The Story of Abdul Saleeb (Answering Islam)

The Story of Abdul Saleeb

My name [pseudonym] is “Abdul Saleeb.” I was born and raised in a Muslim country in the Middle East. Even though I lived in a very conservative Muslim society I grew up in a somewhat of a liberal Muslim family. Furthermore, my Muslim upbringing was unique due to my mother’s serious involvement in Islamic sufism. So I can honestly confess, that I have had first hand experience of every aspect of contemporary Islamic movements. I personally did not consider myself very religious. At one point I even turned to Marxist ideologies thinking that they could provide real solutions to my country’s social ills. However, throughout all this time I never doubted the fundamentals of my religious faith. I thought of Islam as a faith with such high ideals that I did not consider myself worthy of the name Muslim but I wholeheartedly believed that Islam was God’s last and most perfect religion for all mankind, based on God’s final revelation, the Qur’an, and the prophet Muhammad, God’s seal of prophethood. My view of other religions (especially Judaism and Christianity) was that although they were fundamentally the same since they had all been revealed by one God, they were all inferior to Islam because all of them had to various degrees corrupted the original message of their founding prophets, something that we as Muslims have not done.

My religious views were radically challenged when I left my country because of its civil turmoil and went to Europe for the continuation of my studies. By the providence of God and because of various circumstances, I ended up enrolling in an International Christian School. My first “theological” question to one of my Christian teachers, was extremely childish but looking back at it now, the response of my teacher revolutionized my worldview. I asked my question after sitting in my first class about some of the teachings of the Bible. My question was, “How come Christians can drink wine but Muslims cannot? How come your word of God says one thing and our word of God says something different?” My teacher, not knowing much about Islam at all, gently asked, “How do you know the Qur’an is the word of God?” I was taken aback by that response. I had lived in a world in which everyone simply presupposed that the Qur’an was dictated word for word by God to the Prophet Muhammad and no one ever questioned that assumption. That brief encounter forced me to start on a journey, engage my Christian friends in hours of cordial discussion and debate about the truthfulness of the Christian faith.

Like almost any other Muslim, my original reaction to the claims of Christians about Jesus Christ was that of utter shock. These claims not only seemed like plain blasphemy but also quite nonsensical. How could any rational being believe such things about an honored prophet of God? Despite my fundamental theological differences with my friends, there was something about their life and faith that impressed me a great deal. There was a sincerity in their relationship with God and other people that I had not encountered among my own Muslim people. So I would often tell them that I did not want to deny their faith but I just wanted to find a compromise so that I could hold to the truth of Islam and they could continue to hold to their faith.

However, I was in no doubt that their belief about Jesus was based on statements that the prophet Jesus had never actually claimed for himself. My difficulty in understanding Christian belief was very much along the lines that have historically seperated Islam from Christianity.

First, there was the issue of the deity of Christ. How can anybody believe that a human being was actually God incarnate? How can that be logically possible?

The second obstacle was the doctrine of the Trinity, an issue closely related to the first problem. Again, this Christian belief seemed to me was a logical absurdity and grossly compromised the belief in the Oneness of God.

Finally, I did not grant in any way that the Bible, especially the New Testament documents, were reliable when it came to reporting the words of Christ. Anything in the Bible that disagreed with the Qur’an was automatically rejected as being a corrupt teaching in the Bible.

My spiritual journey went on for months. Oftentimes I did find comfort in the Qur’an, but I was encountering more questions in that book than answers. For example, the violent tone of many of the Qur’anic passages (especially against the unbelievers but also against the Jewish and Christian people) began to bother me, when compared with the emphasis on love in the New Testament. One particular passage that troubled me, especially in light of my good friendship with many Christians, was in Sura 5:51.

“O ye who believe! Take not Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to eachother. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.”

However, the most troubling section of the Qur’an had to do with the character of the prophet Muhammad himself. According to Sura 33:37, God sanctions Muhammad’s desire to marry the divorced wife of his own stepson, “in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And God’s command must be fulfilled.”

I vivdly remember the first time that I came across that verse in my study of the Qur’an. I began to sob with great sorrow and shame. All my life I had been told that Muhammad was the most perfect and ideal moral example for mankind and yet the Qur’an had a good number of examples of how the “revelations” could be so self-serving to the prophet himself!

