You just said Irenaeus believed he needed to fully understand something in order to refute it or fix it...yet Calvinism came over a thousand years after Irenaeus..so what ever he address can't possibly be referring to Calvinism within context. This is a misleading title.
@@SundayVibesmusic The issues and beliefs Calvin promoted predated him, he wasn't the only one or the first to have them. This video covers just a few of them. Ireneaus would have thought Calvin was a heretic.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV I get what your saying..but you used the word Calvinism. It’s misleading. He had no knowledge of what Calvinism was. Again I know exactly what you mean..he addressed things that would fall in line with Calvinism but for someone like Ireanaeus I don’t think it does him service of all people..to say he refuted a world view that had yet been established. It’s like saying Moses, Daniel, and Isaiah refuted Gnosticism because they clearly believed the spiritual mixed with the physical world. They all state things that are anti gnostic so to speak. Again don’t think I don’t like the video..I do, I’m just saying the title is misleading.
@@SundayVibesmusic Calvinisms has specific tenets, which Irenaeus refutes in this book. Regardless of what label it is given, he refutes it. The same things is true of New Thought, Theosophy, And the Qanon cult. Just because the ideas weren't labeled that doesn't mean that his writing doesnt address the ideas they promote. The label isn't the thing, it is describing the thing. It's like saying the Trinity didn't exist before church fathers put a label to it or dinosaurs weren't a thing before the word was coined in the 1800's
@@RaisedtoWalkTV I will agree to disagree. It’s not like that at all. Concerning arguments. You can’t “refute” something you have no knowledge of. Tenets yes..claims. But you specifically used the word Calvinism. Dinosaurs and ideology are not even the same category. Irenaeus dealt with many false religions and heresies in Against Heresies but Calvinism was not one of them. As someone who teaches I’m just simply saying this title is misleading. I know you know what you mean..and I understand what you are doing/saying..but the title is misleading. You just brought up the trinity. This is exactly my point. I believe it’s better to say the Apostles or early church fathers for that matter believed Christ was co equal with God. Philippians 2 makes that pretty clear in my opinion…but what I don’t do is say Paul taught Trinitarian doctrine. It’s misleading. And honesty I wouldn’t feel as bad given the gap is less than 300 years. But Irenaeus and Calvin are over 1000 years apart. Again I’ll agree to disagree. It doesn’t look like you understand my point. I have no desire to continue just for the sake of talking🙏🏽❤️
The father’s writings were a desert I never knew I needed. Words are sweet as honey. They answered every question I was thinking. Leading me to holy orthodoxy. The church came first. The writings came after.
Another reason Cains sacrifice was rejected, was because (like Adam and Eves fig leaves versus the animal skins; and like the covenant of circumcision later) Cains offering did not properly point to the *blood* sacrifice of the cross.
I just started reading Luisa Piccarreta's Book of Heaven, where she quotes St. Irenaeus. I didn't know anything about him and this gives me a good insight on his work. Thank you.
I read AH about 15 years ago, and selected portions since. His explanation about Cain I've shared over the years. It also gave me more respect for the LXX translation (though I still prefer the MT) since in Irenaeus' time it was the Bible the churches used. Actually LXX use goes back to the Lord Himself and the apostles who also quoted much from it to establish doctrine or refute opponents.
4:05 The connection to Isaac and Jesus is also made in Hebrews, where it says that Abraham saw that God could have raised Isaac from the dead. There are numerous parallels between Isaac sacrifice and Jesus.
Congratulations, you are a Pauline Christian through and through. You have bought all his ideas and themes. Follow instead the teachings of Yeshua or Jesus and his brother James and you will have eternal life! Don’t listen to Paul and that rabid Anti-Semite, the Bishop of Lyon, France or any of the so called Church Fathers.!
@@OnTheThirdDay I believe you are a sincere Pauline Christian who means well. You must remember that Yehovah told us in His Word that if you bless the Jews, you will be blessed and if you do not, you will be cursed! Our Lord Yeshua said, “ Salvation comes from the Jews! Did you not realize that Irenaeus was a rabid Anti-Semite even though he was the Bishop of Lyon. I do not think you know the whole story and I encourage you to search the truth.
