I have to catch up on these videos! I am listening to a course on the Gnostics and the professor does not seem to like Irenaeus! I really would like to read Against Heresies now!
Is the instructor a Christian? Irenaeus really flays the Gnostics. If you're pro-Gnosticism, I could see where you wouldn't like Irenaeus. You can't read Against Heresies and say Gnosticism was part of early orthodox beliefs.
How did I misrepresent it? I realize that some Calvinists (Ligonier comes to mind) will contradict themselves in how they describe it as Augustine contradicts himself in Against Heresies, but what I explained is exactly how I have had multiple Calvinists explain it as well as the way Calvinists act out (or fail to) their beliefs
Calvin merely taught what Paul taught on predestination. A denial of predestination is a distortion of the gospel. Arminius was in error. I didn't hear anything in this video to suggest that ireneas contradicted Paul or Calvin. Calvinism includes a biblical acknowledgement of man's free will, but that his will so corrupt that it won't seek God for reconciliation and salvation apart from God changing his heart. That's the biblical gospel.
Irenaeus has an interesting take on predestination and perserverance: "God predetermining all things FOR THE PERFECTION OF MAN, and for the bringing about and manifestation of his dispositions, that goodness may be shown, and righteousness perfected, and the church BE CONFORMED to the image of his Son, and at length BECOME A PERFECT MAN, and by such things BE MADE ripe to see God, and enjoy him.” (4:37:7) And at the same time has no trouble using terms like free will. Yet, he is confident that God has a purpose that the darkness cannot overcome.
It's not really that unique. That is along the lines of the Orthodox position still. Free will and the sanctification process don't preclude God's foreknowing and working things to his will. This is what Luis Molina explores in his work
That's literally mainline Christianity. Only Calvinists/Reformed seem to have trouble understanding it. If they just got born again and filled with the Holy Spirit, I'm guessing they wouldn't have that problem anymore.
Isaiah 45:7 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips. Jeremiah 32:42 For thus saith the LORD; Like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them. Prov 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. Job 42:11 Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.
Your interpretation of the context of the verses comes from what you have been taught about it I spent almost a year in.a Bible study on the book of Job. Your error is your apparent assumption that it is only our own actions that can bring judgment. It is not. The dialogue of the friends in Job illustrates judgment can fall because of personal actions, actions of family, associations, community, and nation. The Day of Atonement illustrates this very clearly. The sacrifice is for any unconfessed and unintentional sins in the nation. Without generational/community inquity, there is no Atonement and no salvation. They are two sides of the same coin. You are reading through the entirely wrong context. One of Western, Post-Enligntenme insividualism, which is entirely unBiblical. Deuteronomy 30:19 NLT [19] “Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live! As for the rest, that God foreknows does not mean he forces the actions. We all freely choose and he allows those actions and still works it according to his will. Blind fate is of paganism, it is not Biblical or Christian
I am going to look up that "Many are called" verse. The "Few Choose" alternate translation smells like some creative editing by someone like Theodor Beza.
As I mentioned in other replies, the ideas in Calvinism did not originate with Calvin just as New Age ideas are not "New." Irenaeus refutes them all. #TipOfTheDay actually watching the video can sometimes answer your question
I commented this on someone's comment concerning Total Depravity. Irenaeus is agnostic about why some rebel and some stay faithful. He leaves it as a mystery. He even says that there is no tradition either about this. In short, "but the cause itself of the nature of such transgressors neither has any Scripture informed us, nor has an apostle told us, nor has the Lord taught us. It becomes us, therefore, to leave the knowledge of this matter to God" He is going into this because heretics are speculating about all sorts of things and coming to heresies. For instance, they speculate about how the Word was "begotten" or what is the nature of God. Earlier in the book, Irenaeus says "For it was incumbent, if these things are images of those Aeons,-inasmuch as they declare that some men are wicked by nature, and some, on the other hand, naturally good,-to point out such differences also among their Aeons, and to maintain that some of them were produced naturally good, while some were naturally evil, so that the supposition of the likeness of those things might harmonize with the Aeons. " In this discussion, he mentions that some of these heretics assert that some people are just "naturally good" or "naturally evil." He doesn't comment on it more during this part of the book but does so later. Irenaeus later says that we know God created everything "[b]ut whence or in what way He produced it, neither has Scripture anywhere declared; nor does it become us to conjecture, so as, in accordance with our own opinions, to form endless conjectures concerning God, but we should leave such