I immediately wrote a letter to my mother back home with some of these troubling questions that I was encountering in the Qur’an. The response that I received to my letter from one of the most prominent religious leaders in my country was that I should just continue my secular studies and not focus too much on religion. On the other hand, as my understanding of the Bible was increasing many of my questions were beginning to get answered. Even as a Muslim I came to believe that the crucifixion of Christ was an undisputable historical fact that no honest person that deals with evidences of history could deny.

The character of Christ himself, as manifested for example in his beautiful Sermon on the Mount, was gradually making a great impression on me. But for me, the most impressive factor about Christ, were the multitudes of Old Testament prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Some of these prophecies were so specific and they were fulfilled in the life of Jesus to such a detail that it amazed me to see how God had taken hundreds of years of Jewish history to prepare the coming of the Messiah; prophecies ranging from Messiah’s ancestery, his manner and place of birth, his life and ministry to the circumstances surrounding his death by crucifixion. I was very attracted to Christ and yet I could not deny my own tradition and past. Becoming Christian seemed a definite betrayal of my own family and Islamic heritage. The tension in my life was so strong that I felt torn asunder between these two faiths.

But I still could not bring myself to accept that Jesus was anything more than a human being. Since he had never explicitly said, “I am God and you must worship me,” the Christian claim about Jesus was based on speculation and historically unreliable Gospels. Surely the incredible statements attributed to Jesus were invented by later church and put in the mouth of Jesus.

In the midst of all this anxiety of thought, I woke up one morning and was suddenly struck by the meaning of a verse written by the prophet Isaiah in his ninth chapter. I had read this verse several weeks prior to that morning, but I had never understood its meaning. In Isa.7:14, we read,

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

Isaiah then goes on to write in chapter 9,

“[…] in the future he (God) will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan the people walking in darkness have seen a great light, on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned […] For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne […] from that time on and forever.”

I could not believe it! The fact that the Messiah was not going to be just a prophet but Mighty God himself, was therefore a truth that had been prophesied seven hundred years before Christ in the Old Testament, and not something that had been made up by Christians many years or centuries after Christ! It was God’s own promise that he will come in flesh (Immanuel = God with us) and will establish a kingdom that will last forever.

I came to trust in Christ, the next day on January 20, 1985. I cried uncontrollably as I was praying and turning to Christ in faith. I did not know why, and though I had never felt much burden of guilt, I was feeling a great sense of peace and relief from the burden of my sins. A greater satisfaction was the sense of rest in finally finding the truth about God and His revelation of love to mankind in Jesus Christ. A book that helped me (and several other Muslim friends of mine who became Christians around the same time that I did) tremendously in answering many of my questions about the deity of Christ and the reliability of the New Testament documents was Josh McDowell’s “Evidence That Demands A Verdict.” I highly recommend it.

Soon after my own conversion, I decided to dedicate my entire life to promoting the Good News of Christ among Muslims and especially the people of my own country. I later came to the United States and received my undergraduate and graduate degrees in Biblical and Theological Studies. I also co-authored a book with Norman Geisler, a prominent Christian philosopher, with the title “Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross.”

Abdul Saleeb,

Ramadan of 1996

I sincerely welcome any interaction that Muslim friends might have with my testimony. Since both Muslims and Christians believe that our eternal destinies depend on our right relationship to God here on earth, therefore, it is of utmost importance to seriously consider not only the Qur’anic claims but also the claims of Jesus Christ. If the Socratic dictum is true that “the unexamined life is not worth living”, it is even more true that “the unexamined faith is not worth believing.”

If you would like to contact me, send an email to Abdul-at-integrity-dot-org.

(This offer was open in 1996 but probably not open any longer.)

By Christopher on Classical Apologetics, First Principles, Logic

Brief Comments on Logic

Here is a short clip of Dr. Geisler teaching on the graduate level about and defending the Laws of Logic.

The full course on Logic should be available for purchase at http://NGIM.org soon.

Also consider Dr. Geisler’s book/e-book titled Come, Let us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking from here

By Christopher on Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, ICBI, Reliability of the Bible, Theology

The Basis for Inerrancy (MP3)

This two-part lecture by Dr. Geisler could be titled Jesus’ view of the Scriptures.

