m09) Irenaeus the Most Dangerous Heretic

7/30/2019 m09) Irenaeus the Most Dangerous Heretic

1/30

Irenaeus: The Most Dangerous Heretic?ByCOGwriter

Who was the most dangerous of the early heretics?

Is the most dangerous heretic the one who directly denies Jesus and makeshimself God, like Simon Magusdid? Is the most dangerous heretic the one whofirst did away with the Old Testament and the Sabbath, likeMarcion did? Is mostdangerous heretic the first one who taught an odd Trinitylike Montanus orValentinus did? Is the most dangerous heretic one who wrote clearly inaccurateand false statements, like Justin Martyr?

Or is the most dangerous heretic, the one while writing against heretics, was amore subtle heretic himself?

This article will discuss some of the reasons why Irenaeus of Lyon was perhaps

the most dangerous heretic.

Why the Others May Not Have Been the Most Dangerous

The Bible clearly shows that theApostle Peter condemned Simon Magus. Andwhile some consider that Simon Magus was "the father of all heresies" and inthat sense highly dangerous, the fact is that all should know that the Biblecondemned Simon Magus. Thus any interested in the following the Bible shouldbe careful about following in some of Simon's practices (though a very largechurch seems too).

Furthermore, since even Catholic preserved history shows that Polycarp ofSmyrna, the disciple of theApostle John, condemned Marcion as the "son ofSatan" and turned people away from the heretics Marcion andValentinus, itshould be clear to any who consider that Polycarp was a true Christian, thatMarcion and Valentinus were heretics.

Catholic preserved history also shows that Serapion of Antioch,Apollonius ofEphesus,Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Thraseas of Eumenia opposed theMontantist heresies (though the early bishops of Rome, did not).

Pretty much all who study early Christianity realize that Simon Magus, Marcion,

Montanus, and Valentinus were all condemned as apostate heretics.Thus, all who have looked into early Christianityshould realize that they shouldnot follow the practices of those heretics (though to some degree, dependingupon the heretical teaching, all the "mainstream" churches do).

One Who May Have Been the Second Most Dangerous Heretic

Justin (called Justin Martyr) was perhaps the second most dangerous heretic.His writings are heavily relied upon by those who prefer Sundayto the


2/30

biblical Sabbath. He, like Irenaeus, wrote against some he considered to beheretics. Justin even properly did explain a few doctrines and actual Christianpositions. But unlike Irenaeus, he distanced himself from the true Christians andwanted to have little to do with them (Irenaeus preferred a blending of the two).

Justin made so many false and inaccurate statements in his few authentic

writings that any interested in the truth should be able to clearly see that Justinwas not a true Christian. Even the Roman Catholic Church has admitted that hiswritings contained fiction. Scholars of various backgrounds have noted majorerrors as well.

Because of the clarity of Justin's false statements, and the fact that they havebeen noticed by many scholars, Justin was perhaps only the second mostdangerous heretic. (Many of Justin's inaccurate statements, as well as someRoman Catholic quotes about Justin are included in the article Justin Martyr:Saint, Heretic, or Apostate?).

A late Living Church of God evangelist wrote,Justin Martyr (ca. 95167AD) and Irenaeus (ca. 130202AD), while maintainingsome truths they had learned under Polycarp, also sought to accommodatethemselves to the new direction of Roman theology in the name of "churchunity"...Justin also molded the thinking of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons...Hebelieved that the God of Plato was also the God of the Bible (Ogwyn J. God'sChurch Through the Ages. Living Church of God Booklet, 2003).

Why Irenaeus?

While I have not seen any major other treatise explaining why Irenaeus was amajor heretic (actually, outside of Church of God circles, I have little thatspecifically considers him to have been a heretic, though groups likethe Jehovah's Witnesses probably do), it appears to me that he may have beenthe most dangerous heretic.

Why?

Because, Irenaeus' heresies were not obvious to those outside the true Church ofGod. His heresies and false statements were less numerous and less obviousthan Justin's, thus have been missed by nearly all scholars (though some have

noticed one or two errors he made).

What were his most important heresies?

Irenaeus heard Polycarp, yet made deals with Rome that disagreed withPolycarp's teachings. Irenaeus knew that Justin did not agree with Polycarp, yethe approved of Justin--and sadly seemed to prefer to be influenced more by himthat by Polycarp.


3/30

Irenaeus knew that Polycarp condemned heretics suchas Marcion andValentinus, but failed to mention that they were still allowed tobe Roman Catholic until at two decades later. Irenaeus supported the RomanChurch even though Irenaeus knew they tolerated heretics that had earlier beencondemned by Polycarp (and eventually by Irenaeus himself).

Notice this from Tertullian:Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealousstudent of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple ofPlatonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,inthe reign of Antoninus for the most part,and that they at first werebelievers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Romeunder the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account oftheir ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren,they were more than once expelled (Tertullian. The Prescription

against Heretics, Chapter 30. Translated by Peter Holmes. ElectronicVersion Copyright 2006 by Kevin Knight. All rights reserved).

Even though Marcion andValentinus were condemned byPolycarp as a hereticabout two decades beforeEleutherius became bishop, apparently they were notput out of the Roman Catholic Church then. (Marcion gave a large financialcontribution that kept him in good graces for a while--though the RomanChurch allegedly returned that contribution after some time.)

And why is all of this about Polycarp and Irenaeus so important?

Because Irenaeus knew that Polycarp had the original faith that the apostles had,

but did not stand up for it. Apparently, he did not consider that faith to beimportant enough to fully follow it personally. Notice what Irenaeus records thisabout Polycarp:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversedwith many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia,appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrnaalways taught the thingswhich he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church hashanded down, and which alone are true. To these things all the AsiaticChurches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp

down to the present time (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III,Chapter 4, Verse 3 and Chapter 3, Verse 4).

So we have from this early Roman Catholic source that Polycarp and hissuccessors in Asia Minor (at least until the time that Irenaeus wrote this, around180 A.D.) practiced the true teachings that they learned from the apostles.

Irenaeus also wrote:


4/30

And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on oneoccasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan."(Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses. Book III, Chapter 3,Verse 4. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited byAlexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885.Online Edition Copyright 2004 by K. Knight).

What Irenaeus failed to mention is that Marcion was possibly the first heretic todo away with the seventh-day Sabbath. And while Justin did not believe inkeeping the Sabbath either, Justin did attend church services on Sunday.Irenaeus apparently felt that neither Saturday nor Sunday was of particularimportance, as long as one worshipped God regularly--and this is a heresy thatmany still hold to today (including even the Jehovah's witnesses).