knowledge in the hands of God Himself." He then continues to compare this to why some revolted and sin and some did not "In like manner, also, we must leave the cause why, while all things were made by God, certain of His creatures sinned and revolted from a state of submission to God, and others, indeed the great majority, persevered, and do still persevere, in [willing] subjection to Him who formed them." So he leaves the ultimate origin of sin as well as why his creation chose to sin or not as a mystery. He continues: "and also of what nature those are who sinned, and of what nature those who persevere,-[we must, I say, leave the cause of these things] to God and His Word[.]" Irenaeus leaves the nature of those who sin or preservere also as a divine mystery. He then later says in the same section "Since, therefore, we know but in part, we ought to leave all sorts of [difficult] questions in the hands of Him who in some measure, [and that only, ] bestows grace on us. That eternal fire, [for instance, ] is prepared for sinners, both the Lord has plainly declared, and the rest of the Scriptures demonstrate. And that God fore-knew that this would happen, the Scriptures do in like manner demonstrate, since He prepared eternal fire from the beginning for those who were [afterwards] to transgress [His commandments]; but the cause itself of the nature of such transgressors neither has any Scripture informed us, nor has an apostle told us, nor has the Lord taught us. It becomes us, therefore, to leave the knowledge of this matter to God, even as the Lord does of the day and hour [of judgment], and not to rush to such an extreme of danger, that we will leave nothing in the hands of God, even though we have received only a measure of grace [from Him in this world]. But when we investigate points which are above us, and with respect to which we cannot reach satisfaction, [it is absurd ] that we should display such an extreme of presumption as to lay open God, and things which are not yet discovered, as if already we had found out, by the vain talk about emissions, God Himself, the Creator of all things, and to assert that He derived His substance from apostasy and ignorance, so as to frame an impious hypothesis in opposition to God." So Irenaeus says it is not a part of tradition or Scripture that says as to why some go into sin or not. It is something that heretics speculate about and insist on knowing but end up blaspheming God along the way to their obsurd and speculative conclusions.
Source is the translation on earlychristianwritings book 2 of against heresies. The portions I quoted from are Section 3 of Chapter VII.-Created Things are Not the Images of Those Aeons Who are Within the Pleroma. Then Section 7 of Chapter XXVIII.-Perfect Knowledge Cannot Be Attained in the Present Life: Many Questions Must Be Submissively Left in the Hands of God. I recommend sections 1, 2, and 3 of this chapter as well for some context that is readable without getting lost in the discussion of the heretics in some of the other sections of the chapter.
Great explanation and highlights. If you would like this published as an article on my site at raisedtowalk.org, please let me know. My email address is contact@raisedtowalk.org
Interesting, thanks. At least Calvin did not reject the immortal soul (the doctrine of the 'soul sleep') like some of the Anglicans did in 16-17 century (the negligible minority though); in our times JW/SDA/LDS cults are proponents of this unbiblical idea of the mortality of the soul.
I had someone in my SBC Bible study that believed in soul sleep for believers. More than one actually. It kind of took me aback for a minute. But as for the rest of it. Edward Fudge published a study on hell in his book, "The Fire that Consumes." He argues that for nonbelievers, there is an eternal punishment, but not an eternal punishing. There used to be a video online of his lecture at Lanier Theological Library. I'm not sure if it is still up or not
@@RaisedtoWalkTV Interesting, thanks for the reference, it covers a lot of interesting topics, judging from the TOC. I also got recently interested in the doctrine of 'apokatastasis' by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and not that I am supporter of universalism, but this is a difficult theological issue, and this book covers that as well.
The TULIP acrostic was created in 1905 by a professor at Princeton Theological Seminiary in 1905 as a teaching tool for layment. The text from the Synod of Dordt was originally written in Latin four centuries prior, it wouldn't have been the anglicanized form of today. It can't be certain that John Calvin was actually a "Calvinist" in the sense that it is broadly used today. He did not wish for a movement to be known by his name and requested to be buried in an unmarked grave. Hardly anyone who is a critique of Calvin seems have to actually read any of his writings - which are widely available today. He was not opposed to the human will, nor did he depct God as a deterministic machine as is often the critic's charge against him. Calvin taught that the way to salvation was indeed a a narrow way, an impossible way apart from Jesus particularily saving the person. Critics of Calvin offer purgatories, rituals, various endulgences - very broad ways to enter into salvation. John Calvin died at what we might consider a relatively young age of 54 years. He primarily wrote Institutes of the Christian Religion for Catholics, which is why it references many now obscure Catholic scholars.