Great Irenaeus of Lyon ! on the sacrifice of isaac, I don't know this approch of Irenaeus of isaac and the wood, but He open my mind on a another thing, the cross of Jesus is the moment where He's give his life for the world, is the moment where his heart transpierced, and is moment where Jesus purifie the world by his blood and water who go out of him : This is BAPTISM OF GRACE and it's catholic because it's for the world Jesus was transpierced. It's a remember of Moïse who hit the rock with his wood. Link Ezekiel 36v25 - John 19v34 to 35 and John 13v23.
@@pete9688 yes, I didn't realize that until I was in my 30's and attended a Methodist church. They used "catholic," small "c" in some of their responsive readings
Irenaeus believed in the Father as the one true God. And Jesus in a subordinationist sense. Irenaeus and Justin is definitely unitarian, with preexistence similar to the Arian view. Also Irenaeus believed that the Logos became flesh as opposed to the heretics he writes against, who believed that the impassable word did not become flesh. The later council of Calcedon would take the opposite view of Irenaeus and say that the impassable word did not actually become flesh (just like the Gnostics). That's because the theology evolved quite a bit since Irenaeus. For Irenaeus it wasn't a problem that the word became flesh, because Jesus to him was not the only true God like the Father.
No, that is not what Irenaeus taught at all. He could not have been anything further from Arian or teaching subordinationism. "Begotten" in regards to the Trinity means the Son "proceeds" from the Father, as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. All are co-etermal, as anything else would mean God is mutable, and he is not. This is a quote from Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 19 "For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, Isaiah 7:14 the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering; Isaiah 53:2 that He sat upon the foal of an ass; Zechariah 9:9 that He received for drink, vinegar and gall; that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, Isaiah 9:6 coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; Daniel 7:13 - all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him." www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103319.htm
@@RaisedtoWalkTV problem is you read later dogma into what Irenaeus is saying. We can bring up all the quotes. Irenaeus believes the Father is the almighty God, and Jesus always other than the almighty God. He believed Jesus is GOD, but not in the later trinitarian sense. He believes Jesus and the Spirit to be the two arms of the only true God, the Father. He always qualifies the Father alone as the true God, and Jesus apart. If you disagree we can bring up all the quotes and see.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV didn't say he was an Aryan. Irenaeus clearly believed in one God the Father. And he believed that Jesus and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. It's only dogmatic trinitarians who can't see the subordinationist view of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian. Though some trinitarians do. But you can believe what you want. Peace.
I just came across something from Irenaeus and it is so interesting to me. While reading I’ll understand him and as soon as I stop reading, I’ll have no clue what I just read.
I think part of it is that his sentences are paragraphs long. Also, if it is the first book, it is probably because he is describing gnosticism, which makes no sense anyway
I disagree with him on #4... Cains sacrifice was not accepted because he did not believe the promise of God and refused to walk in that faith of obedience.. this has to do with Genesis 3:15. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel. The promised Messiah the Lamb of God the whole reason why the sacrificial system was created to Shadow the sacrifice of God himself. "21And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and He clothed them." ... The sacrificial system established here.. and the covering of the Lamb indicated their faith in the promise of the coming sacrifice of God. In the pre-flood world everybody who wore garments of animals was testifying to their faith in the Creator's promise. 2Later she gave birth to Cain’s brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, while Cain was a tiller of the soil. 3So in the course of time, Cain brought some of the fruit of the soil as an offering to the LORD, 4while Abel brought the best portions of the firstborn of his flock. "Righteousness by faith or righteousness by my works."?? Here's a parallel example: Gal 4:24These things serve as illustrations, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present-day Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written: “Rejoice, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have never travailed; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.”c 28Now you,d brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time, however, the son born by the flesh persecuted the son born by the Spirit. It is the same now."
You gotta slow down when you start reading. Pace your self. Use the commas, periods etc. they’re there for a reason. Also, you completely miss words and add words when you start reading off a potion of the book. Go back and watch the video, you’ll see yourself. Maybe you’re just nervous or something, but take your time, practice, and just pace yourself.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV Yes because at the time I had not worked out that you were referring to the x Fontabus edition which has all 5 in one volume. Other publishers have it as one volume a book. I did see in another video of yours the cover art and that linked to the one in 1 I had found.