Irenaeus also had some teachings that Polycarp held. For example, like Polycarp,Irenaeus clearly did not teach the trinity--he held abinitarian view, hence he did

not follow that error of Montanus or Valentinus:...there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, andthe Son, and those who possess the adoption (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, BookIV, Preface, Verse 4. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited byAlexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online EditionCopyright 2004 by K. Knight).

Notice that Irenaeus states that only the Father, the Son, and those who possessthe adoption (Christians) are God. This is a binitarian, not a trinitarian view.

So why would binitarians consider Irenaeus a dangerous heretic?Because he sided with Roman unity above the teachings that he must haveknown that Polycarp held. And he also introduced prophetic and othermisunderstandings that many still accept today.

The Real "Passover Plot"

Irenaeus clearly knew that Polycarp kept Passover yet he did not condemn Romefor changing it. Notice what he wrote:

And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus,

although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other pointsFor neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in hisown way], inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John thedisciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant;nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep[the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere tothe usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs theyheld fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the


5/30

Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect(Irenaeus. FRAGMENTS FROM THE LOST WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS.Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Excerpted from VolumeI of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson,editors); American Edition copyright 1885. Electronic version copyright 1997 by New Advent, Inc).

Eusebius records that Polycrates explained how the Apostles Philip and John, aswell as faithful church leaders and martyrs such as Polycarp and Melito, keptthe Passover on the 14th of Nisan in accordance with the gospel and would notdeviate from it.

This displeased the Roman Bishop Victor. Notice what Eusebius also recorded:

But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old customhanded down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor andthe church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which hadcome down to him: "We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor takingaway..."

He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him andthought as he did. His words are as follows: "I could mention thebishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whosenames, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. Andthey, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowingthat I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my

life by the Lord Jesus." Thereupon Victor, who presided over thechurch at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the commonunity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them,as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren therewholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. Andthey besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborlyunity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of thebrethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mysteryof the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's

day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off wholechurches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom andafter many other words he proceeds as follows:

"For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but alsoconcerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that theyshould fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover,count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night. And this


6/30

variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long beforein that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strictaccuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according totheir own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none theless in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and thedisagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith."

He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert:

"Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over thechurch which thou now rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, andHyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed itthemselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yetthough not observing it, they were none the less at peace with thosewho came to them from the parishes in which it was observed;

although this observance was more opposed to those who did notobserve it. But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but thepresbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist tothose of other parishes who observed it. And when the blessed Polycarpwas at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little aboutcertain other things...For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp notto observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of ourLord..." (Eusebius. Church History. Book V, Chapter 24).

Notice that what Irenaeus did was persuade to the Roman Bishop Victor to not

be as angry against those who in Asia Minor did what the Bible and the ApostlesPhilip and John stated. And also notice that Irenaeus himself did not stand upfor the biblical Passover even though he knew that Polycarp observed it.

So why was that so heretical?

First of all, because Irenaeus' own practices were complicit with Rome's--Irenaeus should have condemned Rome's practices. And secondly, becauseIrenaeus knew that Sunday was not observed by Polycarp as Polycarp was adisciple of the Apostle John--hence should not have advocated it. Thirdly,Irenaeus also had to have known that Victor was notbinitarian (he was

Sabellian). And fourthly because he, unbiblically, is referring to Sunday as theLord's Day (an article of related interest may be Is Revelation 1:10 talking aboutSunday or the Day of the Lord?). Because of Irenaeus most who profess Christnow accept Easter.

And why was that so dangerous? Besides the pagan connections, notice whatEusebius recorded:


7/30

Irenus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom hepresided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should beobserved only on the Lord's day...Thus Irenaeus, who truly was well named,became a peacemaker in this matter (Eusebius. Church History. Book V, Chapter24).

Instead of condemning Irenaeus for not standing up for the biblical Passover, heis praised by Roman supporters for persuading those in the second century tonot be too harsh on those that kept the properbiblical teaching of the date of thePassover.

Notice that the Apostle John taught that those who seemed like Christians, butdid not do what John did were following leaders John describes as antichrists,

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist iscoming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is thelast hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been ofus, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might bemade manifest, that none of them were of us (1 John 2:18-19).

The change of Passover may have been the first specific departure from thepractices of John that we have a historical record of (involving John's name) (seealso Some Doctrines of Antichrist).

Roman supporters ultimately did eliminate the observance of the Passover onthe 14th among those they had cordial contact with by the decree of the paganEmperor Constantine in 325 A.D. And later did try to kill those who refused to

accept that decree (please see article Europa, the Beast, and Revelation).

Apparently Irenaeus valued doctrinal compromise above biblical truth. Irenaeus,while knowing that Polycarp was faithful, only followed some of his faithfulteachings (this reminds me of what Daniel told Belshazzar--Belshazzar knewwhat happened earlier, yet chose to ignore much of it and live the opposite--seeDaniel 5:22-23).

These are reasons that most Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestantscholars seem to have overlooked. Instead, they all tend to consider thatIrenaeus was a great early apologist and/or saint.

Furthermore, notice that Pope Benedict XVI called him:

The true founder of Catholic theology, St. Irenaeus of Lyon (PopeBenedict XVI. Homily for the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul. June 29,2005,http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/647/Homily_on_Saints_Peter_and_Paul_Pope_Benedict_XVI.html 6/19/07).


8/30

Those in the Church of God do not consider that Irenaeus was the founder oftrue theology.

Irenaeus Quoted "The Shepherd of Hermas" the Same as He Did Scripture

In a writing called The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, Irenaeuswrote:

For it is necessary that, things that are made should have the beginning of theirmaking from some great cause; and the beginning of all things is God. For HeHimself was not made by any, and by Him all things were made. And therefore itis right first of all to believe that there is One God, the Father, who made andfashioned all things, and made what was not that it should be, and who,containing all things, alone is uncontained (Irenaeus, St., Bishop of Lyon.Translated from the Armenian by Armitage Robinson. The Demonstration of theApostolic Preaching. Wells, Somerset, Oct. 1879. As published in SOCIETY FORPROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE. NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN

CO, 1920).

The 69th footnote at that writing, which includes the original Greek states:

69 In IV, xxxiv. 2 he quotes, as Scripture, the Shepherd of Hermas, Mand.: , , , , . Cf. also I, xv. 1.

This is also the opinion of Roman Catholic scholars:

..."The Shepherd" (Poimen, Pastor), a work which had great authority in ancienttimes and was ranked with Holy Scripture. Eusebius tells us that it was publiclyread in the churches, and that while some denied it to be canonical, others"considered it most necessary". St. Athanasius speaks of it...St. Irenus andTertullian (in his Catholic days) cite the "Shepherd" as Scripture. Clement ofAlexandria constantly quotes it with reverence, and so does Origen (Chapman. J.Transcribed by Don Ross. Hermas. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII.Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, June 1,1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley,Archbishop of New York).