Part One:

Part Two:

By Christopher on Evangelical Exodus, Roman Catholicism

Is the Roman Catholic Church the Only Church of Christ?

by Michael A. Field

August 2007

The Vatican’s recently published response to questions about its doctrine on the Church puzzled many Christians. The document, dated June 29, 2007 (released July 10, 2007), said nothing new, yet it reminded the world that Churches not in communion with Rome are considered defective in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Parts of a previous declaration, Dominus Iesus (2000), were restated; namely, that Orthodox Churches are defective for not recognizing the primacy of the Pope, and that Protestant “ecclesial communities … cannot be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense.” The reason given for the latter assertion was that “these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element [the Eucharist] of the Church.” These clear statements of the RCC are an invitation for non-Catholics to speak the truth in love.

It is important to understand the theological context that prompted the recent Vatican release and Dominus Iesus (DI), from which it was derived. In both documents, the Vatican expressed concern about the diversity of interpretations of Vatican II, specifically in the area of ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church. The Vatican wants to protect the Church from relativism wherein “what is true for some would not be true for others” (DI, 4), so it restated the definition of the RCC and clarified its position regarding Orthodox and Protestant Churches. By addressing some fundamental differences between the three major branches of Christianity, the Vatican has provided an excellent opportunity for the other two to compare and contrast their own views vis-a-vis the RCC.

Key questions prompted by the Vatican’s statement will be evaluated in this paper based on consistency with Christian truth, as suggested in DI. The primary witness of this truth is God-inspired Scripture, which presents the teaching and practices of the founding fathers of the Church. Indeed, as Vatican II declared: “Sacred Scriptures provide for the work of dialogue an instrument of the highest value in the mighty hand of God for the attainment of that unity which the Saviour holds out to all” (Unitatis Redintegratio 21, 1964). Additional helpful insights will be gleaned from occasional references to subsequent church fathers.^{^[1]} The topics to be addressed include: What does the Bible teach about the Church? What is required for a valid Eucharist? Is “apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders” necessary? What is the role of the Pope in the Church?

What Does the Bible Teach about the Church?

“For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.” Mt 18:20 (NASB)

According to the Vatican, a “Church” cannot exist without apostolic succession in the sacrament of

Orders (ordination), which in turn is required for the Eucharist (communion). On face value, this view seems to contradict New Testament (NT) references to “churches” that met in the homes of individuals who undoubtedly were not ordained in a manner recognized by the RCC. What does Christian truth as revealed in the NT and affirmed by the early church fathers profess about the Church?

The Greek NT word for church is ekklesia, meaning an “assembly duly summoned.”^{^[2]} Clement of

Alexandria wrote, “For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church” (Stromata, 7.5, ca. AD 220). For Clement, the “assemblage of the elect” meant those “summoned” or called by God in Christ (cf. 1 Pet 1:1-2). In the NT, ekklesia also is associated with a congregation (cf. Acts 7:38, applied to Israel) and the “household of God” (1 Tim 3:15).³ More specifically, a Christian church (ekklesia) is a gathering of “those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours” (1 Cor 1:2).

The NT uses the word, ekklesia, over one hundred times. Sometimes it refers to churches in private homes (cf. Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Philem 1:2), at other times, to city-wide assemblies. In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul mentions both the church at Rome that met in Prisca and Aquila’s house (16:5) and “the whole church” in Rome (16:23). Paul and Barnabas “gathered the church together” at Antioch after their first missionary journey (Acts 14:27). Churches are often identified by the city in which they meet;

e.g., Jerusalem (Acts 8:1), Antioch (Acts 13:1), Cenchrea (Rom 16:1), Thessalonica (2 Th 1:1), and the seven churches in “Asia” (cf. Rev ch.2-3). These churches are examples of local assemblies that are part of the greater entity, the “house (or household) of God,” the whole Body of Christ (Eph 1:22-23).

The larger Body of Christ includes and transcends all local assemblies. For example, the Church can be viewed at a regional level, e.g., “the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” (cf. Act

9:31); but in its entirety, it is “His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (cf. Eph 1:22-23). This Church consists of all the members who are “holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God” (Col 2:19). It is also likened to a spiritual building, “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the

Spirit” (Eph 2:20-22). The writer of Hebrews offers a glimpse of the Church beyond space and time: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the

Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect” (Heb 12:22-23). Finally, Scripture describes the Church as the bride of Christ and tells of the wedding in which He will “present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless” (Eph 5:27ff; cf. Rev 19:7). As presented in Scripture, then, the Church is a multi-faceted entity, manifested in local assemblies that are joined together spiritually as a holy temple and a living “body” connected to its head, Jesus Christ. The Church in its fullness transcends geography, time and space.

