CHAPTER FIFTY-TWO: Irenaeus Voices Preponderant Belief of Church

I. Foremost Second-Century Contender for Conditionalism

As has already been observed, Irenaeus was one of the noble minds of his generation, as well as one of the most learned and respected theological authorities of his time. Enslin says of him, “Irenaeus is properly regarded one of the most influential figures of the ante-Nicene Church.” ^{11) Morgan S. Enslin, “Irenaeus,” in Ferm. An Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 379} Among contemporary bishops he was surpassed by none in influence and importance throughout his long episcopate. He was the foremost second-century contender for Conditionalism. Because of its explicitness and candor, his testimony is therefore of exceptional value in our quest. As to timing, his principal treatise was written, it is believed, between A.D. 182 and 188. ^{22) Coxe, “Introductory Note to Irenaeus Against Heresies,” in ANF, vol. 1, p. 312.} A systematic survey of his total testimony is therefore highly desirable, in addition to the panoramic view given in the previous chapter on his Conditionalist stand. Two perplexing passages will also be frankly examined. These will appear in Appendix B.CFF1 886.1

As noted, Irenaeus’ most conspicuous work for the church was his masterful refutation of the spreading Gnostic perversions, which included gross misconceptions and false teachings regarding the nature and destiny of man. But he was similarly successful in refuting the Platonic postulate of the natural immortality of the soul, now just beginning to make entrance into the Christian Church.CFF1 886.2

In his exposure of the subversions of Gnosticism, Irenaeus was compelled to deal decisively with their wearisome specious contentions over “emanations,” “Aeons,” the “Pleroma,” the “Archon,” et cetera, which have already been defined on page 862. But Irenaeus is not content with merely refuting error. He affirms truth, going into the heart of the issues involved, and dealing with the fundamentals at stake. And he does so as a conspicuous proponent of many of the principles of Conditionalism. That is the key to his arguments. Only by the total testimony of this fearless and faithful key witness, and a summation of his multiple statements, can the full impact and significance of his position be seen.CFF1 887.1

1. GRAPPLES WITH BASIC ISSUES OF CONTROVERSY

In his positive approach Irenaeus not only exposes Gnosticism’s origin and degrading character but also insists on the true and rightful place of Christ in the Godhead, as Creator and Redeemer of man. In contradistinction to Gnosticism, Irenaeus stressed the goodness of God’s original material creation, the true nature of man as created, the disastrous character and entry of sin, and the catastrophic results of the Edenic fall.CFF1 887.2

He pressed on the reality of the earthly life of Jesus Christ—emphasizing His eternal pre-existence, His incarnation through a virgin birth (thus He became the one and only God-man in order to save men), His sinless life on earth, His actual sufferings and crucifixion, His vicarious atoning death, His literal resurrection and ascension, and heavenly ministry. Irenaeus insisted on salvation and immortalization solely in and through Christ, with immortality as a gift “conferred” on the righteous at the first resurrection.CFF1 887.3

2. REMARKABLE SCOPE OF ANALYSIS OF ERROR

Irenaeus likewise denied the Gnostic notion of the eternal existence of sin, involving sinful, polluted beings in the universe of God, continuing on defiantly throughout all eternity. Irenaeus insisted that, on the contrary, Christ came to banish sin and to restore universal harmony and righteousness by bringing all sin and pollution to an utter and permanent end. This point he stressed effectively.CFF1 887.4

Only God, Irenaeus firmly held, is by His own nature inherently and absolutely immortal. But, by the will of God, men will continue to exist only as long as He shall please and determine. The object of the Incarnation was expressly stated to be the purging away of all sin and the ultimate annihilation of all evil. At the same time Irenaeus deftly undermined the notion of such an accomplishment by universal restoration of all sinners, as some were then beginning to argue. His unequivocal utterances are on open record. So to these we now turn.CFF1 888.1