No one can read The Shepherd of Hermas and think that it is on par withscripture--it is simply too bizarre. Irenaeus, however, was apparently the firstknown leader to do so. Irenaeus may have deferred to it as many believe that itwas written by the brother of the Roman "bishop" Pius. This was a dangerouscompromise. And one of the most dangerous.

What Motivated Irenaeus?


9/30

While it is impossible to know for certain what Irenaeus thought, there are someclues in his writings.

Irenaeus' writings against heretics shows that there were many heretics whoheld views of God that they could not have possibly gotten from the Bible--essentially the views of the followers or Simon Magus and others like Valentinus

that were later termed "gnostics". Apparently as far as Irenaeus was concerned,these were the important heresies.

And while Irenaeus commended Polycarp for blasting the heretic Valentinus(who originated the idea that God existed as three hypostases) and Marcion(who tried to do away with the Old Testament, the law, and the sabbath), heapparently did not think that changing the date of the Passover to Sunday (assome Roman bishops did) or the day of worship to Sunday (as Justin advocated)was heretical.

The question is: Was he right?

The answer is simply no.

The proof that Irenaeus gave (as mentioned earlier) was tradition, not scripture.However, based upon the following writing, it might appear that Irenaeus isproviding scriptural justification for his position:

The apostles ordained, that "we should not judge any one in respect to meat ordrink, or in regard to a feast day, or the new moons, or the sabbaths.'' Whencethen these contentions? whence these schisms? We keep the feast, but in theleaven of malice and wickedness, cutting in pieces the Church of God; and we

preserve what belongs to its exterior, that we may cast away these better things,faith and love. We have heard from the prophetic words that these feasts andfasts are displeasing to the Lord. (Fragments of Irenaeus XXXVIII.)

However, he has misconstrued that scripture. He left off the end of thestatement, Colossians 2:17. The verse he left out has been translated:

3739.... .2076........ 4639... 3588........ 3195...... 3588...1161 ..4983... 99993588...5547Which are a .........shadow of things ....to come; the...... but...body..... is........of .....Christ

(Interlinear Transliterated Bible. Copyright (c) 1994 by Biblesoft). Note: Theterm is does not exist in the original Greek (that is what 9999 represents--atranslator added term).

Thus Colossians 2:16-17 literally states:

So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moonor sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body of Christ.


10/30

Since the church is "the body of Christ" (1 Corinthians 12:27), this passage isstating to ignore outsiders (those that are not true Christians) as to how thefeasts and the sabbaths should be kept, but that the church is the judge.

Notice that Irenaeus did not appeal to vs. 17 that the Roman Church hadauthority on this over those in Asia Minor--he probably did not do this because

almost none outside of Victor thought that the Roman Church had that type ofauthority (Victor was the first to clearly attempt to actually project RomanCatholic authority to distant areas).

And this is why Irenaeus was possibly the most dangerous heretic. He decided toignore what the Bible taught, decided that those not faithful to the originalteachings were close enough and that both sides had valid views. Irenaeus, likenearly all theologians after him, concluded that certain traditions were of morevalue than what the Bible (or those faithful to the teachings of the apostles)taught.

The New Testament warned of the same type of problems in Jesus' day:Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of thePharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue;for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:42-43,NKJV).

And the approval of men was apparently more important to Irenaeus than thetruth of God.

TheApostle Paulwarned that some who professed Christ simply would not have

a proper love of the truth:For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrainswill do so until He is taken out of the way... and with all unrighteous deceptionamong those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, thatthey might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion,that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did notbelieve the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thessalonians 2:7,10-12).

While Protestants tend to blast Roman Catholics for relying on traditions of menabove the Bible, the simple truth is that Protestant scholars not only realize thatProtestants do this, they actually teach that relying on human traditions is moreimportant than the Bible. Look at this admission from the Protestant scholarand theologian H. Brown:

Although classical theology is certainly not without its problems, historically it isalmost always the case that the appeal to the Bible alone...leads to thereemergence of ancient heresies (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy


11/30

in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p.335).

Notice that this Protestant scholar is claiming that if you rely on the Biblealone, sola Scriptura, that you will believe so-called ancient heresies--that is theteachings of true Early Christianity! It should be noted that the above is notlimited to one Protestant scholar, even Martin Luther truly did not believe inrallying cry sola scriptura (an article of related interest may beSola

Scriptura or Prima Luther?What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About theBible?).

And while Irenaeus reasonably should have known that Justin taught heresy asJustin taught against the ten commandments, he instead seemed to praiseJustin. Notice these praises of the apostate Justin from the writings fromIrenaeus:

In his book against Marcion, Justin does well say (IV, VI, 2).

Truly has Justin remarked (V, XXVI, 2).

A certain man named Tatian first introduced the blasphemy. He was ahearer of Justin's, and as long as he continued with him he expressedno such views; but after his martyrdom he separated from the Church(Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses, I, XXVIII, 1. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & JamesDonaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright 2004

by K. Knight).

But the simple facts are that Justin taught so many heresies that Irenaeus shouldnot have written the above statements as they suggest that Justin was not aheretic.

But there was one major difference between Justin and Irenaeus. Even thoughboth were against the gnostics, Justin originally wanted to also distance his formof religion from those who practiced what is now called "primitive" or apostolicor Jewish Christianity (this is documented in the article Justin Martyr: Saint,Heretic, or Apostate?), while Irenaeus felt that both apostolic and RomanChristianity should cooperate and coexist together.

Some scholars believe that Irenaeus was simply highly influenced by Justin. Andperhaps as Irenaeus had more contact with Justin, he felt and farther andfarther connection from Polycarp and the true Christians. The following is froma 19th century book, in a chapter titled THE DEBT OF IRENUS TO JUSTINMARTYR:


12/30

... repeated coincidences, in large matters and in small, make us feel thatIrenus was very familiar with Justin's writings. Everywhere he goes beyondhim: but again and again he starts from him. (Irenaeus, St., Bishop of Lyon.Translated from the Armenian by Armitage Robinson. The Demonstration of theApostolic Preaching. Wells, Somerset, Oct. 1879. As published in SOCIETY FORPROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE. NEW YORK: THE MACMILLANCO, 1920).