In its most elemental form, “Church” is defined by Jesus’ words, “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst” (Mt 18:20). A church is people meeting in Jesus’ name, with the expectation that He, who has called them to be His disciples, is indeed in their midst. Ignatius of Antioch wrote (ca. AD 105), “where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans,

8). Tertullian, early in the third century, said: “But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laymen” (Exhortation to Chastity, 7). In other words, the body (two or more people) together with the head (Jesus) is the Church. In light of the above testimonies, the RCC’s sectarian view of the term, “Church,” appears to be inconsistent with God’s Word and early Church belief and practice. One can conclude that

Protestant Churches are part of God’s household, and thus deserve to be called Churches in both a biblical and historical sense.^{^[3]}

What is Required for a Valid Eucharist?

“This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Lk 22:19

According to the RCC, only a priest or bishop ordained in apostolic succession is qualified to administer the Eucharist. Yet, based on the previous discussion, one might infer from Matthew 18:20 that any group of believers who gather together in Jesus’ name should be able to obey His command, “do this in remembrance of Me.” The daily celebrations of the Eucharist among the thousands of Christian converts “from house to house” following Pentecost (Acts 2:42, 46) most assuredly did not rely on “consecrated” presbyters and bishops.^{^[4]} After all, even the first deacons of the Church weren’t selected until some time had elapsed after Pentecost (Acts 6). Even centuries after the New Testament was written, the Church

Father, Basil of Caesarea, made allowances for communion “without the presence of a priest or minister” (cf. Letter 93, ca. AD 370). Thus, consistent with the practice of the NT Church (including house churches), Basil affirmed that the Eucharist does not depend on the sacrament of Orders.

The RCC also asserts that a valid Eucharist requires a literal interpretation of Jesus’ words, “This is My body … this is My blood” (Mt 26:26, 28) and “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves,” (Jn 6:53, cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1384-1400). Why single out these two sayings from the many other figurative sayings in the New Testament? Jesus didn’t change into a vine when He said, “I am the vine;” yet the RCC insists that the bread changed into His flesh when He said, “This is My body,” at the Last Supper. The RCC also claims that the communion bread, under the invocation of its priests, is changed into the physical body of Christ, in spite of its unchanged physical properties (the doctrine of transubstantiation). In view of the interpretive difficulties inherent in the above quotations, it would be helpful to consider what the Apostle Paul and some of the church fathers taught.

The earliest interpretation of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper is found in 1 Cor 11:26-31. Paul’s support for a figurative interpretation begins with his triple repetition of the phrases, “eat the bread” and “drink the cup,” instead of “eat the body” and “drink the blood.” But some Christians are confused by the phrase, “judge [or discern] the body rightly,” in verse 29. To understand what Paul means, one must study the larger context in verses 27-31. Paul is saying that eating the bread and drinking the cup “in an unworthy manner” (v. 27a) can be avoided when a person “examine[s] himself” (v. 28), for “if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged” (v.31). Being “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord” (v. 27b), then, is about failing to properly examine ourselves, not about perceiving an unseen reality in the bread and the cup. Therefore, the phrase, “judge the body rightly” (v. 29), refers to examination of the assembled body of Christ (ourselves), not the bread of the Eucharist.⁶ This is consistent with the early

NT, Church offices are to be filled by faithful men and women (with the exception of the office of bishop/overseer that is limited to mature men of high character, cf. 1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:6).

Holy Orders in the RCC differ from the NT Church offices described above. A “priest” does not function as an elder did in the early church; NT elders (plural) shepherded their church as a “presbytery” or board of elders. Also, the offices of presbyteros (elder) and episkopos (bishop/overseer) were interchangeable in the early Church; cf. Acts 20:17-28, 1 Tim 5:17; 1 Clement 1:3; 44:4. Lastly, no bishop had jurisdiction over the bishops or presbyters of other churches (cf. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to Polycarp); that function was reserved for apostles, a foundational office of the Church (cf. Eph 2:20; 4:11; 1 Cor 12:28; 2 Cor 11:28).