It's always good the study the early church fathers. However, to say that Irenaeus is refuting Calvinism is erroneous, since it would be over a thousand years before John Calvin started preaching such things. I grew up in a Pentecostal church where I found in my teens we were being taught Arianism. This came out just a bit later than the teachings of Irenaeus and taught that Jesus did not always exist, but was the Son of God, and therefore not co-equal with the Father. This is something that Tertullian fought against, and as his works were always done in Latin gave us the word "trinitas" which we quickly recognize as the Trinity, and that God was One being that possessed 3 persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Ah, "Many are called but few are chosen." A great verse to cherry pick regardless of which side you're on. If I were to paraphrase that verse I would say, "Everyone is called, but God only chooses those who choose Him back." I have a friend who has a Reformed background, but he's not a strict 5 point Calvinist. I share with you what I shared with him. There is this beautiful bird, with 2 strong wings that always seem to be beating against each other. The one is Arianism, and the other is Calvinism. They are not, in themselves, important, but in their beating against each other they keep the bird in flight. As members of the Body of Christ, our job should be to keep our Lord lifted up that He may draw those to Himself as He wills. Also growing up in a Pentecostal church I've been taught that speaking in tongues is "the initial, physical evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit." I can't seem to find that in my Bible. In Luke 24:49 Jesus tells his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they are filled with the POWER from the Father on high. In Acts 1:8 Jesus instructs his followers to wait in Jerusalem, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” No mention of tongues, but of power. That word is actually "dynamis" which is where we get our word for dynamite. Also the word for witnesses is, "martys" a derivative of the word martyr. The gifts ARE available to any follower of Jesus, but sadly most are closing themselves off from the many gifts by seeking tongues. To them I say, do not seek tongues, seek the Holy Spirit and He will give you whatever gift is needed for the edification of the church at that time.
Calvin's ideas did not originate with Calvin. Irenaeus refutes the distinctives of Calvinism, therefore he is refuting Calvinism, just as he refutes central ideas of New Agers who hold the same views as Gnostics. As the passage that I read makes clear, God offers, we choose. The structure of the Greek also makes it clear. th-cam.com/video/Ck-7fbYbDRs/w-d-xo.html
@@RaisedtoWalkTV If you hadn't said that I wouldn't have replied. Are you saying only those people who understand Greek can understand Scripture properly? What about the large parts written in Hebrew, and others in Aramaic. Must we be fluent in these languages to understand the Bible? Personally I believe that all Scripture is God-breathed (inspired by God), and God has kept watch over His Word in all its translations. There have been cults who have intentionally abused the Word of God, but to the person seeking to know more about God and get closer to Jesus, basically any current translation He can and has used, without understanding the Greek or Hebrew. If one happens to get a good concordance they can look deeper into the original languages a bit further.
@@rockandsandapologetics7254 if you don't know Greek then you very obviously would not know when a translation is the wrong interpretation would you? So in that case, yes, you WOULD need to know the original languages to recognize the error. From your comment, I have to wonder if you watched either of the videos. In the Bible study video I shared, a Greek school shares why the structure of the sentence doesnt support that interpretation and in this video I read an entire section from Irenaeus ... A Greek speaker... Which makes it abundantly clear that he is understanding that verse in exactly the way that Greek scholar explains.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV Wow. I have a Greek/English New Testament. My son has the same thing as well as the Septuagint and tanach in Hebrew. He's a Bible translator for Pioneer Bible Translators. That being said, the reason there are so many English versions of the Bible are because so FEW people know the ancient languages. Here's a Greek word, found only once, to my knowledge in the New Testament, and the English translation never quite gets it right. The word is "ektromati" found in 1st Corinthians 15:8 What's it mean?
@@rockandsandapologetics7254 if you know Greek, have the Bibles, and understand verb declensions, then you should know what I am saying g is true and I have no idea what you are trying to argue.
It would be good to follow Irenaeus and pay attention to nuance. You are making very broad leaps in logic applying arguments to calvinism that dont apply. 1. Gnostics believed in two classes of people, good and evil whereas total depravity believes there is only one class of people and that is evil. 2. Nowhere in calvinism is it taught that God is the source of evil. Freewill is the source of evil. --Even if all humanity is totally depraved. I'm not even arguing that Calvinism is true. I'm just saying that the way that you applied those passages don't properly apply. 3. Perseverance of the saints is not as much a doctrine of eternal security as much as a doctrine of Gods refusal to allow evil to be eternal by being faithful to his calling. Also to consider Calvin's (And Augustine's) thought, the "rebrobate" can have signs that they are partakers of grace but in the end are not, so how can anyone really assume they are of the elect? I really appreciate your videos; I can tell you are enjoying the church fathers!