Because of him allowing himself to quote and be highly influenced by Justin, itappears that Irenaeus himself fell prey to the pull of being influenced by vainphilosphy. Notice that if Irenaeus was following the teachings from the Bible, hewould have heeded Paul's warning and been wise enough to not let this happen:

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, accordingto the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and notaccording to Christ (Colossians 2:8).

Only by being cheated through philosophy and empty deceit, could Irenaeus dowhat he did.

Some Other Odd Writings of Irenaeus

As the following writing shows, Irenaeus did not get everything correct:

Truly has Justin remarked: That before the Lord's appearance Satan never daredto blaspheme God, inasmuch as he did not yet know his own sentence, because itwas contained in parables and allegories (Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses, V, XXVI,

2. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts& James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright 2004by K. Knight).

Both Irenaeus and Justin clearly ignored scripture to come to this conclusion.

This is NOT biblical. Since the Satan knew scripture (e.g. Matthew 4), he wouldhave known Psalm 9:17,

The wicked shall be turned back unto Sheol" (ASV).

And Isaiah 14:12-15 which states,

How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cutdown to the ground, You who weakened the nations! For you have said in yourheart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; Iwill also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' Yetyou shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit (NKJV).


13/30

Satan also deliberately encouraged blaspheming centuries before Christ,

...stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You toYour face! (Job 1:11)

...stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he

will surely curse You to Your face! (Job 2:5).

The fact that he rebelled against God also shows Satan's blasphemous nature.

To claim Satan did not blaspheme or know his fate before Christ was anoutrageous claim on both Irenaeus' and Justin's part.

Irenaeus apparently did not understand the New Testament account of Jesus'age as he wrote:

For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day;and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years

old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such language is fittingly applied toone who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached hisfiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirtyyears old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." Forthose who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend thenumber of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; butthey mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertainedthis out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture fromwhat they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was

not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to supposethat they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Himyounger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed;and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of fleshand blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old; and, inaccordance with that fact (Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses, Book II, Chapter 22,Verse 6. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by AlexanderRoberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright 2004 by K. Knight).

The New Testament is clear that Jesus' public ministry lasted 3 1/2 years andthat Jesus was "about 30" (Luke 3:23) when He began it. Thus, it is illogical forIrenaeus to come up with his "almost 50" statement based on making anassumption about a comment by the Pharisees.

It appears that Irenaeus decided to use his human reason above the clearstatements in the Bible--and that is the most dangerous of all the heresies!

One scholar noted the following about Irenaeus and the Bible:


14/30

Irenus goes on to attribute to Jeremiah a yet more strange quotation: "Blessedis he who was, before he became man." The German translations render the lastwords differently: one of them has "before the coming into being of man (vordem Werden des Menschen):" the other has: "before through him man wasmade (bevor durch ihn der Mensch warde)." We have however an exact parallelto the construction in the Armenian rendering of the words "before he knoweth"in c. 53. The Greek there is prin e gnonai auton (Isa. vii. 15); and we maysuppose that here it was prin e genethenai auton anthropon.

No such text is to be found in any book now known to us which isattributed to Jeremiah. (Irenaeus, St., Bishop of Lyon. Translated fromthe Armenian by Armitage Robinson. The Demonstration of theApostolic Preaching. Wells, Somerset, Oct. 1879. As published inSOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE. NEWYORK: THE MACMILLAN CO, 1920)

Why Four Gospels?

While Irenaeus correctly realizes that there are four canonical gospels, his logicis not really based upon the Bible and is not accurate. Here is what he wrote:

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number thanthey are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and fourprincipal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the"pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fittingthat she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and

vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificerof all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who wasmanifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but boundtogether by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation,"Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth." For the cherubim, too,were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son ofGod. For, [as the Scripture] says, "The first living creature was like a lion,"symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second[living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order;but "the third had, as it were, the face as of a man," -- an evident description of

His advent as a human being; "the fourth was like a flying eagle," pointing outthe gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore theGospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. Forthat according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generationfrom the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Wordwas with God, and the Word was God." Also, "all things were made by Him, andwithout Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of allconfidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His]


15/30

priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice toGod. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for thefinding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as aman, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, theson of Abraham;" and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This,then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [thecharacter of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel.Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spiritcoming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel ofJesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet," -- pointing to the wingedaspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursorynarrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himselfused to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with Hisdivinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal andliturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the

celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, aswas the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the livingcreatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also thecharacter of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospelis quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason werefour principal (kaqolikai) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to thedeluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third,the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, andsums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing menupon its wings into the heavenly kingdom. (Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses, VIII,

XI, 8. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by AlexanderRoberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright 2004 by K. Knight).

He then goes on and blasts any who say there are more or less. He simply couldhave stated that this is what the apostle passed on to Polycarp or somethinglogical. Instead, his reasoning seems nonsensical. This suggests that he only hadlittle contact with Polycarp--enough contact to know some of what Polycarptaught and why Polycarp was faithful, but not enough that he paid sufficient

attention to his teachings.Nothing is certain about Irenaeus' death. It is likely that he died near the end ofthe second century or the beginning of the third century.

Inaccurate Claims About the Founding of the Roman Church

Here is some of what Irenaeus wrote around 180 A.D.:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon upthe successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in


16/30

whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindnessand perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] byindicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the veryancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by thetwo most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faithpreached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions ofthe bishops...

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church,committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of thisLinus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To himsucceeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from theapostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric (Irenaeus. AdversusHaereses, Book III, Chapter 3, Verses 2,3. Excerpted from Ante-NiceneFathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson.

American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright 2004 by K.Knight).

Yet, the Roman Catholic Church admits that at least part of that account ofIrenaeus (circa 180 A.D.) regarding a tradition derived from the apostles thatboth Peter and Paul first started the great church in Rome and that they (NOTPeter alone) passed the leadership to Linus was in error.

Notice this comment from the modern Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan:

Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as "greatest, most

ancient and known to all, founded and established by the two most gloriousapostles, Peter and Paul." Here we must acknowledge a bit of rhetoric, as thechurch of Rome was obviously not so ancient as those of Jerusalem orAntioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul (Sullivan F.A. FromApostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church.Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 147).

The Catholic Encyclopedia also agrees with me here (and not Irenaeus) as itstates this about Paul's epistle to the Romans:

Paul would have worded his Epistle otherwise, if the community addressed wereeven mediately indebted to his apostolate (Merk A. Transcribed by W.G. Kofron.Epistle to the Romans. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII. Copyright 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright 2003 by K.Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor Imprimatur.+John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).