6 The Greek verb for “judge” in both 1 Cor 11:29 and 31 is diakrino, which may be translated “discern.” The D-R Bible translates v. 29 “discerning the body of the Lord,” [“of the Lord” is not in either the Greek or the Latin Vulgate]; and v. 31, “but if we would judge ourselves.” The D-R translation appears to be biased.

second century description of the Eucharist in the Didache (9), in which the broken bread is likened to the Body of Christ (the Church) scattered and gathered. Augustine also reflected this view in his fifth century work: On Baptism, Against the Donatists (7.50.98).

Although most church fathers accepted a literal interpretation of the Eucharist, Eusebius, a famous participant at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea (AD 325), wrote the following: “[W]e have received a memorial of this offering… which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of the new covenant” (Demonstratio Evangelica, 1.10, emphasis added).

Other church fathers who used figurative language to describe the Eucharist included Clement of

Alexandria, Tertullian and Cyril of Jerusalem (more than a thousand years before the Protestant

Reformation!). Different interpretations never prevented early Christians from taking communion. Indeed, Augustine strongly endorsed “judging no man, nor removing any from the right of communion if he entertain a different opinion” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 7.2.3). For Augustine, the requirements for communion were simply baptism “consecrated with the words of the gospel” and love for one’s Christian brethren (cf. ibid. 7.47.93; 1.18.28). These examples demonstrate that differences of opinion and personal conscience were not barriers to communion in the early Church.

Interestingly, although Augustine believed the bread and wine were transformed into Christ’s body and blood at the Last Supper, nevertheless, he interpreted Jesus’ previous words, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood” (John 6:53), figuratively.⁷ Jesus himself implied that these words should be interpreted symbolically when he said: “the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (John 6:63). Indeed, the context in John 6 provides the intended symbolic meaning: “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst… For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life” (Jn 6:35, 40). To behold Jesus and believe in Him is to see Him with the eyes of faith and thereby inherit eternal life (cf. Jn 20:29). The literal interpretation of Jn 6:53 by the RCC (cf.

CCC 1384) thus appears to contradict both Jesus and Augustine, a “Doctor of the Church.”

1 Cor 10:16-17 says that the cup of blessing is a koinonia (fellowship/sharing/participation) in the blood of Christ and “the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ.” The RCC interprets this literally and links it to 1 Cor 11:29 (“discerning the body”). But as explained above, 1 Cor 11:29 is about the Church. In 1 Cor 10:21, the “cup of the Lord” is compared to the “cup of demons.” Since demons lack blood, both cups must be symbolic.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to fully exegete 1 Cor 11:26-31; however, the phrase, “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,” is worthy of comment. Guilt is incurred when a person takes lightly what Christ did for him on the cross, particularly when participating in the rite dedicated to remembering His death. Failure to do so may result in impairment of one’s health (verse 30), but Paul doesn’t prescribe excommunication in this context.

7 Cf. On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24. The RCC believes that Jn 6:53 refers to the Last Supper; Augustine apparently didn’t, nor does this author. The “Bread of Life” discourse in John 6 followed the feeding of the five thousand.

A number of other legitimate questions about transubstantiation must also be considered. For example, the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in AD 451 declared that Christ’s flesh was completely human, “unchanged and unmixed,” yet united with His divine nature in one person. This means that Christ’s flesh could not be separated from its physical properties (its “accidents,” as Aquinas called them); in other words, Jesus’ body could not transmute into bread. So, when Jesus held the bread in His hands and said, “This is My body,” either the Council of Chalcedon was wrong or Jesus was speaking figuratively. The RCC claims that its priests duplicate what Jesus did at the Last Supper. If nothing happened to the bread at the Last Supper, then nothing happens to it today in the celebration of the Eucharist. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic belief that Christ’s flesh appears simultaneously all over the world wherever the Eucharist is celebrated also contradicts the Council’s description of Christ’s human nature.^{^[5]} Likewise, teaching that the priest’s sacramental offering of the Eucharistic elements to God “makes present” the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood is problematic (cf. Heb 9:25). Lastly, the RCC lacks a satisfying explanation for how communicants are able to receive both the body and the blood of Christ when the priest only gives them the bread. The many questions raised by the doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be easily dismissed.

