not have subordination in Irenaeus. At most, you have a sense of ascension, that the spirit, that the father is first, and the son second, and the spirit third. But for Irenaeus, there's strong economy at work. In fact, some of the genius that we excites us about him is for the Son, he is the word who orders the creation. For the spirit, he is wisdom who executes or who makes. Creation real, if you will. And so you see the Father declaring, and the Son as agent, and the Spirit as the one who acts. And so you get the unity of the three, but at the same time, not afraid to talk Trinitarian. He's the first to articulate a lengthy doctrine of sin, even original sin, although he doesn't use the word. Adam and Eve's disobedience is the basis for fallen humanity. It's the backdrop for redemption. Without the fall, you don't have redemption. And without the fall, you don't have redemption moving anywhere. And for Irenaeus, you get this final category of recapitulation and eschatology. We feel Ephesians 1:10 and Irenaeus strong. Paul wrote that the gospel was a plan for the fullness of time to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. For Irenaeus, all things will be united at the end. The work of Christ is a reenactment of the major biblical events. Particularly, he is the second Adam. Adam did the fall and sin came. Christ undoes the fall. He's the embodiment of all the Old Testament, moving towards the new, unfolded in the new. He's the hope for the future of the church. One tree caused the fall, another tree uncaused it. Christ is Adam, done again. Mary is the new Eve. The temptation by the serpent is the temptation of in the garden, is the temptation of Christ in the desert anew. For Irenaeus, you in fact get so much of creation being rejuvenated, and really apocatostasis as the term that's used in the East, that you almost feel like the church isn't being saved, and certainly you don't get individual salvation in Irenaeus as his focus. There's a corporate effect of the overturning of all fallen humankind because of the overturning of the fall of Adam's sin. It's in recapitulation and undoing of creation and its original intention. This moves into eschatology for Irenaeus, he's often drawn from as a source for premillennialism, which is not unfair. For Irenaeus, eschatology is linked to God's covenant relationship made new. His people all the way back to the fall, they are returning in apocastotic fashion to what was originally designed by God at the eschaton in heaven. Dumar and Gummerlock have argued that one really should not simply marshal Irenaeus for a premillennial system as an orthodox tenant, or certainly not as a dispensational tenant, simply because he uses the principle of periodization and anticipates the earthly reign of Christ. So I hope from that overview you get a sense of what Irenaeus' great contribution is. It's a wide range, and it is in response to Gnosticism. You really can't desert that. Let me go ahead and hit a bibliography, if I could, in closing. I think the best, uh some of the best things are Eric Osborne's Irenaeus of Lyon. This gives an overview of the theology. Um it helps to systematize Irenaeus' efforts at systemization. Uh Irenaeus does get thick, it does get dense. If you did read from chapters three through five and against heresies, you felt that. It can be hard, especially when you are working through thickness and he gets on a tangent, and the fathers love their tangents. Uh more recently, John Bear has written an Irenaeus of Lyon identifying Christianities. The big surprise here is that John Bear does not need Irenaeus to be the author of uh the Epidexus, the demonstration of apostolic uh proof, but suggests that it might be someone following behind, trying to consolidate the polemics without quite so much polemics. But still, uh, when it comes to Irenaeus, you can always count on John Bear to offer something particularly good. What I don't have in my hands, Robert Grant has made some translation of Against Heresies 20 years ago. That's super helpful, and his introduction is powerful. And then also Mary Ann Donovan, one right reading, helps to get you into this question of the authority of the church and Irenaeus' role in alienating, marginalizing Gnosticism. I think the best way to frame it is not power and economy of the church politics, but rather it should be framed as Gnosticism being seen as inferior theologically. So inferior that it's a threat to the authority of the church. So those are my four strong recommendations, and of course, the one summary chapter here and Schaper's Orthodoxy. Irenaeus of Lyon.
SPEAKER_03Excellent, thank you. Wonderful. Good, good, good. Thank you. All right, so I have um I have six questions written down, but I'm not going to hog the QA time. Um so let's um I'll tell you what we'll do because I I do want to hear at the end, so maybe the last 10 minutes. Can we take the last 10 minutes and I want to hear some comments on martyrdom? Uh, but we'll we'll take the next 22 minutes here and just take questions and see how this goes, all right? Um so let's uh you you've mentioned several contemporary works. Um why do why do contemporary theologians go back to Irenaeus now? So how is he used in contemporary theology?