17/30

Furthermore, the Bible clearly agrees with me, The Catholic Encyclopedia, andF.A. Sullivan here. The Bible shows that Paul did not start the Church in Rome--thus the apostolic tradition that Irenaeus relied on is a fraudulent one--as it isnot true--it is a myth. For here is what Paul wrote to the church at Rome:

20. And I have so preached this Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I

should buildupon another mans foundation:21. But as it is written, They to whom it hath not been preached of him, shall see:and theythat have not heard, shall understand.22. For the which cause also I was hindered very much from coming unto you(Romans 15:20-22, Rheims NT of 1582).

There is no way that Paul could have written the above if he considered that hefounded or co-founded the church in Rome as in these verses he explains that he

did not first come to Rome lest he build on another man's foundation. (Note: Ichoose to use the Rheims New Testament of 1582 A.D. as this is considered tothe Catholic standard English translation of the New Testament).

Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan also further agrees, as he wrote:

...it doesn't appear that Paul ever appointed any one person as "resident bishop"over any of his churches...(Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: thedevelopment of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah(NJ), 2001, p. 35).

Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors of theapostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish...Thefirst problem has to do with the notion that Christ ordained apostles asbishops...The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches;there is no evidence, nor is it at all likely, that any one of them evertook up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop...Theletter of the Romans to the Corinthians, known as I Clement, whichdates to about the year 96, provides good evidence that about 30 yearsafter the death of St. Paul the church of Corinth was being led by a

group of presbyters, with no indication of a bishop with authority overthe whole local church...Most scholars are of the opinion that thechurch of Rome would most probably have also been led at that time bya group of presbyters...There exists a broad consensus among scholars,including most Catholic ones, that such churches as Alexandria,Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for sometime by a college of presbyters, and that only in the second century didthe threefold structure of become generally the rule, with a bishop,


18/30

assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church (Sullivan F.A.From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in theearly church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 13,14,15).

And that is certainly correct concerning Rome. There were no "bishops of Rome"in the first century, certain Roman Catholic scholars understand this, hence the

idea that there is an unbroken line of bishops in apostolic succession from Romeis false (more information can be found in the articleApostolic Succession).

The fact is that the Bible itself mentions nothing about the Church of Rome interms of any leadership significance for the true church. Other than Pauls letterto those in Rome and his imprisonment there, only three other, non-related,times does the New Testament use the word Rome. The first mentions thatJews from Rome and other areas of the world were in Jerusalem aroundPentecost (Acts 2:10); the second that Claudius had the Jews depart from Rome(Acts 18:2); and the third that involves Onesiphorus who visited Paul in Rome

and later in Ephesus (2 Timothy 1:16-18). While some writers believe that Peterwas in Rome when he mentioned this in his first epistle--The Church salutethyou, that is in Babylon, coelect, 1 Peter 5:13--this was not a clear reference toRome (as there was a Babylon in the Asia Minor region at the time), but even if itis referring to Rome, this does not prove that Rome was of central significance tothe church--it only suggests that Peter may have once been in contact withChristians from Rome.

Notice this comment from a Catholic scholar about Irenaeus Peter, Paul, andRome:

Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as "greatest, mostancient and known to all, founded and established by the two most gloriousapostles, Peter and Paul." Here we must acknowledge a bit of rhetoric, as thechurch of Rome was obviously not so ancient as those of Jerusalem orAntioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul (Sullivan F.A. FromApostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church.Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 147).

Irenaeus simply made false claims about the founding of the Church at Rome,and sadly many still rely on these false claims (an article of related interest

might beWhat Does Rome Actually Teach About Early Church History?).Prophetic Errors

In addition to the doctrinal errors that Irenaeus promoted through his writingsand attempt at unifying under Roman Catholicism, the one category of his errorsthat will wreak havoc upon the world is his prophetic misunderstandings.

Irenaeus wrote:


19/30

Enoch, too, pleasing God, without circumcision, discharged the office of God'slegate to the angels although he was a man, and was translated, and is preserveduntil now as a witness of the just judgment of God, because the angels when theyhad transgressed fell to the earth for judgment, but the man who pleased [God]was translated for salvation (Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses, Book IV, Chapter 16,Verse 2).

For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body inwhich he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation thetranslation of the just. Elijah, too, was caught up [when he was yet] inthe substance of the [natural] form; thus exhibiting in prophecy theassumption of those who are spiritual, and that nothing stood in theway of their body being translated and caught up. For by means of thevery same hands through which they were moulded at the beginning,did they receive this translation and assumption...If, however, any one

imagine it impossible that men should survive for such a length of time,and that Elias was not caught up in the flesh, but that his flesh wasconsumed in the fiery chariot, let him consider that Jonah, when hehad been cast into the deep, and swallowed down into the whale's belly,was by the command of God again thrown out safe upon the land(Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses, Book V, Chapter 5, Verses 1-2).

The truth is that Enoch and Elijah are dead and are not preserved to be the finalwitnesses. By perpetuating a Jewish misunderstanding of what occurred,Irenaeus has helped set the stage for massive delusion.

Specifically notice the following that is claimed to have been written by Irenaeus:

The disciples of the apostles say (from oral tradition) that they (Elias andHenoch) whose living bodies were taken up from this world have been placed inan earthly paradise where they will remain until the end of the world (as quotedin Birch D.A. Trial, Tribulation & Triumph. Queenship Publishing, Goleta (CA),1996, p. 466).

The facts are, just like Irenaeus was wrong about his position about Peter andPaul founding the Church of Rome allegedly derived a tradition from the

apostles, that if he actually wrote the above, he is clearly wrong about that itcame from any true disciples of the apostles.

Sadly, many Catholics believe the above statements from and possibly fromIrenaeus (which were later confirmed by writers such as Catholic saintsEphraem, John Damascene, and Hildegard), and this is one of the reasons thatmany of the Roman Catholics will be deceived about the real two witnesses and


20/30

will not believe their message (more information can be found in the article TheTwo Witnesses).

Many Roman Catholics believe that Enoch (whose name they often spellHenoch) and Elijah will not appear until after the discovery of the ark of thecovenant (ibid, p. 509), hence they simply will not be able to discern the true

witnesses from God, as improper interpretation of prophecies (partially beganby Irenaeus) will deceive them.

Irenaeus also misunderstood aboutAntichrist. Look at some of what he wrote:

And not only by the particulars already mentioned, but also by means of theevents which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown that he, being anapostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God; and that, although a mereslave, he wishes himself to be proclaimed as a king. For he (Antichrist) beingendued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor asa legitimate king, [i.e., one] in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and

lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber,concentrating in himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols topersuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol,having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols (Irenaeus. AdversusHaereses, Book V, Chapter 5, Verses 1).