Calvinism teaches salvation is only for those that God decided in advance would be saved. So yes, even if a Calvinist wouldn't explicitly state that, the logical conclusion is that there are two groups of people. A person is either in or they are are out, and they have no choice in the matter. The logical conclusion of the denial of libertarian free will is that God is the author of evil. Calvinism denies free will. Yes, those passages are properly applied. The Holy Spirit is our assurance of salvation who, in my experience, Calvinists tend to treat as an abstract idea rather than the third person of the Trinity. If a person doesn't know that the Holy Spirit is with and within them ... then no, they probably aren't saved. Someone who has encountered and who experiences living with the Holy Spirit wouldn't ask that question. God is not an idea or a belief, he is Persons and a Presence. I've read Augustine, and he actually contradicts himself in City of God on foreknowledge and free will.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV The rest of Christendom can't stand the idea of not being in control and has everything to do with the original sin of PRIDE, being the sin that leads the procession of all sin.
@@beaudidly5347 It isn't pride to recognize that God gave us both reason and free will for a purpose and that when he tells us repeatedly in his Word, "Life and death is before you today, choose life" ... that he actually means what he says and that it isn't a big cosmic joke.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV God is a non physical being outside of time, so when we speak of God doing something "before", it is not the same as we think of time. What exactly is the timelessness of God who is not a material being as we are, is a question that I can not resolve. God is not like us, our timeline is not God's eternity. I don't want to attemp to fit God into our human mold of thinking about time. Only at the resurrection of the dead will the saints be given a new body that is fitting for eternity. In Calvinism, the saints definitely do chose to be faithful to Jesus. The question has been how they do so, is it monergistic - only through the work of God the holy spirit, or does the individual initiate the onset of a life of faithfulness to Jesus? Or is it through a cooperation with God- synergism? The Calvinist believes it is monergistic - that sinful flesh cannot begin the new birth, it must be wholely the work of God. Most Christian sects are synergistic.
@@timothykeith1367 I'm not sure exactly what you are responding to in the video. When Calvinists discuss time and "when" God chose their definition of the elect, they define it in terms of the timeline of the world. God may be outside of space and time; however, Calvinist doctrines are defined in terms of human understanding. As for your argument on monergistic versus synergistic ... like I said in the Bible study video, the Calvinist view is that we are meat puppets moved around by God and free will is completely dismissed. Wrapping the argument in theological terms with longer statements doesn't change the ugliness or unBiblical nature of it.
"1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." - 1 John 2:1-2 (NKJV) this suggests to me that Christ died for all sinners and that Limited Atonement is not correct.
The one thing I agree with Calvinism on is eternal security.. I think these earliest believers didn’t attempt to make assumptions in regards to an individual salvation…. elsewhere Irenaeus clearly says that IF a person has the Holy Spirit then they are in God Forever. But elsewhere he also says that some in The Church may not even know The Gospel (not saved).. So it think they accepted it was a “mixed bag” when it came to congregation members..
yes, the church has always been a mixed bag. You see that in the NT letters. But I also think you see when you read the NT letters as well as the patristic writers that they believed that people could choose to reject the conviction of the Holy Spirit at any point.
Learn more about Irenaeus of Lyons and why he wrote "Against Heresies" th-cam.com/video/IhSZWfKF238/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for this info. :)
You're very welcome
Thank you!
Thanks for watching!
Thank you illuminating the difference between the shepherd God's herds &: the wolf. St. Irenenous pray for us.
amen
I have to catch up on these videos! I am listening to a course on the Gnostics and the professor does not seem to like Irenaeus! I really would like to read Against Heresies now!
Is the instructor a Christian? Irenaeus really flays the Gnostics. If you're pro-Gnosticism, I could see where you wouldn't like Irenaeus. You can't read Against Heresies and say Gnosticism was part of early orthodox beliefs.
You misrepresented what Calvinist believe when you mentioned the “I” in tulip, but it’s all good.
How did I misrepresent it? I realize that some Calvinists (Ligonier comes to mind) will contradict themselves in how they describe it as Augustine contradicts himself in Against Heresies, but what I explained is exactly how I have had multiple Calvinists explain it as well as the way Calvinists act out (or fail to) their beliefs
Calvinism is an unbiblical and irrational contradiction. The only way to properly Preset it is to reject it with scorn.
