Irenaeus, ANE Gods, Gnosticism, And Evolution

[Jason]

OP on Pastoral Musings.

Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" is quite the tome to wear one out. Much of what he deals with simply bores me due to the fact that so much of it seems irrelevant. My reading has been to learn, and I have profited much by seeing the already established orthodoxy of his day. Beyond that things did not seem very relevant to me.

As I read Book 2 today, suddenly the information provided began to become relevant to today.

Ireneaus' contention against the Gnostic sects is manifold. He overwhelms the reader with information. His attention to detail, however, has provided us with much of our knowledge of Gnosticism; so we have reason to be grateful that Irenaeus was so verbose as he was.

What does all of this have to do with ANE gods, Gnosticisim, and evolution? Much.

You see, the ANE myths consistently present us with a polytheistic worldview. So does Gnosticism.

Evolutionary theory presents us with life going through gradual change with the inferior and defective elements being weeded out via natural selection, or survival of the fittest. Gnosticism presents us with good and bad gods who were active in creating.

Here are Irenaeus' words.

God stands in need of nothing, and that He created and made all things by His Word, while He neither required angels to assist Him in the production of those things which are made, nor of any power greatly inferior to Himself, and ignorant of the Father, nor of any defect or ignorance, in order that he who should know Him might become man. But He Himself in Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, predestinating all things, formed them as He pleased, bestowing harmony on all things, and assigning them their own place, and the beginning of their creation. In this way He conferred on spiritual things a spiritual and invisible nature, on super-celestial things a celestial, on angels an angelical, on animals an animal, on beings that swim a nature suited to the water, and on those that live on the land one fitted for the land - on all, in short, a nature suitable to the character of the life assigned them - while He formed all things that were made by His Word that never wearies.
For this is a peculiarity of the pre-eminence of God, not to stand in need of other instruments for the creation of those things which are summoned into existence. His own Word is both suitable and sufficient for the formation of all things, even as John, the disciple of the Lord, declares regarding Him: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” Now, among the “all things” our world must be embraced. It too, therefore, was made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in the book of Genesis that He made all things connected with our world by His Word. David also expresses the same truth [when he says] “For He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created.” Whom, therefore, shall we believe as to the creation of the world - these heretics who have been mentioned that prate so foolishly and inconsistently on the subject, or the disciples of the Lord, and Moses, who was both a faithful servant of God and a prophet? He at first narrated the formation of the world in these words: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” and all other things in succession; but neither gods nor angels [had any share in the work].
Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, [saying,] “There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and through all things, and in us all.” I have indeed proved already that there is only one God; but I shall further demonstrate this from the apostles themselves, and from the discourses of the Lord. For what sort of conduct would it be, were we to forsake the utterances of the prophets, of the Lord, and of the apostles, that we might give heed to these persons, who speak not a word of sense?

Philip Schaff, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, electronic ed., 0 (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000).

Irenaeus contends that God created by command rather than by using inferior agents or means which were ignorant of him. He tells us that God formed each thing so that it would fit in the environment where it was placed.

He specifically tells us that this is reflective of God's preeminence, or His glory. God chose to create by His Word rather than any other means so that His infinite greatness as the God who is all-sufficient would be displayed.

Irenaeus then reminds us that Moses gave to us an account of creation that tells us of a succession of events (six days, as we read in Genesis), and that even angels or other gods had no hand in the matter of creating.

Today, however, we find that people are trying to present the Genesis account of creation as simply a different form of Ancient Near Eastern myth. They tell us that there is actually no historical narrative in Genesis chapters one through three, but that it is theological, polemical, myth that shows that YHWH is the one true God. They tell us that modern evolutionary science has forced us to reexamine the Genesis creation account and , that Genesis is another ANE myth that does not contradict the theory of evolution. In so doing, they present to us God creating through evolution's natural selection, or through powers that are greatly inferior to Himself, ignorant of Him, as well as defective and ignorant.

Sadly, this viewpoint has more in common with Ancient Near Easter paganism and Gnosticism than it has common with biblical Christianity.