Just saw this reply. I had no idea there are publishers putting out all the "books" as individual books. What a ripoff! The only alternative I knew of was the actual Philip Schaff series of the Ante-Nicene Fathers that is usually around $400. That kind of sketchy publishing is exactly why I published an annotated edition of A Dish of Orts by George MacDonald. The one I originally bought was awful. Someone just pulled it off of Gutenberg and slapped it up. It didn't even have chapter breaks!
Did you also catch that he said from a virgin sin was born and so from a virgin sin must be broken, (Mary) so eve and Adam never had sex until she was cursed to have painful birth. 😳
@@LillyOfTheValley77 Was the audio here on TH-cam? Someone commented on one of my Against Heresies videos mentioning that he made an audio recording of the entire thing
@@RaisedtoWalkTV yea it was here on TH-cam! Against heresies book 5 of 5, it’s hours long..let me paste the link th-cam.com/video/pUSKDWxipBg/w-d-xo.html
It's hard to follow because it seems the bible passages are mixed with Irenaeus' interpretations. We should be careful reading other peoples' interpretations no matter who they are. It is enough to study the Word and let the Holy Spirit give you understanding. The bible interprets itself and our ideas should not be added. I stick to that and meanings of words through a good bible dictionary. 🙂
Reading writers closer to the time of the apostles give you a snapshot of how they understood and interpreted the passage. Understanding that can help understanding the NT passages. The understanding of different OT texts changed from the time of the original writer, to the time it was translated in the Septuagint, to the time of the apostles. Biblde dictionaries dont give you context
If the Bible interprets itself why does Jesus tell His disciples on the Road to Emmaus the correct interpretation of Scriptural texts referring to His suffering? Why are the apostles so often reproved for failing to understand Jesus? Why does the Apostle Peter say that there are some things in the letters of Paul that are difficult to understand, and the unlearned and the unstable distort them as they do the rest of Scripture also?(2 Peter 3:16)
@@RaisedtoWalkTVI mean… he does have a point you also have to remember, church father or not people been miss handling scripture forever and I can definitely understand why he’s saying to just be cautious sometimes. Sure reading about some church fathers can be interesting but it definitely doesn’t trump God’s word.
@@dannyhuskerjay no, I think the word of God is what’s true and anything any church father or not claims or teaches should be held to that level of scrutiny. Without Gods word being the authority anything someone says or implements can be taken as truth.
My response is the same as your comment on the other video 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
@@RaisedtoWalkTV Im just gonna assume you havent read these Psa 139:16 You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed. All of it was Actively determined and worked by God (Eph 1:11) Proverbs 16:9: "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps." Proverbs 21:1: "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Proverbs 20:24: "Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?" Proverbs 16:33: "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD." Proverbs 19:21: "There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand." Jeremiah 10:23: "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Psalm 37:23: "The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way." Proverbs 16:1: "The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD." Proverbs 16:4: "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Revelation 17:17: "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." Job 23:13-14: "But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him." Isaiah 14:27: "For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" Isaiah 45:9: "Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?" Romans 9:19-21: "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Psalm 33:10-11: "The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect. The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations." Psalm 115:3: "But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." Job 14:5: "Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;"
We only know false teachers through the charism of the apostolic authority of the Church. No Apostolic Authority, no authority. The question for us here in the 21st century is where is the authority today that is the same in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. centuries?
@@markgeraty8558 the only words of authority are the words in the bible and not from the letters of the church fathers. Why? If you read the whole bible wrote by the prophets and apostles nothing in there writings contradicted but the words complement each other, but for the church fathers you will found the many contradictions in ther teachings and practices. As paul said only the prophets(old testament) and apostles were the one who founded the christian faith not the next generation teachers as paul warned that after him comes the false preachers in the book of act.