Calvin merely taught what Paul taught on predestination. A denial of predestination is a distortion of the gospel. Arminius was in error. I didn't hear anything in this video to suggest that ireneas contradicted Paul or Calvin. Calvinism includes a biblical acknowledgement of man's free will, but that his will so corrupt that it won't seek God for reconciliation and salvation apart from God changing his heart. That's the biblical gospel.
Irenaeus has an interesting take on predestination and perserverance:
"God predetermining all things FOR THE PERFECTION OF MAN, and for the bringing about and manifestation of his dispositions, that goodness may be shown, and righteousness perfected, and the church BE CONFORMED to the image of his Son, and at length BECOME A PERFECT MAN, and by such things BE MADE ripe to see God, and enjoy him.” (4:37:7)
And at the same time has no trouble using terms like free will. Yet, he is confident that God has a purpose that the darkness cannot overcome.
It's not really that unique. That is along the lines of the Orthodox position still. Free will and the sanctification process don't preclude God's foreknowing and working things to his will. This is what Luis Molina explores in his work
That's literally mainline Christianity. Only Calvinists/Reformed seem to have trouble understanding it. If they just got born again and filled with the Holy Spirit, I'm guessing they wouldn't have that problem anymore.
Amen. Calvinists are the outliers among all of Christianity on this.
About cessationism, it isn't a tenant of Calvinism.
Irenaeus also in that passage also says that at a church someone was raised from the dead.
No, cessationism isn't, but it seems to go hand in hand with Calvinism. Yes, it sounds like it was a very Spirit filled church
Isaiah 45:7
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Amos 3:6
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
Lamentations 3:38
Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
Job 2:10
But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
Jeremiah 32:42
For thus saith the LORD; Like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them.
Prov 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. Job 42:11 Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.
Your interpretation of the context of the verses comes from what you have been taught about it
I spent almost a year in.a Bible study on the book of Job. Your error is your apparent assumption that it is only our own actions that can bring judgment.
It is not. The dialogue of the friends in Job illustrates judgment can fall because of personal actions, actions of family, associations, community, and nation.
The Day of Atonement illustrates this very clearly. The sacrifice is for any unconfessed and unintentional sins in the nation.
Without generational/community inquity, there is no Atonement and no salvation. They are two sides of the same coin.
You are reading through the entirely wrong context. One of Western, Post-Enligntenme insividualism, which is entirely unBiblical.
Deuteronomy 30:19 NLT
[19] “Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live!
As for the rest, that God foreknows does not mean he forces the actions. We all freely choose and he allows those actions and still works it according to his will.
Blind fate is of paganism, it is not Biblical or Christian
I am going to look up that "Many are called" verse. The "Few Choose" alternate translation smells like some creative editing by someone like Theodor Beza.
Irenaeus predates the KJV translation by 1400 years. The KJV translation is the alternate. th-cam.com/video/Ck-7fbYbDRs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=dT6DUSt86dxspwJJ
Irenaenus lived in the 1-200`s- Calvin in the 1400`s ??
As I mentioned in other replies, the ideas in Calvinism did not originate with Calvin just as New Age ideas are not "New." Irenaeus refutes them all.
#TipOfTheDay actually watching the video can sometimes answer your question
@@RaisedtoWalkTV 😅
I commented this on someone's comment concerning Total Depravity.
Irenaeus is agnostic about why some rebel and some stay faithful. He leaves it as a mystery. He even says that there is no tradition either about this.
In short,
"but the cause itself of the nature of such transgressors neither has any Scripture informed us, nor has an apostle told us, nor has the Lord taught us. It becomes us, therefore, to leave the knowledge of this matter to God"
He is going into this because heretics are speculating about all sorts of things and coming to heresies. For instance, they speculate about how the Word was "begotten" or what is the nature of God.
Earlier in the book, Irenaeus says "For it was incumbent, if these things are images of those Aeons,-inasmuch as they declare that some men are wicked by nature, and some, on the other hand, naturally good,-to point out such differences also among their Aeons, and to maintain that some of them were produced naturally good, while some were naturally evil, so that the supposition of the likeness of those things might harmonize with the Aeons. "
In this discussion, he mentions that some of these heretics assert that some people are just "naturally good" or "naturally evil." He doesn't comment on it more during this part of the book but does so later.