Irenaeus calls it blasphemy.

if it was formed such as it really is, then He made it such who had mentally conceived of it as such; or He willed it to exist in the ideality of the Father, according to the conception of His mind, such as it now is, compound, mutable, and transient. Since, then, it is just such as the Father had [ideally] formed in counsel with Himself, it must be worthy of the Father. But to affirm that what was mentally conceived and pre-created by the Father of all, just as it has been actually formed, is the fruit of defect, and the production of ignorance, is to be guilty of great blasphemy. For, according to them, the Father of all will thus be [regarded as] generating in His breast, according to His own mental conception, the emanations of defect and the fruits of ignorance, since the things which He had conceived in His mind have actually been produced.

Philip Schaff, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, electronic ed., 0 (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000).

So, too, should we.

[Daniel]

So much to say, so little time... LOL  

[ScottL]

To re-use a famous quote that began this article: Marvs' "Genesis Writings" are quite the tome to wear one out. Much of what he deals with simply bores me due to the fact that so much of it seems irrelevant. 

[ScottL]

Jason -

I believe Irenaeus is arguing against gnosticism, not modern-day scientific findings and explorations.

Now, one could argue that though Irenaeus was arguing against another topic, it completely relates to the topic of modern science. Maybe. Maybe not. But I don't believe Irenaeus is identifying modern science and its findings as heresy.

God got very messy, I mean very messy, when he became human. God became a circumcised Jewish man of the first century. God got very messy, I mean very messy, when he decided to use his people to tell his story and to tell it within their framework. God became, if you will, part of the ancient Hebrew community within a specific ancient framework. This is very messy stuff. It is scandalous. But for some reason God likes getting dirty with us. I am moved by such and like it too.

I wish I could take more time to respond. Maybe one day a series of posts.

[Jason]

ScottL,

I think my beginning statement makes it plain that I realize who Ireneaus was arguing against. I specifically compared ANE myths to Gnosticism. You're the second person who disagrees with me and responded in this manner. I'm left scratching my head about how you can think I'm saying Irenaeus is dealing with evolution.

I'm simply comparing ideas and finding that theistic evolution of today's variety is Neo-Babylonian Gnosticism.

As far as what you call the messiness of God (which is somewhat of a misnomer), I can only say that you've committed a categorical fallacy. Creation, the manner in which God gave us His Word, and the incarnation of the Son of God are vastly different things.

[ScottL]

Jason -

I know how you started your article. But look at how you ended your article, as well as your comment above - I'm simply comparing ideas and finding that theistic evolution of today's variety is Neo-Babylonian Gnosticism. You are making THE connection and identifying the latter (theistic evolution) as heretical. You might have identified the details as different, but your concluding that both - gnosticism and theistic evolution - are heresy. So my challenge is are the 2 actually connected and is the latter actual heresy?

God is messy - the Bible is one of the best attestations to this reality, both in what it tells us about the story of God and how God chose to do this team project to bring about his story. I grant that God, in his being, is not 'messy', in any kind of bad sense. But God was excited to take up a team project with us, in his Son and in his word. It meant he, himself, though not messy, was going to have to get messy. Creation as given initially by God might not have been inherently messy. But because the only understandings we have of creation are through God's word in Scripture which he gave through his people and God's world we have been studying for millennia, then things, again, get messy. God seems ok with that. He is not micro-managing things, stepping out of heaven and saying, 'These are the exact details of how I did it.' He is pulling up his trousers, pulling back his sleeves, and jumping in the whole thing.

[Marv]

Ladies and gentlemen,

Jason has come across an interesting and quite valid parallel.

Irenaeus objected to people in his day who thought so much of a prevailing non-Scriptural school of thought about the way the cosmos is constructed and how it all works that they saw fit to fold the constructs of their philosophy into the Scriptural narrative. The result is, rather than the profound simplicity of the Divine Sovereign who says to this one go and he goes and to that one do this and he does it (though it be mystery beyond our ken, even in that "simplicity")--they posited intermediary entities--unknown to Scripture--through which the creation was effected. One can hear them now: "I'm not denying that Yahweh created the universe, only who's to say he didn't use a demiurge and angelic beings to do it?"

