I. Unique Position as Contender for Orthodoxy
We now turn to Irenaeus, of Gaul, most conspicuous and learned Conditionalist of the third century, who bore a remarkable testimony in this transition hour. The close of the second century reveals a marked change in the character and position of the expanding Christian Church. It had appealed to the judgment of various philosophers, but had not yet won the deference of the statesmen. Nevertheless, the church was in definite process of establishment throughout the empire.CFF1 873.1
Meanwhile, within the church acrimonious controversy had developed over the issue of Chiliasm, or the reign of the glorified saints on earth during the thousand years following the Second Advent. This was occasioned by extremists who had brought the whole premillennialist position into discredit. And now heresies were sweeping over the church like destructive swarms of locusts, to devour the “harvest” of the gospel. Gnosticism was the most devastating of all, and so became the object of Irenaeus’ massive attack.CFF1 873.2
1. PUPIL OF CONDITIONALIST POLYCARP, OF SMYRNA
With this as a setting we now turn to the Western outpost of the church in Celtic Gaul, which in A.D. 177 was visited by terrible persecution under Aurelius, with many martyrdoms at Lyons. Although nothing is known positively as to the origin of the church in Gaul, its pioneers are believed to have come from Asia Minor. But about A.D. 178 IRENAEUS (c. 130-202), who had been born in Asia Minor, was made bishop of Gaul. He had received a Hellenistic education, but definitely belonged to the West, and became one of the most learned and renowned of the early Ante-Nicene Fathers.CFF1 873.3
Picture 1: Irenaeus of Gaul:
Irenaeus of Gaul-Conditional Champion of Western Outpost; Mortal Man Must Be Immortalized.
Page 874CFF1 874
He had been a pupil of Polycarp of Smyrna, who, it will be remembered, was an avowed Conditionalist. This association doubtless influenced Irenaeus’ own views on this controverted question. And now from Lyons, on the banks of the Rhone, he conducted a vast missionary and literary activity. By this time Gnosticism was rampant, and Irenaeus sought both to check its sweep and to reaffirm and establish the fundamentals of the Christian faith. In this he became the most renowned champion of orthodoxy in his generation. He was also the connecting link between East and West. Because of his unique testimony as a spokesman for Conditionalism we shall analyze his witness quite fully.CFF1 874.1
2. LIFELONG FOE OF CONTEMPORARY HERESIES
Irenaeus was a lifelong foe of these contemporary heresies, especially Gnosticism, then spreading like a pestilence over portions of the church in various lands. He studied them as a skilled physician studies diseases, says Coxe, classifying, describing, and countering them. He was an independent thinker, and fearless in the expression of his convictions. Thus he set an example of resistance to Rome when she was to be blamed, that persisted through the centuries. CFF1 875.1
As to Gnosticism, with its professed “knowledge” (gnosis)—but actually sinister assumptions and absurdities—Irenaeus felt his task to be clear. He must make it impossible for anyone to confound true Christianity with Gnosticism. Moreover, he must make it impossible for such a monstrous system to survive, or ever to rise again. In this high resolve he delivered body blows, demonstrating its essential identity with old pagan mythology and heathen systems of philosophy, and refuting its sophistries. So, despite militant paganism and heresy he set up the landmarks of the faith in Gaul, as he castigated the errors of his day.CFF1 875.2
3. GENERAL SURVEY OF IRENAEUS’ DEFINITIVE TREATISE
Bishop Irenaeus’ famous treatise Against Heresies is a detailed exposure and confutation of the multiform Gnostic heresies of the time, leading into a definitive exposition and defense of the Christian faith. Its full title, as given by Eusebius, is A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely so called. Written during the episcopate of Plotinus, his predecessor at Lyons, it is divided into five books. The first two are a detailed description of the sinister teachings of the heretical sects, with an exposure and overthrow of their absurdities. The remaining three books set forth the true Christian doctrine as the rule of faith and practice, but still in basic contrast with, and opposition to, Gnosticism.CFF1 875.3
The Gnostics had raised two questions: How could the finite be reconciled with the Infinite? and, How could the existence of evil be accounted for? Here was Irenaeus’ able answer. Regrettably, only the first book has been preserved in the Greek original. The rest are in Latin translation only—made when the church had all but universally adopted the Augustinian theory, and by a translator of that persuasion. Too much dependence cannot, therefore, be placed on the precise rendering of certain controverted passages. Nevertheless, the treatise bears remarkable testimony to the Conditionalist doctrine of the nature and destiny of man, and its inseparable corollary, the ultimate destruction of the wicked.CFF1 875.4
4. STANDS AS BULWARK AGAINST UNIVERSAL INNATE IMMORTALITY
It should be remembered that Irenaeus was recognized as one of the ablest and soundest of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. He stands in imposing contrast with, and opposition to, the two conflicting schools just arising. These in time came to be known as Augustinianism (with its universal Innate-Immortality thesis, combined with the Eternal-Torment-of-the-wicked postulate developed by Tertullian), and Origenism (likewise with its universal Innate Immortality, but having as its corollary the ultimate universal restoration of the wicked). Irenaeus stood as a bulwark against both of these conflicting immortal-soul concepts just making their appearance. His chronological timing and relationship to the other Church Fathers will be seen by the Tabular Chart F, on page 758.CFF1 876.1