Irenaeus later says that we know God created everything "[b]ut whence or in what way He produced it, neither has Scripture anywhere declared; nor does it become us to conjecture, so as, in accordance with our own opinions, to form endless conjectures concerning God, but we should leave such knowledge in the hands of God Himself."
He then continues to compare this to why some revolted and sin and some did not
"In like manner, also, we must leave the cause why, while all things were made by God, certain of His creatures sinned and revolted from a state of submission to God, and others, indeed the great majority, persevered, and do still persevere, in [willing] subjection to Him who formed them."
So he leaves the ultimate origin of sin as well as why his creation chose to sin or not as a mystery. He continues:
"and also of what nature those are who sinned, and of what nature those who persevere,-[we must, I say, leave the cause of these things] to God and His Word[.]"
Irenaeus leaves the nature of those who sin or preservere also as a divine mystery.
He then later says in the same section
"Since, therefore, we know but in part, we ought to leave all sorts of [difficult] questions in the hands of Him who in some measure, [and that only, ] bestows grace on us. That eternal fire, [for instance, ] is prepared for sinners, both the Lord has plainly declared, and the rest of the Scriptures demonstrate. And that God fore-knew that this would happen, the Scriptures do in like manner demonstrate, since He prepared eternal fire from the beginning for those who were [afterwards] to transgress [His commandments]; but the cause itself of the nature of such transgressors neither has any Scripture informed us, nor has an apostle told us, nor has the Lord taught us. It becomes us, therefore, to leave the knowledge of this matter to God, even as the Lord does of the day and hour [of judgment], and not to rush to such an extreme of danger, that we will leave nothing in the hands of God, even though we have received only a measure of grace [from Him in this world]. But when we investigate points which are above us, and with respect to which we cannot reach satisfaction, [it is absurd ] that we should display such an extreme of presumption as to lay open God, and things which are not yet discovered, as if already we had found out, by the vain talk about emissions, God Himself, the Creator of all things, and to assert that He derived His substance from apostasy and ignorance, so as to frame an impious hypothesis in opposition to God."
So Irenaeus says it is not a part of tradition or Scripture that says as to why some go into sin or not. It is something that heretics speculate about and insist on knowing but end up blaspheming God along the way to their obsurd and speculative conclusions.
Source is the translation on earlychristianwritings book 2 of against heresies.
The portions I quoted from are
Section 3 of
Chapter VII.-Created Things are Not the Images of Those Aeons Who are Within the Pleroma.
Then Section 7 of
Chapter XXVIII.-Perfect Knowledge Cannot Be Attained in the Present Life: Many Questions Must Be Submissively Left in the Hands of God.
I recommend sections 1, 2, and 3 of this chapter as well for some context that is readable without getting lost in the discussion of the heretics in some of the other sections of the chapter.
Great explanation and highlights. If you would like this published as an article on my site at raisedtowalk.org, please let me know. My email address is contact@raisedtowalk.org
Interesting, thanks. At least Calvin did not reject the immortal soul (the doctrine of the 'soul sleep') like some of the Anglicans did in 16-17 century (the negligible minority though); in our times JW/SDA/LDS cults are proponents of this unbiblical idea of the mortality of the soul.
I had someone in my SBC Bible study that believed in soul sleep for believers. More than one actually. It kind of took me aback for a minute.
But as for the rest of it. Edward Fudge published a study on hell in his book, "The Fire that Consumes." He argues that for nonbelievers, there is an eternal punishment, but not an eternal punishing.
There used to be a video online of his lecture at Lanier Theological Library. I'm not sure if it is still up or not
@@RaisedtoWalkTV Interesting, thanks for the reference, it covers a lot of interesting topics, judging from the TOC. I also got recently interested in the doctrine of 'apokatastasis' by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and not that I am supporter of universalism, but this is a difficult theological issue, and this book covers that as well.
Also interesting of note is that Calvin wasn't a TUPLIP calvinist.
So you don't think the Synod of Dort accurately summarized Calvin's teachings? Regardless, that acronym is a summary of what modern Calvinism teaches.
No, the puropse of Dort wasnt to summarize Calvin's doctrine but to resolve a controversy.
John Calvin did believe in TULIP, buddy.