The above points validate the Protestant celebrations of the Eucharist and call attention to inconsistencies in the Roman Catholic position vis-à-vis early Church teaching and practices. Historically, the Lord’s Table has always been a symbol of the unity of the Body of Christ. The refusal of the RCC and other Churches to admit certain people to communion because of their Church affiliation has deeply hurt some of Christ’s disciples. Making the Eucharist a point of division is a sad commentary on the Church today.

Is Apostolic Succession in the Sacrament of Orders Necessary?

“God’s household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets…” Eph 2:19-20

It has been argued (above) that apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders is not required for the Eucharist. Scripture also indicates that this rite is unnecessary for other functions of the Church. For example, baptism, by which a person formally enters the Church, was administered for the Apostle Paul by Ananias, a simple disciple in Damascus (cf. Acts 9:10-19).^{^[6]} The NT also teaches that a person can receive the Holy Spirit by hearing and receiving the gospel by faith without the imposition of a bishop’s hands (cf. Acts 10:38-48). In addition, the Scriptures defend the validity of confessing sins to God or to one another and receiving the assurance of forgiveness without requiring a priest to define penance and pronounce absolution (cf. Ps 32:5; Mt 18:15-18; Ja 5:16; 1 Jn 1:9-2:2; contrasted with CCC 1450-1470).

Even the authority to “bind and loose”^{^[7]} granted by Jesus to the Church in Mt 18:18 does not depend on apostolic succession any more than does baptism, receiving the Holy Spirit or confession. Scripture provides many examples that illustrate that God’s work is not confined by institutional regulations.

Likewise, the testimony of the early Church refutes the arguments for apostolic succession. The Didache

(“Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”), one of the earliest documents of the Church after the New Testament was written, says: “Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers” (15, emphasis added, ca. AD 110-130). The Didache never mentions apostolic succession; instead it directs the early churches to appoint their own bishops and deacons! Moreover, Augustine (in the context of discussing schismatics and heretics) wrote, “God is present in His sacraments to confirm His words by whomsoever the sacraments may be administered” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 5.20.27). For Augustine, the validity of the sacraments depended on the faith of the recipient, not on the status of the person administering them.

Some Christians still argue that apostolic succession is necessary in order to continually guard the original “deposit” of truth handed down by the apostles. Irenaeus, in the second century, a strong advocate of apostolic succession at the beginning of the Church, contradicts that argument as follows: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith” (Against Heresies, 3.1, emphasis added). One can conclude that Irenaeus believed that apostolic succession was only necessary until the Scriptures were made available as the bedrock of our faith.^{^[8]}

Furthermore, history has shown that apostolic succession did not protect the Church from heresy. Most of the heresies in the early Church were either initiated or propagated by clergy who were “consecrated” by the Church. The Arian heresy is a case in point. It almost overwhelmed the Church before the AD 325 Council of Nicea. There can be no doubt that many consecrated presbyters and bishops spread that heresy. One must conclude that no institutional rite of succession can compensate for ignorance or mishandling of the Scriptures.^{^[9]}

If apostolic succession is no longer necessary, in what sense, then can the Church be called Apostolic? Consider what Tertullian wrote ca. AD 200. “And by this very Rule [a precursor of the Nicene Creed] they will be approved of other churches also, which are every day planted, and which though they do not derive immediately from the Apostles, or Apostolic Men, as being much later in time to them, do yet agree with them in the very same Faith, and by virtue of that harmony and agreement, have no less a right and title (than the Churches planted by the Apostles) to be called Apostolic” (The Prescription against Heretics, 32, emphasis added). To be an “Apostolic Church” is to teach the faith of the apostles; merely keeping a long list of the names of those who passed on the faith through the centuries is not enough.^{^[10]}

Protestant Churches that teach the same faith as the apostles, therefore, are rightly called “Apostolic.”

What is the Role of the Pope in the Church?

“You are Peter and upon this rock [petra, in Greek] I will build My church.” Mt 16:19

The RCC interprets everything about the Church through the lens of the above verse. The Vatican’s recent statement reiterated that the RCC is the “only Church” of Christ: “This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him” (cf. DI, 16; CCC 816). Since not all Christians agree with this definition, it is reasonable to enquire further about what the Scriptures teach and about how the early Church understood the role of Peter’s successors.