SPEAKER_00Uh sure. Uh I think first of all, let me share um Jonathan's uh empathy, his his own heartfelt empathy uh moving towards Irenaeus early. Uh I also got excited when I saw that there was a late second century figure who had written this large work, and uh scholars like him because uh if we use continue the timeline metaphor, he is a big dot on the timeline when we have small dots. We have small pieces of works, we have small biographies of figures, and we got this great piece, uh, five books of Against Heresies. He biographically is seen as probably the first monarchical bishop. That's of interest. Even Jonathan shared last week on Apostolic Fathers that uh he appreciates the development of church leadership, and so Irenaeus is key. He is articulating Orthodox theology over against Gnosticism, so he becomes a figure that's an Orthodox champion, but also he's one who's viewed polemically as somebody marginalizing other parts of the church as we try to retrieve the missing parts of the church, even Gnosticism, uh, then he becomes one uh who is alien uh particularly to it. Uh, I think you'll see in people like uh Hans Berisma, there's a typical ecumenical dialogue. Uh Irenaeus is seen for his justification and recapitulation shared across the aisle. A particularly Eastern Orthodoxy has this apocalystis that from the fall we're coming down. But with the incarnation, right, it starts like a bungee, it starts bouncing and moving back up. And that's where we're supposed to be in our faith. Every day we're one step closer to heaven. Um, in particular, the French journal uh Estina recently applied this uh some of the articles on a joint Orthodox Catholic communion, including the Eucharist and Anglican also, uh, there's a voice in there. So anyway, Irenaeus on ecumenism. Intertextuality has received a lot of attention uh with uh Stephen Presley, Daniel Driver. This is the use of text in text, Old Testament in the New, uh, even what Irenaeus is articulating in relationship to the other fathers. Um, in fact, there was a question last week uh from to John, to uh David Herring Herr uh Herger. Uh what's his last name? Heror. Her yeah, yeah, yeah. Uh particularly, thank you. Uh the Apostolic Fathers have a sense of this inheritance from the from particularly from the apostles, and um how is that moving forward? Moving forward to the apostolic fathers, were they valued? For Irenaeus, it's unequivocal, yes. Uh and so appreciate him touching on that. Uh, one last one, David, is creation care. Because creation is the great theater, uh, he is used for eco-theology. Some Sean McDonough uh particularly comes to mind as one who is able to take creation and frame it as eschatology and as stewardship.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, good. Yeah, it's helpful. If there's anyone else that has, uh I'm sure there are questions are sparking your mind. You can share them in the chat, and then uh Jonathan will keep an eye on that because I uh may miss that. Um so uh uh Jonathan has a question that I think ties back into uh something you just mentioned here uh on theosis. Jonathan, do you want to share that question?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, Irenaeus speaks frequently about being godlike and then sometimes even further to us becoming some sort of gods. And of course it makes us very uncomfortable, um, and there's a lot of different understandings of theosis and what that might mean. Um, how do what do we see in the thought of Irenaeus? Uh, how far to what extent, those kind of questions?
SPEAKER_00Uh Irenaeus is extended in Theosis beyond what Irenaeus might be thinking. I I do believe that. I think as people try uh to retrieve support for many doctrines, they they might go to Irenaeus. But for theosis, you do have the renewal. In fact, the renewal to the image of Christ, which is foundational for theosis, but you don't get something as bold as you get, for example, in Athanasius, uh, with the great quote, God became man, that man, that we might become God. I mean, just quote that to many people, especially in the West, especially evangelical, and you uh that's the quote that arrests people. You don't get that in Irenaeus, you don't get that boldness with regard to individual apocytostasis. You get a collectiveness inseparable from creation, but still, I think the spirit is there. You have Theosis in Irenaeus ever so subtly.