The TULIP acrostic was created in 1905 by a professor at Princeton Theological Seminiary in 1905 as a teaching tool for layment. The text from the Synod of Dordt was originally written in Latin four centuries prior, it wouldn't have been the anglicanized form of today. It can't be certain that John Calvin was actually a "Calvinist" in the sense that it is broadly used today. He did not wish for a movement to be known by his name and requested to be buried in an unmarked grave. Hardly anyone who is a critique of Calvin seems have to actually read any of his writings - which are widely available today. He was not opposed to the human will, nor did he depct God as a deterministic machine as is often the critic's charge against him. Calvin taught that the way to salvation was indeed a a narrow way, an impossible way apart from Jesus particularily saving the person. Critics of Calvin offer purgatories, rituals, various endulgences - very broad ways to enter into salvation. John Calvin died at what we might consider a relatively young age of 54 years. He primarily wrote Institutes of the Christian Religion for Catholics, which is why it references many now obscure Catholic scholars.
@@fireflames3639 The TULIP acrostic actually did not exist until 1905.
It's always good the study the early church fathers. However, to say that Irenaeus is refuting Calvinism is erroneous, since it would be over a thousand years before John Calvin started preaching such things. I grew up in a Pentecostal church where I found in my teens we were being taught Arianism. This came out just a bit later than the teachings of Irenaeus and taught that Jesus did not always exist, but was the Son of God, and therefore not co-equal with the Father. This is something that Tertullian fought against, and as his works were always done in Latin gave us the word "trinitas" which we quickly recognize as the Trinity, and that God was One being that possessed 3 persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Ah, "Many are called but few are chosen." A great verse to cherry pick regardless of which side you're on. If I were to paraphrase that verse I would say, "Everyone is called, but God only chooses those who choose Him back." I have a friend who has a Reformed background, but he's not a strict 5 point Calvinist. I share with you what I shared with him. There is this beautiful bird, with 2 strong wings that always seem to be beating against each other. The one is Arianism, and the other is Calvinism. They are not, in themselves, important, but in their beating against each other they keep the bird in flight. As members of the Body of Christ, our job should be to keep our Lord lifted up that He may draw those to Himself as He wills.
Also growing up in a Pentecostal church I've been taught that speaking in tongues is "the initial, physical evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit." I can't seem to find that in my Bible. In Luke 24:49 Jesus tells his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they are filled with the POWER from the Father on high. In Acts 1:8 Jesus instructs his followers to wait in Jerusalem, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” No mention of tongues, but of power. That word is actually "dynamis" which is where we get our word for dynamite. Also the word for witnesses is, "martys" a derivative of the word martyr. The gifts ARE available to any follower of Jesus, but sadly most are closing themselves off from the many gifts by seeking tongues. To them I say, do not seek tongues, seek the Holy Spirit and He will give you whatever gift is needed for the edification of the church at that time.
Calvin's ideas did not originate with Calvin. Irenaeus refutes the distinctives of Calvinism, therefore he is refuting Calvinism, just as he refutes central ideas of New Agers who hold the same views as Gnostics.
As the passage that I read makes clear, God offers, we choose. The structure of the Greek also makes it clear. th-cam.com/video/Ck-7fbYbDRs/w-d-xo.html
@@RaisedtoWalkTV If you hadn't said that I wouldn't have replied. Are you saying only those people who understand Greek can understand Scripture properly? What about the large parts written in Hebrew, and others in Aramaic. Must we be fluent in these languages to understand the Bible? Personally I believe that all Scripture is God-breathed (inspired by God), and God has kept watch over His Word in all its translations. There have been cults who have intentionally abused the Word of God, but to the person seeking to know more about God and get closer to Jesus, basically any current translation He can and has used, without understanding the Greek or Hebrew. If one happens to get a good concordance they can look deeper into the original languages a bit further.
@@rockandsandapologetics7254 if you don't know Greek then you very obviously would not know when a translation is the wrong interpretation would you?
So in that case, yes, you WOULD need to know the original languages to recognize the error.
From your comment, I have to wonder if you watched either of the videos. In the Bible study video I shared, a Greek school shares why the structure of the sentence doesnt support that interpretation and in this video I read an entire section from Irenaeus ... A Greek speaker... Which makes it abundantly clear that he is understanding that verse in exactly the way that Greek scholar explains.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV Wow. I have a Greek/English New Testament. My son has the same thing as well as the Septuagint and tanach in Hebrew. He's a Bible translator for Pioneer Bible Translators. That being said, the reason there are so many English versions of the Bible are because so FEW people know the ancient languages.
Here's a Greek word, found only once, to my knowledge in the New Testament, and the English translation never quite gets it right. The word is "ektromati" found in 1st Corinthians 15:8 What's it mean?
@@rockandsandapologetics7254 if you know Greek, have the Bibles, and understand verb declensions, then you should know what I am saying g is true and I have no idea what you are trying to argue.