Actually, that is not what Paul wrote and it is a false application of what he did write. Are you saying that the ONLY time the Holy Spirit has EVER spoken is recorded in the 66 books we now have? Do you think the Holy Spirit is kept in a lockbox and only trotted out on certain occasions? God is person(s), living, active, and ever present.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV the writtings of the church fathers can not be considered as inspired compared to what was written by the prophets and apostles. They and only they founded the foundation of our faith. And those church fathers and the rest of the true believers including today just build the structure over that foundation. Eph 2:20 KJV And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; What the romans catholics did to there teachings and practices not found in the bible is to look to the writtings of the church fathers and simply gave the alibi that there teachings and practices came from traditions of the church fathers, wrong!! Because the church fathers contradict each other. As paul had warned that after him and the rest of the apostles the false teachers would flourished.
Your last paragraph doesn't make sense. Our OT is the Hebrew Tanakh. The apostolic church had no part of determining the canon. What was considered inspired Scripture had to have the evidence of the Voice of God. The apocryphal books the Catholic church includes were regarding by the Jews as useful information; however, they were not considered canon in the same way midrash was not considered canon. However, midrash was considered useful and authoritative. And we see confirmation of that in its incorporation into the New Testament, particularly the gospel of Matthew. There are a number of prophecies that are included in Matthew's gospel that are not specifically from the OT canon, but are midrash or interpretations of OT passages. Matthew recognized that some, likely unknown, scholar or thinker had a Holy Spirit inspired insight into the passage. The books chosen to be a part of the New Testament had to be 1) written by, or an account of, someone who was taught directly by Jesus and 2) the letter/book had to be useful for the church as a whole. th-cam.com/users/shortsLOdZpVbrFv8 God is living and active and the entire point of his plan is to be in relationship with his people. The Bible is God's message to us, to make himself known; however, it is not God himself. We do not see the Bible in the same way that Muslim's see the Quran, either in what it is or how it was given. When Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice, they know me and follow me," he meant what he said. When we have the Spirit of Truth within us, we should be able to recognize it whenever, and wherever he is speaking. The Holy Spirit did not become mute after the first century AD. Part of the promise of the Gospel is the priesthood of *all* believers, not just a priviledged few.
Re the first point, is Irenaeus not also claiming superior knowledge? As to "correct" interpretation? They all did that. That's why there were endless wars and persecutions all throughout Christian history. Egos run amuck to the point of burning fellow Christians alive.
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was taught by John the Beloved. Superior knowledge in the same way William Hooper's commentary on CS Lewis's work is superior to a random person's who just read The Chronicles once. Superior in that Irenaeus's work is in harmony with Scripture itself
More Irenaeus: 5 Times Irenaeus Refutes Calvinism th-cam.com/video/IhSZWfKF238/w-d-xo.html
You just said Irenaeus believed he needed to fully understand something in order to refute it or fix it...yet Calvinism came over a thousand years after Irenaeus..so what ever he address can't possibly be referring to Calvinism within context. This is a misleading title.
@@SundayVibesmusic The issues and beliefs Calvin promoted predated him, he wasn't the only one or the first to have them. This video covers just a few of them. Ireneaus would have thought Calvin was a heretic.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV I get what your saying..but you used the word Calvinism. It’s misleading. He had no knowledge of what Calvinism was. Again I know exactly what you mean..he addressed things that would fall in line with Calvinism but for someone like Ireanaeus I don’t think it does him service of all people..to say he refuted a world view that had yet been established. It’s like saying Moses, Daniel, and Isaiah refuted Gnosticism because they clearly believed the spiritual mixed with the physical world. They all state things that are anti gnostic so to speak.
Again don’t think I don’t like the video..I do, I’m just saying the title is misleading.
@@SundayVibesmusic Calvinisms has specific tenets, which Irenaeus refutes in this book. Regardless of what label it is given, he refutes it.
The same things is true of New Thought, Theosophy, And the Qanon cult. Just because the ideas weren't labeled that doesn't mean that his writing doesnt address the ideas they promote.