 

Now Jason is not telling us that Irenaeus ever heard of Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking. But a current practice not all that far removed from what the Gnostics of old were up to is rampant today. To wit: some wish to posit intermediary entities--unknown to Scripture--between the Divine Sovereign and His creation: "Who's to say that God didn't use blah, blah, blah, blah?" And all for the sake of blending in pet philosophy (diginified and Canonized by borrowing for it--illegitimately--the name Science).

 

Thus the creation reveals not God's eternal power and divine nature--but the eternity of matter and the regularity of ongoing natural processes.

 

It's bad enough when heretics like the Gnostics endeavored to steal glory from God. Must it be done by those who self-identify as Evangelicals?

[Jason]

ScottL,

You said,

I believe Irenaeus is arguing against gnosticism, not modern-day scientific findings and explorations.

I replied,

I think my beginning statement makes it plain that I realize who Ireneaus was arguing against. I specifically compared ANE myths to Gnosticism.

and again,

I'm simply comparing ideas and finding that theistic evolution of today's variety is Neo-Babylonian Gnosticism.

You respond,

I know how you started your article. But look at how you ended your article, as well as your comment above - I'm simply comparing ideas and finding that theistic evolution of today's variety is Neo-Babylonian Gnosticism. You are making THE connection and identifying the latter (theistic evolution) as heretical. You might have identified the details as different, but your concluding that both - gnosticism and theistic evolution - are heresy. So my challenge is are the 2 actually connected and is the latter actual heresy?

I'm glad you at least acknowledge that I've enough reading comprehension and honesty to not say Irenaeus was actually speaking of theistic evolution. That's what you seemed to be saying I was doing.

Yes, there is a connection. I think the connection was made quite plainly.

Let me put it like this: If you don't wish to be identified with heresies old or new, don't embrace a new heresy which is actually something that is warmed over from centuries past.

Irenaeus saw that the glory of God was being compromised. Today, it seems that people profess to honor God, yet compromise His glory in similar ways.

I think the connections are obvious enough. I know that it's not pleasant to be called upon an issue, but perhaps that is what is necessary for intelligent and sincere people such as yourself to stop and rethink their embracing of the latest theological fad.

[Daniel]

I'm enjoying reading you guys thoughts on this.  But I have a question.  Just because Irenaeus (who must have LOVED vowels) warns against applying an incorrect worldview to Scripture, does that mean that we can equate ANY world view that we disagree with to that?  Seems to be what is happening here.  Seems that using the same logic, we should also equate geocentric cosmology with the Bible and heliocentrism with Gnosticism as well. Irenaeus sure supported the "orbits" of the sun.  Or how about his strong belief in apostolic secession and the primacy of Rome?  Do we then equate Sola Scriptura and the Protestant view of the authority of the Pope to Gnosticism?  I don't think we should embrace compromise or embrace heresy.  But neither should we see acceptance of some new information and an adjustment to our interpretation of the text as automatically falling into that heretical compromise category.  I'm all for giving God the glory and not taking anything away from Him that He deserves.  But that doesn't mean I should credit Him with some kind of direct miracle when His workings may have been more *indirect*.  It is one thing to glorify Him as Creator and say that He spoke all things into existence and *POOF* they were there.  But if that isn't accurate, am I really right to do so?  If what He spoke was "Let the land produce" and the LAND actually, on His direction and according to His design, did the producing (which is how I read MY Bible), how is it Gnostic to understand it that way?  

[Jason]

Daniel,

Pardon me for speaking bluntl. I'm left flabbergasted by your comments and questions.

Are you missing the direct connection between the philosophies?

Are you actually suggesting that Irenaeus' erroneous support of the Bishop of Rome means that I must throw the baby out with the bath water? Furthermore, I think it smacks of poisoning the well to bring that up, as if the Bishop of Rome then is the same as the Pope is now; because that certainly isn't so.

It is also a somewhat dead horse that is being beat when you bring up geocentricism. The Bible has nothing to do with that. That is only the figment of very active imaginations.

I have no idea why you wish to take this discussion in this direction. It's irrelevant to the subject, as far as I can tell.

[Marv]

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

 

So the KJV runs. I know "science" here means "knowledge." But, you know, makes a nice connection between the two.