It would be good to follow Irenaeus and pay attention to nuance. You are making very broad leaps in logic applying arguments to calvinism that dont apply. 1. Gnostics believed in two classes of people, good and evil whereas total depravity believes there is only one class of people and that is evil. 2. Nowhere in calvinism is it taught that God is the source of evil. Freewill is the source of evil. --Even if all humanity is totally depraved. I'm not even arguing that Calvinism is true. I'm just saying that the way that you applied those passages don't properly apply. 3. Perseverance of the saints is not as much a doctrine of eternal security as much as a doctrine of Gods refusal to allow evil to be eternal by being faithful to his calling. Also to consider Calvin's (And Augustine's) thought, the "rebrobate" can have signs that they are partakers of grace but in the end are not, so how can anyone really assume they are of the elect?
I really appreciate your videos; I can tell you are enjoying the church fathers!
Calvinism teaches salvation is only for those that God decided in advance would be saved. So yes, even if a Calvinist wouldn't explicitly state that, the logical conclusion is that there are two groups of people. A person is either in or they are are out, and they have no choice in the matter.
The logical conclusion of the denial of libertarian free will is that God is the author of evil. Calvinism denies free will. Yes, those passages are properly applied.
The Holy Spirit is our assurance of salvation who, in my experience, Calvinists tend to treat as an abstract idea rather than the third person of the Trinity. If a person doesn't know that the Holy Spirit is with and within them ... then no, they probably aren't saved. Someone who has encountered and who experiences living with the Holy Spirit wouldn't ask that question. God is not an idea or a belief, he is Persons and a Presence.
I've read Augustine, and he actually contradicts himself in City of God on foreknowledge and free will.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV The rest of Christendom can't stand the idea of not being in control and has everything to do with the original sin of PRIDE, being the sin that leads the procession of all sin.
@@beaudidly5347 It isn't pride to recognize that God gave us both reason and free will for a purpose and that when he tells us repeatedly in his Word, "Life and death is before you today, choose life" ... that he actually means what he says and that it isn't a big cosmic joke.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV God is a non physical being outside of time, so when we speak of God doing something "before", it is not the same as we think of time. What exactly is the timelessness of God who is not a material being as we are, is a question that I can not resolve. God is not like us, our timeline is not God's eternity. I don't want to attemp to fit God into our human mold of thinking about time. Only at the resurrection of the dead will the saints be given a new body that is fitting for eternity.
In Calvinism, the saints definitely do chose to be faithful to Jesus. The question has been how they do so, is it monergistic - only through the work of God the holy spirit, or does the individual initiate the onset of a life of faithfulness to Jesus? Or is it through a cooperation with God- synergism? The Calvinist believes it is monergistic - that sinful flesh cannot begin the new birth, it must be wholely the work of God. Most Christian sects are synergistic.
@@timothykeith1367 I'm not sure exactly what you are responding to in the video. When Calvinists discuss time and "when" God chose their definition of the elect, they define it in terms of the timeline of the world. God may be outside of space and time; however, Calvinist doctrines are defined in terms of human understanding.
As for your argument on monergistic versus synergistic ... like I said in the Bible study video, the Calvinist view is that we are meat puppets moved around by God and free will is completely dismissed.
Wrapping the argument in theological terms with longer statements doesn't change the ugliness or unBiblical nature of it.
"1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world."
- 1 John 2:1-2 (NKJV) this suggests to me that Christ died for all sinners and that Limited Atonement is not correct.
Exactly
AMEN
LOL. The title looks like a football (soccer) match.
I need to pick this book.
Honestly, I think Irenaeus would have taken Calvin out. He doesn't pull punches.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV 💪🏻😂
The one thing I agree with Calvinism on is eternal security.. I think these earliest believers didn’t attempt to make assumptions in regards to an individual salvation…. elsewhere Irenaeus clearly says that IF a person has the Holy Spirit then they are in God Forever. But elsewhere he also says that some in The Church may not even know The Gospel (not saved).. So it think they accepted it was a “mixed bag” when it came to congregation members..
yes, the church has always been a mixed bag. You see that in the NT letters. But I also think you see when you read the NT letters as well as the patristic writers that they believed that people could choose to reject the conviction of the Holy Spirit at any point.
how are you free if you love darkness and hate light?
We have freedom to choose
We love light from being free(d) by Christ. He unlocked all Chains…. but people refuse to leave their prisons…. Thru love darkness and despise light..