It is important to observe that Christ did not say to Peter, “upon you I will build My church.” This is key, because if the rock in Mt 16:19 does not refer to Peter, the case for the RCC definition of the Church is considerably weakened. The early church fathers were fairly evenly split between two positions: that the rock in Mt 16:19 referred to Peter’s confession or to Christ Himself (very few held the view that Peter was the rock).^{^[11]} Because the interpretation of this verse has always been disputed, clearer parallel passages of Scripture must be consulted, such as Eph 2:20, which explicitly says that the church has been

“built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone” (cf. 1 Pet 2:4-8). The early church fathers recognized this truth, which is compatible with the two dominant views already mentioned. What, then, is the meaning of Christ’s play on words between “Peter” and the rock (petra)? The historical consensus seems to be that by virtue of Simon bar Jonah’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Mt 16:16), Jesus honored Simon with a new name that identified him in some sense with Himself, the eternal Rock, the cornerstone of the Church (cf. Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 2:4-8). Peter, indeed, was highly honored by Christ; he was the first of many to receive the “keys of the kingdom” (see below). The Church was built on the foundation of all the apostles; Christ alone is both the cornerstone and head of the Church. To claim otherwise is to contradict divine revelation.

What, then, is the Scriptural basis for the Vatican’s belief that the Pope, as the “successor of Peter,” is the visible head of the whole Church on earth? Unlike God’s promises that David would never lack a successor to his throne (cf. 1 Ki 9:5), Christ never promised Peter an unbroken line of successors to perpetually govern His Church. Jesus’ promise that the “gates of Hell” will not prevail against the Church is not based on Peter and his successors, but on Christ himself, the living head of the Church. As previously mentioned, Peter did not retain exclusive rights to “bind and loose” (i.e., “the power of the keys,” cf. Mt 18:18; Jn 20:23). Roman Catholics look for implied promises about Peter’s successors in passages like Jn 21:15-17, “feed my sheep,” and Lk 22:32, “I have prayed … that your faith may not fail; … when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” Yet the apostles themselves didn’t view Peter as their earthly head (cf. Lk 22:24ff); and Peter addressed the presbyters who came after the apostles as equals (cf. 1 Pet 5:1-4). Peter himself identified Christ as the rock (“the living stone”) upon which the Church was built (cf. 1 Pet 2:4-8). The only possible Scriptural support for the papacy is based on speculation and arguments from silence.

Neither does Scripture suggest that the Church must maintain a physical presence at a particular location, unlike Judaism. The Church has a spiritual (not a geographical) base, being “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets …” (Eph 2:20). Christ’s letters to the seven churches in Revelation never mention Rome (implying its irrelevance to those churches), and the later oblique references in Revelation to Rome are all negative (cf. “Babylon” in Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10,21). Neither does Paul’s letter to the church at Rome mention or imply its authority over other Churches.

Some recognized both Christ and Peter’s confession as the foundation of the Church, e.g., Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret. Tertullian was one of the few who wrote that the Church was built on Peter.

What support, then, does history lend to the claim that the Popes in Rome have functioned as an unbroken chain of bishops who have governed the whole Church since its inception? Ignatius of Antioch, an early Church Father often quoted by Roman Catholic apologists, considered God as the sole “bishop” over each local bishop (cf. Letter to Polycarp, ca. AD 105). Also, three of the first four Ecumenical Councils of the Church defined regional jurisdiction under four or five “Apostolic Sees” (cf. Canons 6, 2,and 28 from the first, second and fourth Councils, respectively, AD 325-451). Rome was just one of these “Apostolic Sees.”^{^[12]} Sadly the “Great Schism” of AD 1054 irreparably split the Eastern Church from the West, but the historical fact remains that the “Roman Pontiffs” never exercised jurisdiction (“supreme power,” according to Vatican I, session 3, 1870) over the whole Church. If the Church has survived and thrived without universal papal jurisdiction for so many centuries, what makes it necessary today?

Because Jesus declared Himself to be the door of the sheep-fold (cf. Jn 10:9), Christians should recognize the error in statements such as, “Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the

Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved” (Pope John XXIII, Nov. 4, 1958). Indeed, non-Catholic Christians should help their Roman Catholic brothers and sisters understand that the Pope does not take Christ’s place as the door, neither does Peter “continue to govern” through the Pope. Unless the RCC can provide convincing arguments from both Scripture and Church history to the contrary, it is time for the Vatican to abandon its claims to the Pope’s universal primacy. A serious student of both Scripture and history cannot ignore the many inconsistencies surrounding the papacy.