Irenaeus was perhaps the first person in writing to confuse the ten-horned Beastwith Antichrist (the two-horned Beast). This, sadly, has become the position ofmost Protestants and Catholics who try to be followers of prophecy--and thisposition is wrong (for scriptural details, please see Some Doctrines of

Antichrist).

Furthermore, Antichrist will not come destroying idols (though ultimately hewill betray the Roman Catholic Church per Revelation 17). Perhaps because ofthis statement from Irenaeus, the following inaccurate prophecy from Dionysusof Luxembourg (died 1682) claimed to be about Antichrist will probably becomeaccepted in some Roman Catholic circles (parenthetical statements mine):

Antichrist will be an iconoclast. Most in the world will adore him. He will teachthat the Christian (Catholic) religion is false, confiscation of Christian (Catholic)property is legal, Saturday is to be observed instead of Sunday, and he willchange the ten commandments...He will read people's minds, raise the dead,reward his followers, and punish the rest (Conner Edward. Prophecy for Today,4th ed. TAN Books, Rockford (IL) 1984, p.85).

The truth is that Antichrist will accept idols (iconoclasts abolish idols) originallyembrace Catholicism, originally practice Sunday worship, and accept the RomanCatholic numbering of the ten commandments. The Bible does not teach that the


21/30

Antichrist will read people's minds or raise the dead (although it mentions onewho was healed of a deadly wound, Revelation 13:12).

Jesus, after His return, will abolish idols (Isaiah 2:17-18; Ezekiel 30:13), willinsist on the Saturday Sabbath (Hebrews 4:4,9), and will correctly number andenforce the keeping of the ten commandments after His return (Revelation

22:14-15). He will, of course, be able to read people's minds (I Corinthians 3:20),will raise the dead (1 Thessalonians 4:16), reward His followers (Matthew 16:27),and punish the rest (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 22:15).

When Christ comes, it appears that statements at least partially based uponIrenaeus' writings (and those of other traditions/private prophecies) maydeceive many.

Irenaeus is clearly one of the most dangerous heretics, even in these end times.

His Writings Have Been Filtered Through Others

While it should be clear to any that study the writings we have left fromIrenaeus, it appears to be true that we really only have writings from him thatare translations or simply writings others have ascribed to him. Hence he mayhave been a bit less "orthodox" than the mainstream claims.

Here is the opinion of one scholar about the lack of original writings:

IT is a remarkable fact, and much to be regretted, that none of the works of StIrenus, the greatest theologian of the second century, have come down to us inthe language in which they were written. Of his chief work, the five booksAgainst Heresies, we have a very early Latin translation, and a few fragments of

the original Greek preserved through quotation by other writers. (Irenaeus, St.,Bishop of Lyon. Translated from the Armenian by Armitage Robinson. TheDemonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. Wells, Somerset, Oct. 1879. Aspublished in SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE. NEWYORK: THE MACMILLAN CO, 1920)

The Post-Constantine Roman Church Has Beliefs that Irenaeus Condemned

Irenaeus did hold several views that we in the Churches of God hold that differmarkedly from those now held by the Roman Catholic Church and certain other

mainstream churches.Specifically, he endorsed the millennium, was opposed to allegorizingprophecies in the Book of Revelation, claimed he was opposed to using traditionover scripture, and was opposed to baptism by annointing.

Here is some of what The Catholic Encyclopedia notes about the millennium:


22/30

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor, influenced by the companions ofSt. Polycarp, adopted millenarian ideas, discussing and defending them in hisworks against the Gnostics (Adv. Haereses, V, 32)...

The most powerful adversary of millenarianism was Origen ofAlexandria. In view of the Neo-Platonism on which his doctrines werefounded and of his spiritual-allegorical method of explaining the HolyScriptures, he could not side with the millenarians. He combatted themexpressly, and, owing to the great influence which his writings exertedon ecclesiastical theology especially in Oriental countries,millenarianism gradually disappeared from the idea of OrientalChristians...

St. Augustine was for a time, as he himself testifies (De Civitate Dei,XX, 7), a pronounced champion of millenarianism; but he places the

millennium after the universal resurrection and regards it in a morespiritual light (Sermo, CCLIX). When, however, he accepted thedoctrine of only one universal resurrection and a final judgmentimmediately following, he could no longer cling to the principal tenet ofearly chiliasm. St. Augustine finally held to the conviction that therewill be no millennium...The struggle between Christ and His saints onthe one hand and the wicked world and Satan on the other, is waged inthe Church on earth; so the great Doctor describes it in his workDeCivitate Dei. In the same book he gives us an allegorical explanation ofChapter 20 of the Apocalypse...at all events, the kingdom of Christ, of

which the Apocalypse speaks, can only be applied to the Church (DeCivitate Dei, XX 5-7). This explanation of the illustrious Doctor wasadopted by succeeding Western theologians, and millenarianism in itsearlier shape no longer received support...

The Middle Ages were never tainted with millenarianism; it was foreignboth to the theology of that period and to the religious ideas of thepeople. (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Donald J. Boon. Millennium andMillenarianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Copyright 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright 2003by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D.,Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Since perhaps beginning with Origen, and definitely since the time of Augustine,those associated with the Roman Catholic Church have done away with themeaning of the Book of Revelation by way of allegorizing its actual meaning.Irenaeus, however, condemned those who would do that:


23/30

1. If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, theyshall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confutedby the teaching of the very expressions [in question]. (Book V, Chapter 35, Verse1 ).

Yet The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

St. Augustine has perhaps more than any one else helped to free the Churchfrom all crude fancies as regards its pleasures. He explained the millenniumallegorically and applied it to the Church of Christ on earth (Van Den Biesen C.Transcribed by Michael C. Tinkler. Apocalypse. The Catholic Encyclopedia,Volume I. Copyright 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online EditionCopyright 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort,S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

It is sad that Roman Catholic scholars seem to believe that allegoricially

understanding the Book of Revelation (which they call The Apocalypse) helpedto free the Church from all crude fancies.

Notice that Irenaeus seems to only endorse baptism through immersion in wateras opposed to annointing a head and mumbling phrases:

But there are some of them who assert that it is superfluous to bring persons tothe water, but mixing oil and water together, they place this mixture on theheads of those who are to be initiated, with the use of some such expressions aswe have already mentioned (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book I, 13:1-2; 21:3-4.Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts &

James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright 2004 byK. KnightBook).