SPEAKER_02A related question to renewal in the image. I just I've been fascinated uh in book five, chapter 26, uh, where he says, by means, let me see here, um basically he's uh you know renewing man to himself so that by means of his resemblance to the son, man might become precious to the father. And that struck me. I I've never considered that um the fact that we're made in the image of God, which is the son, the eternal word, his beloved son, uh, is part of what makes us precious to him. Um, so is uh is Irenaeus here, how far would we extend this to say that the reason man is is the special object of God's care is because he bears this likeness to the sun? Just something I've been thinking about, wondering what your thoughts were.
SPEAKER_00It's a great quote. We often think of salvation as our salvation as the great joy of God, right? We have the verse that angels rejoice when one. And so we become so conversion-minded sometimes, especially as evangelicals, that we forget that God takes just as much joy in our sanctification and ongoing obedience. Uh, and in fact, we often we compartmentalize these to understand them. We have salvation, we have uh sanctification. We even look to Wesley, right? We write a book on preventive grace, and we wait for the sequel on saving grace and the subsequel on sanctifying grace, as if they are three different. It's one grace, it's one process, and Irenaeus helps us with that, really does. Uh, I think what you've got is you've got anagogy, you've got this moving up to heaven, in which we cannot separate ourselves from the work of Christ in the world, but that we are part of that, we're participating. Uh, and so uh that 526 actually may be a corrective to what I mentioned earlier, that there's not as much individual salvation and sanctification at work. That's a great way, great quote to demonstrate that we participate in it, and it goes to the fact that God is working in conforming us to his image, not just was working, uh, but it's an ongoing process as we move towards heaven. We often diss on the fathers on having four aspects of biblical interpretation. We love the historical, and as we move up to allegory, we we get a little more curmudging. But here on Anagogy, I I think there's a great reminder.
SPEAKER_03Thank you. Yeah, so that actually, Jonathan, we're gonna stick with you here because you asked another question earlier. You sent me an email on baptism. So while we're talking about that um that dynamic of personal salvation but corporate salvation, which is is really enlightening for me coming from from Irenaeus. Um but you had a question on baptism and and regeneration.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, so one of my personal goals is to contribute something to you know sacramental retrieval in the in the churches where I minister. So I've been very interested as I read what the fathers say about the sacraments. And um, Irenaeus in both demonstration and against heresies refers to the baptism of our regeneration, um, uh refers to us being regenerated through baptism. Is this full-fledged baptismal regeneration, or is Irenaeus holding together the spiritual reality more closely with its sign, its physical, visible sign and seal in a way that we're not used to? Uh what does he actually understand baptism to be doing?
SPEAKER_00This is a matter of interpretation. I agree with the way you articulated the latter. I think he is trying to hold together. There's a great phrase that they are somewhat inseparable. Um, but I will admit, as someone who's not regenerational Baptist, I don't like the idea of him being framed that. I think it would be taking the language and extending it beyond what we can know for sure Irenaeus was particularly intending. But at the same time, I don't think you can, I don't think he's addressing a sign and seal or a means of grace. I I think it's fair to use Irenaeus to try to understand those understandings of the baptism of the Lord's Supper. But I don't think we can necessitate what he means. Uh but certainly there's there's an inseparability, you are right, between the outward sign and the inward work. Yes, and so we so we should not. And in fact, um some heritages from the Reformation, some low church heritage, they do separate them. So that the outward act almost seems to be completely independent of any spiritual work. The spiritual work has already taken place. This is a community act, it is a memory act. I don't think Irenaeus would be that low. He would be somewhere in the middle. A Roman Catholic, of course, is going to see this as uh a uh an ecclesiological uh means of grace, uh, and the word is slipping me. It is a uh synergistic work, and I think that they would read that in Irenaeus.
SPEAKER_03So which would come first for Irenaeus? A corporate sense of corporate salvation or or personal individual salvation?
SPEAKER_00Well, I mean, there's no corporate salvation per se. There's a corporate participation and salvation at the individual level. So uh I would think when he speaks of baptism, uh I'm out of my familiarity range right now. I would think he's speaking of individual baptism as participating in the larger corporate thing that is at work. I cannot think of a corporate baptism aspect in Irenaeus. That may be the quote right there.