The label isn't the thing, it is describing the thing. It's like saying the Trinity didn't exist before church fathers put a label to it or dinosaurs weren't a thing before the word was coined in the 1800's
@@RaisedtoWalkTV I will agree to disagree. It’s not like that at all. Concerning arguments. You can’t “refute” something you have no knowledge of. Tenets yes..claims. But you specifically used the word Calvinism. Dinosaurs and ideology are not even the same category. Irenaeus dealt with many false religions and heresies in Against Heresies but Calvinism was not one of them. As someone who teaches I’m just simply saying this title is misleading. I know you know what you mean..and I understand what you are doing/saying..but the title is misleading.
You just brought up the trinity. This is exactly my point. I believe it’s better to say the Apostles or early church fathers for that matter believed Christ was co equal with God. Philippians 2 makes that pretty clear in my opinion…but what I don’t do is say Paul taught Trinitarian doctrine. It’s misleading. And honesty I wouldn’t feel as bad given the gap is less than 300 years. But Irenaeus and Calvin are over 1000 years apart. Again I’ll agree to disagree. It doesn’t look like you understand my point. I have no desire to continue just for the sake of talking🙏🏽❤️
I’m reading through Against Heresies right now. I’m loving it.
Awesome! I think Book 4 is the best
The father’s writings were a desert I never knew I needed. Words are sweet as honey. They answered every question I was thinking. Leading me to holy orthodoxy. The church came first. The writings came after.
That is a beautiful way to put it! ♥️♥️♥️
Absolutely. Jesus founded the Church.
Another reason Cains sacrifice was rejected, was because (like Adam and Eves fig leaves versus the animal skins; and like the covenant of circumcision later) Cains offering did not properly point to the *blood* sacrifice of the cross.
I just started reading Luisa Piccarreta's Book of Heaven, where she quotes St. Irenaeus. I didn't know anything about him and this gives me a good insight on his work. Thank you.
I'm glad you found it useful!
My father always taught we to do everything with good grace and a smile in your heart.
Great advice
Thanks for the lesson,, that was a blessing,
You're very welcome. Thank you for watching!
I read AH about 15 years ago, and selected portions since. His explanation about Cain I've shared over the years. It also gave me more respect for the LXX translation (though I still prefer the MT) since in Irenaeus' time it was the Bible the churches used. Actually LXX use goes back to the Lord Himself and the apostles who also quoted much from it to establish doctrine or refute opponents.
Yes, AH adds a fullness to reading the Bible doesn't it?
4:05 The connection to Isaac and Jesus is also made in Hebrews, where it says that Abraham saw that God could have raised Isaac from the dead.
There are numerous parallels between Isaac sacrifice and Jesus.
Great point!
Congratulations, you are a Pauline Christian through and through. You have bought all his ideas and themes. Follow instead the teachings of Yeshua or Jesus and his brother James and you will have eternal life! Don’t listen to Paul and that rabid Anti-Semite, the Bishop of Lyon, France or any of the so called Church Fathers.!
@@johanklemmer7448 What did I say that you disagree with?
@@OnTheThirdDay I believe you are a sincere Pauline Christian who means well. You must remember that Yehovah told us in His Word that if you bless the Jews, you will be blessed and if you do not, you will be cursed! Our Lord Yeshua said, “ Salvation comes from the Jews! Did you not realize that Irenaeus was a rabid Anti-Semite even though he was the Bishop of Lyon. I do not think you know the whole story and I encourage you to search the truth.
So much to be learned from the early Church Fathers, thanks for sharing
Isn't there? And Irenaeus is one of my faves. Thanks for watching!
Great Irenaeus of Lyon ! on the sacrifice of isaac, I don't know this approch of Irenaeus of isaac and the wood, but He open my mind on a another thing, the cross of Jesus is the moment where He's give his life for the world, is the moment where his heart transpierced, and is moment where Jesus purifie the world by his blood and water who go out of him : This is BAPTISM OF GRACE and it's catholic because it's for the world Jesus was transpierced. It's a remember of Moïse who hit the rock with his wood. Link Ezekiel 36v25 - John 19v34 to 35 and John 13v23.
Thank you for this insight!
Catholic - lower case c means universal.