Let us first take a panoramic view of his over-all positions. On the basis of Holy Writ, Irenaeus envisioned the coming of a clean universe—free from sin and suffering, brought about through the ultimate destruction of sin, sinners, and demons—and the final restoration of righteousness. In refuting the pagan postulate of the Innate Immortality of the soul, Irenaeus stressed that it is from God’s own grace, majesty, and power, and not from our own nature, that we receive the gift of immortality, or living forever.CFF1 876.2
5. WICKED DESTINED TO CESSATION OF BEING
Irenaeus seemed to exhaust the expressive vocabulary at his command in denying the immortality of the unsaved. The incorrigibly wicked are consigned to eternal punishment which, he explains, ends in complete cessation of being or existence; and this results in the end of all evil. The chastisement of the wicked will be eternal in its effects, because God’s benefits are eternal. His argument, in a sentence, was this: To be deprived of the benefits of existence is the greatest punishment, and to be deprived of them forever is to suffer “eternal punishment.” This should be borne in mind.CFF1 876.3
Irenaeus rejected the principle, common alike to Gnosticism and to Platonism, that glorifies the soul and depreciates the body. He held to the oneness of man and insisted on the resurrection of the body and the redemption of the entire man. He argued against the transmigration of souls, a belief held in the East and in Greece and even creeping into the church in Alexandria. To Irenaeus “incorruptibility” does not mean a mere mystic purity of life but the imperishability of the resurrected body and the whole man.CFF1 877.1
Church historian Philip Schaff declared Irenaeus to be the leading representative of the Johannine School in the second half of the second century, the champion of orthodoxy against the Gnostic heresy, and mediator between the Eastern and the Western church, and, on the whole, the “most orthodox of the ante-Nicene fathers.” In the light of Irenaeus’ pronounced Conditionalism, that is a highly significant evaluation.CFF1 877.2
6. ESCHATOLOGICAL OUTLINE PORTRAYS LAST EVENTS
Before we take up Irenaeus’ discussion of man’s nature and destiny, it is desirable to grasp his exposition of the great prophetic outlines of Scripture, as these have a direct bearing on his eschatological views. Irenaeus was an able expositor of the major prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse. The impressive parallelism of Daniel 2 and 7 is brought out with remarkable clarity—the four world powers of Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, and their aftermath.CFF1 877.3
He identifies his own times with that of the Roman “fourth,” “which now rules,” but which, he held, was soon to be partitioned, according to prophecy, into ten lesser kingdoms—the coming nations of Western Europe. And this breakup of Rome, portrayed by the broken feet-and-toes portion of the image of Daniel 2, sets forth the same fourth kingdom, partitioned into the same ten smaller kingdoms, but here followed by the Heaven-descending stone kingdom of Christ, destined to smite the nations in earth’s latter days. CFF1 878.1
Then, Irenaeus notes in Daniel 7 an added feature, pertaining to coming developments in the Roman Empire. A “little horn” kingdom was to supplant three of Rome’s ten divisions, which he identified under the multiple names of Antichrist, Man of Sin, Mystery of Iniquity, Son of Perdition, Beast, and Little Horn, whose reign would terminate in destruction at the Second Advent. And Christ’s second coming is, he states, accompanied by the first resurrection, and followed by the reign of the resurrected saints during the millennium. CFF1 878.2
But the general resurrection and judgment upon the wicked, Irenaeus declares, follows the descent of the New Jerusalem at the end of the millennial period. Such is his bold and clear depiction of the inspired or prophesied outline of the centuries, and the order of eschatological events—including the final destiny and disposition of all mankind.CFF1 878.3
By having before us Irenaeus’ concept of the final disposition of all things—in other words, his eschatology—the way is open for understanding his view of the annihilation of the wicked in connection with the last judgment, and the conferring of immortality on the righteous only, and not on the wicked. Thus inspired prophecy and Biblical doctrine are, according to Irenaeus, seen to be in complete agreement. But there is one key principle that unlocks his entire exposition.CFF1 878.4
7. CHRIST CAME TO UNDO RUIN WROUGHT BY ADAM
Irenaeus’ position may be summed up in the word “recapitulation,” meaning “summing up” or “starting afresh.” Jesus is the Second Adam. As Adam fell through disobedience and became mortal, so Jesus came as the Second Adam to be victorious through obedience, and to confer immortality. From this position Irenaeus attacks the Gnostics. They say that the flesh is the work of the Demiurge, and so is of no account, and that man, in his soul, is naturally immortal. Irenaeus says that the flesh is the handiwork of the true God and a vital part of man and so must be redeemed. For these reasons Christ came in true flesh to undo what Adam had done in the flesh. This is the key to Irenaeus’ entire treatise.CFF1 879.1