SPEAKER_02That could be the quote that just a quick, a quick follow-up, if you don't mind. So, how does Irenaeus use the word seal? I don't know what the the original word is here, but this is Bears translation, very end of demonstration, chapter 100. So, error concerning the three heads of our seal has caused much straying from the truth, um, referring here to baptism as a seal. How would Irenaeus then intend that?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, this is the swago. This is um this is this is the guarantee of our faith. This is the earnest of God in some work in us related to baptism, unseparable from baptism. I guess you I have to concede through baptism as a means of grace. And so if we could just say means of grace, Irenaeus certainly is means of grace in here. Um, and so I I think that there's a sense of security that it's there over against the outside forces.
SPEAKER_03Thank you. Yeah, that's helpful. So I I want to get this in. Uh make sure I get this question in. I want to go back to recapitulation, but uh with Mary. I want I can can you there is there's a lot there that you know Protestants are going to think, okay, I we'll we'll let's just X that part out. Um is there a doctor of Mary that Irenaeus would present to us that we need to recover, uh that that we've lost and we need to recover? And uh, you know, as as uh should or should we just think of uh our confession of the virgin birth as merely a creedal confession and that's it?
SPEAKER_00I think Irenaeus is doing more than virgin birth. Certainly uh it'd be interesting to know if what Irenaeus would be considered creedal confession, uh, but still uh there's more here than just the virgin birth for Irenaeus. Uh for Roman Catholics and even Eastern Orthodox, you've got uh several things attractive that make Protestants nervous. And you've got apostolic tradition, but we have learned to appreciate that because it offers historical continuity. Uh you've got monarchial bishop and you've got this sense of authority, if you will, um, which we almost particularly don't mind that. You've got apocatostasis, which is foreign to us, and even a dimension of theosis. I'm glad Jonathan brought that up, which is a somewhat alien us to us. You've got a bit of sacramentology at work, uh, but still plenty of Protestants and Lutherans going to be comfortable with it. Mary is, for me, I think the biggest outlier in these among this list. Eve is woman, mother of mankind. Mary is woman, the mother of the one who is the second Adam. So you've already got some asymmetry because Eve is not the father of Adam, she is the husband, the wife of Adam, and she is the mother of all mankind. Uh, but still, you've got this motherness in Eve and in Mary that goes beyond what Protestants will articulate in any of its fundamentals. You've got uh Co-Redeemer, I think, is too strong of a worm to apply to Mary's role for Irenaeus, or at least I'm uncomfortable with it. But she's she's in the theater, the sphere, the ballpark of the work of redemption, and she participates in the work of redemption, as does the father, as does the spirit. Uh, by the way, as does Satan. And so for Eve, so you've got Eve and Mary in clear correlation between the two. And so one gives life, the other gives life. Uh, one is pre-fall and in a perfect uh situation and uh environment, and so also the second helps to create. All of this is revolving around her role is Theotakas and Theotakas alone. She is the one chosen by God to bear. With this, uh, Tom Odin helps us to understand that uh it is it is Christ having God for the Father, the divinity that we get. But it is Mary who has the human genes that's being provided there for Christ, so that he becomes the God man and creates the Question of his ability to sin, and we find someone who's fully human. Uh, Mary is the player in that, but she is chosen by God. Uh, he is the one who provides the conception, she just seems to be faithful, and I think Irenaeus would would see her as faithful, but she has this greatness necessary role to play uh in the process of Theal Takos. So I keep it Thea Takos centered, and then I feel comfortable reading Irenaeus.
SPEAKER_03Okay. So um in this particular work that we read, uh demonstration of episode preaching, I I think we have a good example of of first of all reading the old testament through Christ. But he also he doesn't only do that, but he reads it through the church as well, right? So there's there's it's Christocentric, but it is it's Christ and his church.
SPEAKER_00Yes.
