Irenaeus's arguments against the Gnostics
By Nathaniel Binzen, September 27, 1999
The writings of Irenaeus reveal a man angered and threatened by the gnostics. The arguments and attacks he deploys against the gnostics range from the righteously reasonable to the patently preposterous. I will examine some of the things Irenaeus says in light of what I see as three of his most heartfelt motivations: the historical need to establish the authority of the church; his own wish to see the church pull together into a unified, coherent body; and his vision of God's kingdom. Finally, I will offer my own thoughts on his goals and effectiveness.
Irenaeus is determined to establish the authority of church, and he does this first by emphasizing its lineage: "the Church...received from the apostles and their disciples its faith." This tradition is beyond question because "...the Holy Spirit came upon [the apostles], and they were filled with all things and had perfect knowledge."
At times Irenaeus's justifications are rather self-fulfilling, as in "the apostles, being disciples of the truth, are apart from every lie." In any case, he contrasts this reliable tradition, "preserved in the Church from the apostles to the present," against the words of the gnostic leaders. "Saying that they are wiser than the apostles," each of these leaders, according to Irenaeus, "utters a wisdom which he has made up, or rather a fiction." It's not just new, non-scriptural inventions that he is concerned about. He see the gospels themselves being subjected to radical reinterpretation, pointing to the extreme example of Marcion's editing, or "mutilating" as he calls it, of the Gospel of Luke.
"What it comes to," Irenaeus avers, "is that they will not agree with either Scripture or tradition." And he greatly strengthens his argument for the authority of scripture and tradition by scathingly recounting some especially colorful and baggy pieces of gnostic cosmology. For example, he places side-by-side two different gnostic accounts of the creation and order of the world, both seemingly ridiculous at face value and, importantly, clearly conflicting with each other. Doing so, he accentuates their "bold invention and ridiculous nomenclature."
Clearly, then, the gnostic heresy poses a threat to his authoritative tradition. But I think Irenaeus's intention goes beyond that of shoring up the tradition. He really wants to see the church become more coherent (and, perforce, less diverse in its ways). He expresses this wish poignantly, explaining how "the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves [the faith], as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul." This harmony is achieved because, while individuals may have more or less understanding of the gospel, together Christians weigh these meanings by "working out the things that have been said in parables." He sees no warrant, then, to "change the basic idea, and imagine another God above..."
More of Irenaeus's vision of a unified church is apparent in his presentation of the gnostics' suspicious worship practices. By opposing these practices, he helps to define the legitimate sacraments and worship of the true church. He criticizes the gnostics for having no "proper congregation or established teaching." He castigates them for their sacred rites, which evidently owe more to the mystery religions than to Christianity, and which he sees as tools used by charlatans to mystify their converts and make them credulously accepting of a lot of hot air. He tells of invocations spoken in Hebrew, designed "to impress the initiates even more." He is appalled by what he sees as a cheapening of the meaning of redemption. Some gnostics portray it to be achievable merely by pouring a mixture of oil and water on the initiate's head. Others, believing that the body is corruptible, envision redemption as coming through knowledge alone: "...they need nothing more than the knowledge of all things - and this is true redemption."
Though Irenaeus is strident, I believe this reflects the sincerity of his vision of what the true church represents and where it's headed. He is really offended by these strains which work so actively to subvert it, evidently much more than he is by garden-variety paganism. I think that the prize on which his eyes are trained is his forceful vision of the last things and of God's kingdom. "Some have been affected by the discourses of the heretics, and they are ignorant of...the Kingdom those who are worthy will gradually be accustomed to receive." This is terribly important to him because "the righteous must first rise again...to receive in this created order...the promise of the inheritance which God promised....After this will come the judgement." If the people of the church do not grasp or follow the proper order of their destiny, they will not receive the rewards they have coming. And in stark contrast to the gnostics, he sees this reward of God as something very much in this world, for "Neither the substance nor the essence of the created order vanishes away."
I think Irenaeus was successful in achieving his aim, and as such he rendered an important service. The gnostic teaching was riddled with bunk, and the church needed the kind of direction which Ireneaus contributed. Still, gnosticism was not all bad. I like the gnostic orientation to knowledge and wisdom a lot (though it need not be secret). I believe that there is real wisdom from God to be gained in this world, and it's not all contained in the scriptures and tradition. I like the gnostics' sense of valuing experience and being open to personal revelation. Obviously, there are problems with such an orientation, and it has to be handled wisely. But perhaps there is something that neither Irenaeus nor the gnostics could see so well, yet we may come to see more clearly in our time: perhaps the emergence of true insight and creativity, in the sense of God's wisdom pouring forth through a person, can best come when Irenaeus's lawfulness and order are balanced with a "gnostic" openness and the free reign that openness gives to chance.
Academic Papers