@@pete9688 yes, I didn't realize that until I was in my 30's and attended a Methodist church. They used "catholic," small "c" in some of their responsive readings
Irenaeus believed in the Father as the one true God. And Jesus in a subordinationist sense. Irenaeus and Justin is definitely unitarian, with preexistence similar to the Arian view. Also Irenaeus believed that the Logos became flesh as opposed to the heretics he writes against, who believed that the impassable word did not become flesh. The later council of Calcedon would take the opposite view of Irenaeus and say that the impassable word did not actually become flesh (just like the Gnostics). That's because the theology evolved quite a bit since Irenaeus. For Irenaeus it wasn't a problem that the word became flesh, because Jesus to him was not the only true God like the Father.
No, that is not what Irenaeus taught at all. He could not have been anything further from Arian or teaching subordinationism.
"Begotten" in regards to the Trinity means the Son "proceeds" from the Father, as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. All are co-etermal, as anything else would mean God is mutable, and he is not.
This is a quote from Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 19
"For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, Isaiah 7:14 the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering; Isaiah 53:2 that He sat upon the foal of an ass; Zechariah 9:9 that He received for drink, vinegar and gall; that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, Isaiah 9:6 coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; Daniel 7:13 - all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him."
www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103319.htm
@@RaisedtoWalkTV problem is you read later dogma into what Irenaeus is saying. We can bring up all the quotes. Irenaeus believes the Father is the almighty God, and Jesus always other than the almighty God. He believed Jesus is GOD, but not in the later trinitarian sense. He believes Jesus and the Spirit to be the two arms of the only true God, the Father. He always qualifies the Father alone as the true God, and Jesus apart.
If you disagree we can bring up all the quotes and see.
Who is "we?"
I've read Irenaeus, in context. He was like Thomas Aquinas where he stated the opposing position and then refuted it.
He was not Arian.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV didn't say he was an Aryan. Irenaeus clearly believed in one God the Father. And he believed that Jesus and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. It's only dogmatic trinitarians who can't see the subordinationist view of Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian. Though some trinitarians do. But you can believe what you want. Peace.
I just came across something from Irenaeus and it is so interesting to me. While reading I’ll understand him and as soon as I stop reading, I’ll have no clue what I just read.
I think part of it is that his sentences are paragraphs long. Also, if it is the first book, it is probably because he is describing gnosticism, which makes no sense anyway
Thank you.
You're very welcome!
Nice points. Thanks for sharing.
You're very welcome, thanks for watching!
I can't remember where it is, but he also connects the wood of the ark to the cross, which is interesting.
Irenaeus had a lot of interesting connections
@@RaisedtoWalkTV :)
That was awesome thank you!
Thank you! And thank you for watching!
Glad to have found you, I'll be checking out more
A similar view was held in 1 Clement
I've read Clement, but I don't remember that. I'll have to go back and read it. Thanks! ❤️
@@RaisedtoWalkTV specifically, he speaks about Cain killing Abel, because of jealousy
I'll have to make a note to look that up
I disagree with him on #4... Cains sacrifice was not accepted because he did not believe the promise of God and refused to walk in that faith of obedience.. this has to do with Genesis 3:15. And I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed.
He will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.
The promised Messiah the Lamb of God the whole reason why the sacrificial system was created to Shadow the sacrifice of God himself.
"21And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and He clothed them." ... The sacrificial system established here.. and the covering of the Lamb indicated their faith in the promise of the coming sacrifice of God. In the pre-flood world everybody who wore garments of animals was testifying to their faith in the Creator's promise.
2Later she gave birth to Cain’s brother Abel.
Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, while Cain was a tiller of the soil. 3So in the course of time, Cain brought some of the fruit of the soil as an offering to the LORD, 4while Abel brought the best portions of the firstborn of his flock.
"Righteousness by faith or righteousness by my works."??
Here's a parallel example:
Gal 4:24These things serve as illustrations, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present-day Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written:
“Rejoice, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have never travailed;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”c
28Now you,d brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time, however, the son born by the flesh persecuted the son born by the Spirit. It is the same now."
Interesting insight!
@RaisedtoWalkTV Iam.a heretic. But have being reading ireanus and slowly changing my views he goes deep on so many heresies
On Apostolic preaching by Irenaeus is a good read
Thanks for the recommendation!