SPEAKER_03Um I don't even know if I really have a question other than that that thought as I was reading it again today, uh, just really stood out to me. It's like, um, very interesting, because uh, you know, we you know ecclesiology starts for most people, you know, at Pentecost or somewhere. Right. Uh any comments or thoughts on that?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, the uh yeah, great observation. Um, I think if someone's looking for an Irenaean dissertation out there, there's lots of things to do. Uh, but one would be use of metaphors in Irenaeus. He really likes to consolidate in concepts, and then he ascribes you know uh particular terms to it. But I think the Pauline language of Christ is groom and church as bride is a tenet for Irenaeus that's inseparable. There is, of course, there is no church without Christ, but we really do tend to forget that as we create our programs and we pray for the enterprise that is the church. And we might pray kingdom come, but we forget that the king is inseparable from that. Uh and so you you've got this wedding again, the metaphor. You've got this wedding, and so the the work of Christ is bringing creation back, and the work of Christ is bringing the church up, and you can't, you can't not have the one without the other.
SPEAKER_03Does he have a uh a uh does he articulate a totus Christus anywhere in his works?
SPEAKER_00Well, I think in spirit, I mean I can't think of a passage that particularly comes to mind.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, yeah, I'd love to. I I haven't come across anything yet, but that would be really, really interesting.
SPEAKER_02Do you want to explain the idea of the whole Christ? I would assume some of our listeners might not understand what you're referring to.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, so this is Ephesians 1, 28, I think it is, 27 or 28, um, where uh Paul says that um that the church, he says the church, the fullness of Christ. And so out of that comes this this growing, uh what becomes a growing uh tradition of understanding uh the relationship of the church, the body to the head. And you have you have extremes uh on understanding that you have some extremes where the church is the continued incarnation of the son, uh, which of course is not true, uh, but in what sort of mystical sense uh is the church, the fullness of Christ. And that's a um I I think that's uh something that uh Protestants need to really reflect on more than what we have because church has become somewhat incidental to our salvation rather than actually part of God's salvation plan. So again, you know, your comments about Irenaeus and and corporate the corporate aspect.
SPEAKER_00Yes, yes. I I think Irenaeus is a good balance for those who would see themselves as individualistically Christian, uh not participating in a larger fellowship or forsaking the gathering together of some. Uh Irenaeus is a lesson for COVID, perhaps. Could we go all night without mentioning uh this? Uh that the the idea that yeah, that the individual salvation just isn't strong in Irenaeus. And you know, just as evangelicalism has offered a balance to the corporate church by being individualistic, I think it needs it's it needs to be unbalanced by by returning to a sense of uh of corporateness. Again, Catholicism and Orthodoxy will like Irenaeus for this, that if one is truly a believer, they won't stay home with these propositions in their mind and even their heart. But eventually this will lead the individual to participate in the life of the true church.
SPEAKER_03Okay. So Irenaeus is there. Summarize for us, what did Irenaeus bring from the East to the West?
SPEAKER_00Apostolic tradition. Uh, he himself listened to Polycarp, who listened to John.
SPEAKER_03Yeah.
SPEAKER_00And you can even, by the way, um, we shouldn't leave Ignatius out of that. Uh, you've got almost two paths there going back to John, uh, direct and indirect. Uh, you've got um you've got the gospels, the teaching of the gospels, the teaching of the apostles of the gospel handed down. And so when he comes to the West, he's able to say, I heard Polycarp. And few in Lyon would be able to say that, you know. Um, and after a while, few in Rome might be able to say that eventually. So that continuity that he brings, again foiled against Gnosticism, inseparable from that the presence of this other movement, uh, that helps the church to be able probably enhance the church's understanding of its own legacy, to be able to realize who they were and from whence they came, and that they were part of a whole. You know, that's something that uh even reading groups like this, um, how can we not get excited about the fact we're talking about a church father? And we don't see it as another planet and another era that's so far away. But this is our tradition. And so we're appropriating this.
unknownYeah.
SPEAKER_00I mean, we're we're we're touching an apostle tonight who touched Jesus type of feel. And uh that's uh why some actually will convert uh to some of these other branches who have a greater sense of historicity and are not so our generationally focused.
SPEAKER_03Sure, yeah, I belie I believe it. Yeah, that there is certainly a sense of we uh it just we we bridge the the gap, the time gap, and it just seems like that uh in in interacting with uh today, even with Irenaeus, that uh there's not so much uh time as what we may feel there is sometimes. Uh that we're part of something much, much bigger.