What was one of the bad practices of the Gnostic Valentinians? According toIrenaeus, they relied on tradition more than scripture:

1. Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced,nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boastthat beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge.They gather theirviews from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common

proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour toadapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions theparables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of theapostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether withoutsupport. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and theconnection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember anddestroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them upanew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding


24/30

many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord totheir opinions (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book 1, Chapter 8, Verse 1).

1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turnround and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, norof 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 writtendocuments, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speakwisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of thisworld." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction ofhis own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truthproperly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, atanother in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even beenindifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothingpertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of

a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed topreach himself (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 2, Verse 1).

For these men are not more to be depended on than the Scriptures; norought we to give up the declarations of the Lord, Moses, and the rest ofthe prophets, who have proclaimed the truth, and give credit to them,who do indeed utter nothing of a sensible nature, but rave aboutuntenable opinions (Book II, Chapter 30, Verse 6. BY ST. IRENAEUSOF LYONS; Excerpted fromAnte-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1 Edited byAlexander Roberts & James Donaldson American Edition, 1885 Online

Edition Copyright 2004 by K. Knight).

Is that not what the Roman Catholics now do?

How can the modern Roman Catholic Church consider that Irenaeus was animportant saint since he condemned many of its current practices?

Conclusion

Because he was a second century writer, and because he learned some thingsfrom Polycarp, and because he wrote against gnostic heretics, and because heaccepted Sundayworship, Irenaeus has been accepted by the mainstream as atrue Christian writer.

However, since he preferred unity and traditions of men over what the Bibleteaches, he set a dangerous precedent. A precedent that most who professChristianity now support, even if they do not realize it. Several of his writingscontain inaccurate, unbiblical, and nonsensical statements, and while mistakesof facts can happen, his errors are not of the sort that one would expect of him ifhe was truly a saint of God.


25/30

Irenaeus supported the Roman Church even though Irenaeus knew it hadtolerated heretics, as well as heretical practices, that had earlier beencondemned by the faithful Polycarp.

Since most do not realize how they have been directly or indirectly influenced byhis writings, Irenaeus was probably the most dangerous heretic.

Learning about the old heretics may help warn us about the most dangerousheretics today.

And in this Laodicean era, it may be that those who follow in Irenaeus' footstepsand value unity above doctrinal truth and the apostolic work may be the mostdangerous heretics today.

Back to home page

Back to Early Christianity page

Thiel B. Irenaeus: The Most Dangerous Heretic?

www.cogwriter.com/irenaeus.htm (c) 2007 1012Below are two appendices of quotes from Irenaeus. Appendix A includesSabbath quotes, while appendix B includes prophetic quotes.

Appendix A: More Sabbath Quotes

While Irenaeus did not seem to care much about the Sabbath, he did mention itin other writings which are included with little comment, in this appendix.

Sabbath:

2. For the Lord vindicated Abraham's posterity by loosing them from bondageand calling them to salvation, as He did in the case of the woman whom Hehealed, saying openly to those who had not faith like Abraham, "Ye hypocrites,doth not each one of you on the Sabbath-days loose his ox or his ass, and leadhim away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham,whom Satan hath bound these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on theSabbath-days?" It is clear therefore, that He loosed and vivified those whobelieve in Him as Abraham did, doing nothing contrary to the law when Hehealed upon the Sabbath-day. For the law did not prohibit men from being

healed upon the Sabbaths; [on the contrary,] it even circumcised them upon thatday, and gave command that the offices should be performed by the priests forthe people; yea, it did not disallow the healing even of dumb animals. Both atSiloam and on frequent subsequent occasions, did He perform cures upon theSabbath; and for this reason many used to resort to Him on the Sabbath-days.For the law commanded them to abstain from every servile work, that is, fromall grasping after wealth which is procured by trading and by other worldlybusiness; but it exhorted them to attend to the exercises of the soul, which


26/30

consist in reflection, and to addresses of a beneficial kind for their neighbours'benefit. And therefore the Lord reproved those who unjustly blamed Him forhaving healed upon the Sabbath-days. For He did not make void, but fulfilledthe law, by performing the offices of the high priest, propitiating God for men,and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick, and Himself suffering death, thatexiled man might go forth from condemnation, and might return without fear tohis own inheritance.

3. And again, the law did not forbid those who were hungry on theSabbath-days to take food lying ready at hand: it did, however, forbidthem to reap and to gather into the barn. And therefore did the Lordsay to those who were blaming His disciples because they plucked andate the ears of corn, rubbing them in their hands, "Have ye not readthis, what David did, when himself was an hungered; how he went intothe house of God, and ate the shew-bread, and gave to those who were

with him; which it is not lawful to eat, but for the priests alone?"justifying His disciples by the words of the law, and pointing out that itwas lawful for the priests to act freely. For David had been appointed apriest by God, although Saul persecuted him. For all the righteouspossess the sacerdotal rank. And all the apostles of the Lord are priests,who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and thealtar continually. Of whom Moses also says in Deuteronomy, whenblessing Levi, "Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have notknown thee; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, and hedisinherited his own sons: he kept Thy commandments, and observed

Thy covenant." But who are they that have left father and mother, andhave said adieu to all their neighbours, on account of the word of Godand His covenant, unless the disciples of the Lord? Of whom againMoses says, "They shall have no inheritance, for the Lord Himself istheir inheritance." And again, "The priests the Levites shall have nopart in the whole tribe of Levi, nor substance with Israel; theirsubstance is the offerings (fructifications) of the Lord: these shall theyeat." Wherefore also Paul says, "I do not seek after a gift, but I seekafter fruit." To His disciples He said, who had a priesthood of the Lord,

to whom it was lawful when hungry to eat the ears of corn, "For theworkman is worthy of his meat." And the priests in the temple profanedthe Sabbath, and were blameless. Wherefore, then, were theyblameless? Because when in the temple they were not engaged insecular affairs, but in the service of the Lord, fulfilling the law, but notgoing beyond it, as that man did, who of his own accord carded drywood into the camp of God, and was justly stoned to death. "For everytree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down, and cast


27/30

into the fire;" and "whosoever shall defile the temple of God, him shallGod defile." (Book IV, Chapter 8, Verses 2-3)

Tradition and Commandments:

3...For, being driven away from Him who truly is [God], and being turned

backwards, he shall be for ever seeking, yet shall never find out God; but shallcontinually swim in an abyss without limits, unless, being converted byrepentance, he return to the place from which he had been cast out, confessingone God, the Father, the Creator, and believing [in Him] who was declared bythe law and the prophets, who was borne witness to by Christ, as He did Himselfdeclare to those who were accusing His disciples of not observing the tradition ofthe elders: "Why do ye make void the law of God by reason of your tradition? ForGod said, Honour thy father and mother; and, Whosoever curseth father ormother, let him die the death." And again, He says to them a second time: "Andye have made void the word of God by reason of your tradition;" Christ

confessing in the plainest manner Him to be Father and God, who said in thelaw, "Honour thy father and mother; that it may be well with thee." For the trueGod did confess the commandment of the law as the word of God, and called noone else God besides His own Father. (Book IV, Chapter 9, Verse 3).