You gotta slow down when you start reading. Pace your self. Use the commas, periods etc. they’re there for a reason. Also, you completely miss words and add words when you start reading off a potion of the book. Go back and watch the video, you’ll see yourself. Maybe you’re just nervous or something, but take your time, practice, and just pace yourself.
Thanks for the tips
@@RaisedtoWalkTV You did fine. I don't know what Alan's problem is.
I thought you were great too. I learned a lot of interesting things.
Thank you !
Have you got the ISBN numbers for each of the 5 books?
Did you mean to comment on another video? This video is just on Against Heresies. There is a link in the description
@@RaisedtoWalkTV Yes because at the time I had not worked out that you were referring to the x Fontabus edition which has all 5 in one volume. Other publishers have it as one volume a book. I did see in another video of yours the cover art and that linked to the one in 1 I had found.
Just saw this reply. I had no idea there are publishers putting out all the "books" as individual books. What a ripoff!
The only alternative I knew of was the actual Philip Schaff series of the Ante-Nicene Fathers that is usually around $400.
That kind of sketchy publishing is exactly why I published an annotated edition of A Dish of Orts by George MacDonald. The one I originally bought was awful. Someone just pulled it off of Gutenberg and slapped it up. It didn't even have chapter breaks!
@@RaisedtoWalkTV I have now got the single volume. I am reading Clement and Ignatius first!
Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9
Hosea 11:10, 1 John 1:9, 2 Peter 2:21
Cool
👍
Let me subscribe... With Love from India
Thank you for subscribing!
Did you also catch that he said from a virgin sin was born and so from a virgin sin must be broken, (Mary) so eve and Adam never had sex until she was cursed to have painful birth. 😳
I'll have to go back and look at my notes to see if it stood out to me when I read it, but no, I don't remember that. What section is that on?
@@RaisedtoWalkTV ohhh I’ll have to go back to the audio I was listening to and search..I’ll get back to you..I’m pretty sure it was book 5
@@LillyOfTheValley77 Was the audio here on TH-cam? Someone commented on one of my Against Heresies videos mentioning that he made an audio recording of the entire thing
@@RaisedtoWalkTV yea it was here on TH-cam! Against heresies book 5 of 5, it’s hours long..let me paste the link th-cam.com/video/pUSKDWxipBg/w-d-xo.html
It's hard to follow because it seems the bible passages are mixed with Irenaeus' interpretations. We should be careful reading other peoples' interpretations no matter who they are. It is enough to study the Word and let the Holy Spirit give you understanding. The bible interprets itself and our ideas should not be added. I stick to that and meanings of words through a good bible dictionary. 🙂
Reading writers closer to the time of the apostles give you a snapshot of how they understood and interpreted the passage. Understanding that can help understanding the NT passages. The understanding of different OT texts changed from the time of the original writer, to the time it was translated in the Septuagint, to the time of the apostles. Biblde dictionaries dont give you context
If the Bible interprets itself why does Jesus tell His disciples on the Road to Emmaus the correct interpretation of Scriptural texts referring to His suffering? Why are the apostles so often reproved for failing to understand Jesus? Why does the Apostle Peter say that there are some things in the letters of Paul that are difficult to understand, and the unlearned and the unstable distort them as they do the rest of Scripture also?(2 Peter 3:16)
@@RaisedtoWalkTVI mean… he does have a point you also have to remember, church father or not people been miss handling scripture forever and I can definitely understand why he’s saying to just be cautious sometimes. Sure reading about some church fathers can be interesting but it definitely doesn’t trump God’s word.
These are fathers taught by apostles. What they are teaching is the truth
@@dannyhuskerjay no, I think the word of God is what’s true and anything any church father or not claims or teaches should be held to that level of scrutiny.
Without Gods word being the authority anything someone says or implements can be taken as truth.
Stop reading teachings and precepts of men Isa 29:13-15
My response is the same as your comment on the other video
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
@@RaisedtoWalkTV Im just gonna assume you havent read these
Psa 139:16 You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed.
All of it was Actively determined and worked by God (Eph 1:11)
Proverbs 16:9: "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps." Proverbs 21:1: "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will."