SPEAKER_00Indeed. In fact, if you branched out into the contemporary church, I think you'd realize uh uh we're longing for a regular fide, a rule of faith on so many things.
SPEAKER_03Yeah. Yeah. All right. I I want to um I want to hear some comments on martyrdom.
SPEAKER_02Do you do you think um I could ask you before we we move past Irenaeus and on to martyrdom, could I ask you to just quickly share a few comments on Irenaeus' metaphor of the of the two hands of the Father as the Son and the Spirit? It's a key metaphor, and I want people to be aware of that because you made a vital point about um the strong sense of economy. And I think this image is really helpful right now with subordinationism, um with um really separating almost into like a some kind of tri-theism. And and uh read something recently about the father could do everything independently of the son and the spirit, but he lovingly chooses to allow them in, you know. It's like whoa, from a major evangelical theologian. And I love how this image, like everything is the father is a source of everything, but it's all worked out through his two hands, the son and the spirit. I just wanted to highlight that.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, uh, that's fantastic. I quickly I I jumped here, uh, I jumped here just to read. Do you have that sentence in front of you, Jonathan?
SPEAKER_02You know, it's so many different places.
SPEAKER_00Uh, I'm not even sure here. Let me look.
SPEAKER_02I have it in a in a document here.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, you know, I'm I'm I'm I'm thinking of the one in chapter four of the preface. Uh that's awful.
SPEAKER_02Book four, uh chapter twenty, I think. Yes, book four, chapter twenty of Against Heresies, and then also again in Against Heresies, book five, chapter one, and book five, chapter six.
SPEAKER_00Okay.
SPEAKER_02God did not use angels to create the world as if he did not possess his own hands, for with him were always present the word and wisdom, the son and the spirit, by whom and in whom there's those prepositions, freely and spontaneously he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, Let us make man after our image and likeness.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, yeah. Uh very good. It is rich, and it does go to the Trinity. It goes to a sense, uh, the the two-ness in the in these hands. Okay, so first of all, you start with you start with the hands of God, you've got this instrumentation, you you've you've got the this active metaphor, because with the hand, you have something being done. And God is forever, uh, especially for Irenaeus, forever doing, particularly in recovery. And so I think you've got these two units. Uh, you can't use three hands. That that would be really quite perfect because you'd have the Trinity at work. But by having a separation, Irenaeus starts to construct an economy that there is the one, but there is the other. And you've got this likeness, you know, it's chiral, but still they are alike, and you've got the one doing the one, you've got one doing the other. It creates for him all sorts of this and that, if you will. You've got uh you've got external, you've got internal, you've got visible, you've got invisible, you've got all of these great works of God with this and with that. And so uh this does reinforce the Trinity because you've got the Father and you've got the Son, and the one does the one and the other does the other. And for that matter, you've got the Son and you've got the Spirit. And by creating, by using two hands, you create this distinction between the two, but you also maintain a bit of uh of homoousias would be too strong of a term, uh, but you you've you've got the same, you've got the unity, and you've got the oneness, and you've got the uh the non-differentiation of the species or of the hands. Uh this uh just to extrapolate it into the fourth century, you see Irenaeus shaping the Council of Nicaea. That it's okay to have this father, this son, and the spirit, and to speak comfortably about the three. He provides a strong economy that is clearly biblical, as he brings in brings in the verses in support. Uh, but you've got you've got an anticipation that the church needs to hear one God, but you've got these three persons. And so as you move through uh Irenaeus, you almost forget the one God because there's so much emphasis on this. And the reason that we love him and we're comfortable with them is because the two hands aren't doing opposite things, uh, these are not different hands uh of a different species, but rather they're working and they're working in unity because God does all things uh unto himself and even does them perfectly. We see it as two hands, we see it as three members of the Trinity.
unknownYeah.