Tradition, Law, and Sabbath:

1. For the tradition of the elders themselves, which they pretended to observefrom the law, was contrary to the law given by Moses. Wherefore also Esaiasdeclares: "Thy dealers mix the wine with water," showing that the elders were in

the habit of mingling a watered tradition with the simple command of God; thatis, they set up a spurious law, and one contrary to the[true] law; as also the Lordmade plain, when He said to them, "Why do ye transgress the commandment ofGod, for the sake of your tradition?" For not only by actual transgression didthey set the law of God at nought, mingling the wine with water; but they also setup their own law in opposition to it, which is termed, even to the present day,the pharisaical. In this [law] they suppress certain things, add others, andinterpret others, again, as they think proper, which their teachers use, each onein particular; and desiring to uphold these traditions, they were unwilling to besubject to the law of God, which prepares them for the coming of Christ. But

they did even blame the Lord for healing on the Sabbath-days, which, as I havealready observed, the law did not prohibit. For they did themselves, in one sense,perform acts of healing upon the Sabbath-day, when they circumcised a man [onthat day]; but they did not blame themselves for transgressing the command ofGod through tradition and the aforesaid pharisaical law, and for not keeping thecommandment of the law, which is the love of God (Book IV, Chapter 12, Verse1).


28/30

5. Now, that the law did beforehand teach mankind the necessity offollowing Christ, He does Himself make manifest, when He replied asfollows to him who asked Him what he should do that he might inheriteternal life: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Butupon the other asking "Which?"" again the Lord replies: "Do notcommit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness,hon-our father and mother, and thou shalt love thy neighbour asthyself," -- setting as an ascending series (velut gradus) before thosewho wished to follow Him, the precepts of the law, as the entrance intolife; and What He then said to one He said to all. But when the formersaid, "All these have I done" (and most likely he had not kept them, forin that case the Lord would not have said to him, "Keep thecommandments"), the Lord, exposing his covetousness, said to him, "Ifthou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and distribute to thepoor; and come, follow me;" promising to those who would act thus,

the portion belonging to the apostles (apostolorum partem). And Hedid not preach to His followers another God the Father, besides Himwho was proclaimed by the law from the beginning; nor another Son;nor the Mother, the enthymesis of the Aeon, who existed in sufferingand apostasy; nor the Pleroma of the thirty Aeons, which has beenproved vain, and incapable of being believed in; nor that fable inventedby the other heretics. But He taught that they should obey thecommandments which God enjoined from the beginning, and do awaywith their former covetousness by good works, and follow after Christ(Book IV, Chapter 12, Verse 5).

More on the Sabbath:

1. Moreover, we learn from the Scripture itself, that God gave circumcision, notas the completer of righteousness, but as a sign, that the race of Abraham mightcontinue recognisable. For it declares: "God said unto Abraham, Every maleamong you shall be circumcised; and ye shall circumcise the flesh of yourforeskins, as a token of the covenant between Me and you." This same doesEzekiel the prophet say with regard to the Sabbaths: "Also I gave them MySabbaths, to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the

Lord, that sanctify them." And in Exodus, God says to Moses: "And ye shallobserve My Sabbaths; for it shall be a sign between Me and you for yourgenerations." These things, then, were given for a sign; but the signs were notunsymbolical, that is, neither unmeaning nor to no purpose, inasmuch as theywere given by a wise Artist; but the circumcision after the flesh typified that afterthe Spirit. For "we," says the apostle, "have been circumcised with thecircumcision made without hands." And the prophet declares, "Circumcise thehardness of your heart." But the Sabbaths taught that we should continue day by


29/30

day in God's service. "For we have been counted," says the Apostle Paul, "all theday long as sheep for the slaughter;" that is, consecrated [to God], andministering continually to our faith, and persevering in it, and abstaining fromall avarice, and not acquiring or possessing treasures upon earth. Moreover, theSabbath of God (requietio Dei), that is, the kingdom, was, as it were, indicatedby created things; in which [kingdom], the man who shall have persevered inserving God (Deo assistere) shall, in a state of rest, partake of God's table (BookIV, Chapter 16, Verse 1).

Appendix B: Prophetic Quotes

Prophecy:

3. Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten lastkings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and uponwhom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring fromthe beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and thatthree of the former shall be rooted up before his face. He says: "And, behold,eyes were in this horn as the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things,and his look was more stout than his fellows. I was looking, and this horn madewar against the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of dayscame and gave judgment to the saints of the most high God, and the time came,and the saints obtained the kingdom." Then, further on, in the interpretation ofthe vision, there was said to him: "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdomupon earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and devour the whole earth,and tread it down, and cut it in pieces. And its ten horns are ten kings which

shall arise; and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds allthat were before him, and shall overthrow three kings; and he shall speak wordsagainst the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, andshall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into hishand until a time of times and a half time," that is, for three years and sixmonths, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth. Ofwhom also the Apostle Paul again, speaking in the second [Epistle] to theThessalonians, and at the same time proclaiming the cause of his advent, thussays: "And then shall the wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall slaywith the spirit of His mouth, and destroy by the presence of His coming; whose

coming [i.e., the wicked one's] is after the working of Satan, in all power, andsigns, and portents of lies, and with all deceivableness of wickedness for thosewho perish; because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might besaved. And therefore God will send them the working of error, that they maybelieve a lie; that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but gaveconsent to iniquity," (Book V, Chapter 25, Verse 3).


30/30

3...Then also Lateinos (LATEINOS) has the number six hundred andsixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of thelast kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they whoat present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this(Book V, Chapter 30, Verse 3).

Thus Irenaeus apparently was taught (perhaps by Polycarp) that 666represented the Latin, or Roman, kingdom.

What of those that allegorize Revelation?

1. If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, theyshall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confutedby the teaching of the very expressions [in question]. (Book V, Chapter 35, Verse1 ).

Sadly, the Roman Church which considers Irenaeus to be probably its greatesttheologian of the second century, has decided that they do need to allegorizeRevelation (for more information please see the articleTradition and the Bible).

Documents

m09) Irenaeus the Most Dangerous Heretic