Proverbs 20:24: "Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?"
Proverbs 16:33: "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD."
Proverbs 19:21: "There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand."
Jeremiah 10:23: "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps."
Psalm 37:23: "The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way."
Proverbs 16:1: "The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD."
Proverbs 16:4: "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
Revelation 17:17: "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."
Job 23:13-14: "But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him."
Isaiah 14:27: "For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" Isaiah 45:9: "Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?" Romans 9:19-21: "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"
Psalm 33:10-11: "The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect. The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."
Psalm 115:3: "But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased."
Job 14:5: "Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;"
Not all church fathers were true believers many of them were false teachers
We only know false teachers through the charism of the apostolic authority of the Church. No Apostolic Authority, no authority. The question for us here in the 21st century is where is the authority today that is the same in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. centuries?
@@markgeraty8558 the only words of authority are the words in the bible and not from the letters of the church fathers. Why? If you read the whole bible wrote by the prophets and apostles nothing in there writings contradicted but the words complement each other, but for the church fathers you will found the many contradictions in ther teachings and practices. As paul said only the prophets(old testament) and apostles were the one who founded the christian faith not the next generation teachers as paul warned that after him comes the false preachers in the book of act.
Actually, that is not what Paul wrote and it is a false application of what he did write.
Are you saying that the ONLY time the Holy Spirit has EVER spoken is recorded in the 66 books we now have? Do you think the Holy Spirit is kept in a lockbox and only trotted out on certain occasions?
God is person(s), living, active, and ever present.
@@RaisedtoWalkTV the writtings of the church fathers can not be considered as inspired compared to what was written by the prophets and apostles. They and only they founded the foundation of our faith. And those church fathers and the rest of the true believers including today just build the structure over that foundation.
Eph 2:20 KJV And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
What the romans catholics did to there teachings and practices not found in the bible is to look to the writtings of the church fathers and simply gave the alibi that there teachings and practices came from traditions of the church fathers, wrong!! Because the church fathers contradict each other. As paul had warned that after him and the rest of the apostles the false teachers would flourished.
Your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
Our OT is the Hebrew Tanakh. The apostolic church had no part of determining the canon. What was considered inspired Scripture had to have the evidence of the Voice of God. The apocryphal books the Catholic church includes were regarding by the Jews as useful information; however, they were not considered canon in the same way midrash was not considered canon.
However, midrash was considered useful and authoritative. And we see confirmation of that in its incorporation into the New Testament, particularly the gospel of Matthew. There are a number of prophecies that are included in Matthew's gospel that are not specifically from the OT canon, but are midrash or interpretations of OT passages. Matthew recognized that some, likely unknown, scholar or thinker had a Holy Spirit inspired insight into the passage.
The books chosen to be a part of the New Testament had to be 1) written by, or an account of, someone who was taught directly by Jesus and 2) the letter/book had to be useful for the church as a whole.
th-cam.com/users/shortsLOdZpVbrFv8
God is living and active and the entire point of his plan is to be in relationship with his people.
The Bible is God's message to us, to make himself known; however, it is not God himself. We do not see the Bible in the same way that Muslim's see the Quran, either in what it is or how it was given.
When Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice, they know me and follow me," he meant what he said. When we have the Spirit of Truth within us, we should be able to recognize it whenever, and wherever he is speaking. The Holy Spirit did not become mute after the first century AD.
Part of the promise of the Gospel is the priesthood of *all* believers, not just a priviledged few.
Re the first point, is Irenaeus not also claiming superior knowledge? As to "correct" interpretation? They all did that. That's why there were endless wars and persecutions all throughout Christian history. Egos run amuck to the point of burning fellow Christians alive.
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was taught by John the Beloved. Superior knowledge in the same way William Hooper's commentary on CS Lewis's work is superior to a random person's who just read The Chronicles once.
Superior in that Irenaeus's work is in harmony with Scripture itself
The Orthodox Church never did any of these crimes. The fathers are why orthodoxy has never changed
@@RaisedtoWalkTV Irenaeus did claim Jesus was closer to 50 than 30 through his own private reading of John.