SPEAKER_03Thank you. Sorry for the interruption there. Thank you. Yeah, so that so for those who will listen afterwards and those here now, um yeah, I mean that's a really critical aspect of Irenaeus, and certainly uh you know, probably one of the most frequent, probably the most frequently uh used metaphor that is drawn from Irenaeus, the two hands. So um there's there's a lot more there. Um we're hoping to uh get back into uh Trinitarian theology uh throughout this year, and then maybe in the future just focus on Trinitarian theology uh through these uh early fathers as well. Um so I I don't I don't want to distract from Irenaeus, that's not my intent uh tonight. So if there are other questions on Irenaeus, uh I've just I I am well while we're in this era because because persecution was so much a part of his life, right? It was a part of of who of who he is, and no question became that I think it's important. And and obviously his tie to polycarp and then his his um his ministry and yeah, well, martyrdom is such a good topic.
SPEAKER_00I believe the Lord is going to expand the next three minutes into three hours, uh, just for the topic of martyrdom. Uh, the fact that it is so valued goes to the fact that by the sixth century, uh whether Irenaeus was martyred or not, that somebody felt like it was important enough to make sure that he gets the attribution of martyrdom. Uh you've got, of course, you got the you got Christ teaching that you will be persecuted. You've got the martyrs living, uh sorry, the apostles with the legends of the persecution. Of course, you've got Ignatius' martyrdom and polycops martyrdom as instrumental in the identity of the church. And you start to get this great elevation of the martyrs. They're heroes, they're champions. They get the scepters and the robes and they get the crowns, so that a laurel crown becomes the symbol of the martyrs in iconography and in painting. You've got this such a great elevation that uh, you know, if Irenaeus had been martyred, you would have expected to hear more of it along the way. Uh, it's attributed to Septimius Severus at the beginning of the third century for his martyrdom. Uh that's you get circa all over the dates for Irenaeus. Uh, but from Irenaeus, you do have some influence on Hippolytus in Rome. You have uh Photius saying in the ninth century that that Hippolytus is a uh a student, a protege of Irenaeus, and certainly there's connectability and there's overlap. And now, by the way, you've got John Polycarp, Irenaeus, Hippolytus as a chain that's ongoing. Uh and so you've you've got martyrdom all over the place. Uh, we were talking beforehand that uh in scholarship now martyrdom is being minimized, it's being reduced, reduced to hagiography, uh, that there's only a certain number of martyrs, much significant less than what the church has said, a much less martyrdom, uh certainly imperial martyrdom. We we no longer imagine that it's emperor after emperor persecuting the church, but that it's sporadic and intermittent. You know, we've been saying that for for fift for 50 years, since since friend, martyrdom and persecution. Uh so it it's uh it's formative, it's inspirational, it uh perhaps became too much of an enterprise with regard to uh to saints and relics and invocation, uh, but it inspired the church for a lot of time to be willing to suffer. And that's a message which is lost on the church uh in the 20th and 21st century, particularly the American church. Yeah, suffering it.
SPEAKER_03Sure, for sure. Well, I'd love to hear, uh, I'd love to spend three more hours uh just on that. Um but uh we're gonna bring this to a close and uh appreciate so much. Uh I have I have uh two pages of notes here, and I'm gonna go back and uh do some more reading. Look forward to reading uh your chapter as well in that book, uh as well as uh let me again uh recommend to our listeners uh both work on provenient grace and and then also a really nice book on on the apostles, uh really, really helpful book there as well. I highly recommend that uh also. So uh thank you for being here. You have a website, is that correct? Or do you have a I do?
SPEAKER_00You're very kind. Uh W Brian W Brian Shelton.com. Uh it does go to some works, it goes to some speaking. Uh I started blogging a couple years ago. I regret it. Uh so if anyone's interested in being a guest blogger, I I welcome them. Uh, but yeah, it's uh it's there. Uh particularly also commend to you that if y'all uh I know Evangelical Theological Society is shared by some of us. There is a patristic and medieval, a history group that's there, and you you get a lot of appropriation for the temperature evangelical church through uh through scholars and uh buddy scholars there.
SPEAKER_01Thank you for listening to the Holy Joys Podcast. Email your questions to podcast at holyjoys.org, and they may be featured on a future episode. Our labors for a Holy Happy Church are supported by generous listeners like you. Please pray about partnering with us at holyjoys.org forward slash donate.