Christ alone is “head over all things to the Church” and His Word of Truth, together with His Spirit of Truth, guides the Church “into all the truth” (cf. Eph 1:22; Jn 17:17; 16:13). Churches that cling to the true head of the Church need not fret over claims that they are “defective” for not submitting to the Pope. Protestants and Orthodox are both vindicated by Scripture and history in retaining their respective Church rights vis-à-vis Rome. The Pope may govern the institution he heads, but he has no rightful claim to supreme authority over Christ’s whole Church. Nevertheless, all Christians should grant the Pope the respect he deserves, love him as a brother in Christ, and insofar as possible be at peace with him and with those who are in his care.

Conclusions

The Vatican’s recent answers to questions about the Church, based on Dominus Iesus, opened the door for respectful and honest ecumenical dialog. Clear statements by the Vatican have prompted clear answers. This paper has offered a rebuttal to the Vatican’s arguments that Orthodox Churches are defective and that Protestant Churches lack the necessary elements to be called Churches. It is right and proper to call

Protestant Churches by the name Jesus gave them. Protestant Churches are indeed part of the “household [house] of God” which the Apostle Paul identifies as the Church. As Jesus said, “there are many rooms in My Father’s house” (Jn 14:2, NIV).

Although there are no perfect Churches, no Church should be denigrated for naming Christ as its head.^{^[13]}

The many Churches make up one Body precisely because they have one head, the Lord Jesus. The unity Christ most desires is that of the Spirit in the bond of peace, manifested by the members of His Body loving one another as He has loved them. In lieu of visible institutional union, Churches everywhere should share the Lord’s Supper with Christians of all affiliations as a tangible expression of the spiritual unity of the Body of Christ.

There are strong arguments against the necessity of apostolic succession and a universal papacy. Teaching of the RCC to the contrary is inconsistent with Christian truth both as revealed in God’s Word and as understood and demonstrated by the early Church. The inconsistencies identified in this paper suggest that the RCC may have succumbed to the very relativism that the Vatican denounced in DI: i.e., what is true for Rome was not true for the early Church nor is it true for many Christians today. How the RCC will address these inconsistencies could have a greater impact on ecumenical dialog than the Vatican statements that prompted this paper.

Walk “in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:1-6)

[1] Unless otherwise stated, references cited can be found on the internet with a good search engine. Most of the early church fathers’ writings are available online at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/.

[2] Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (LSJ, 1940), ekklesia. 3

Acts 19:32ff is an exception, where ekklesia refers to a civic gathering in Ephesus.

[3] This paper cannot adequately cover the subject of ecclesiology; however, a few additional comments may be helpful. Jesus’ instructions for the Church include: making disciples, baptizing and teaching them (Mt 28:19-20); loving God and one another (Mt 22:37-40; Jn 13:34-35); cultivating discipline, prayer and worship (Mt 18:15-20; Jn 4:23-24); and sharing the Lord’s Table (Lk 22:17-20). Scripture also teaches that the Church is one (one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father; cf. Eph 4:4-6), holy (called to be holy as a temple of the Holy Spirit; cf. 1 Cor 6:19-20; 1 Pet 1:15-16), catholic (from every tribe and tongue and people and nation; cf. Rev 5:9-10), and apostolic (built on the foundation of the apostles and devoted to the apostles’ teaching; cf. Eph 2:20; Acts 2:42). These criteria apply equally to all Churches.

[4] The sacrament of Orders, as defined by the RCC, cannot be found in Scripture. Ordination through the laying on of hands was originally a function of the local church “presbytery” (cf. 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; Didache, 15). The NT defines Church offices for overseeing, shepherding and providing administrative care. These offices include episkopos (bishop or overseer), presbyteros (elder or presbyter, translated “priest” in the Douay-Rheims [D-R] Bible), and diakonos (deacon); cf. Acts 20:17-28; 1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5-9; Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 5:1-5. According to the

[5] Roman Catholics who argue for “multi-location” resort to Eastern religion, not Christian truth.

[6] The RCC recognizes that baptism can be performed by anyone using the Trinitarian formula (cf. CCC 1284).

[7] The context of Mt 18:15-18 implies that “bind and loose” refers to the Church expelling or excommunicating (“binding” the sin) sinners who refuse to repent, and reconciling (“loosing” from sin) with sinners who repent.

[8] Irenaeus understood tradition to be synonymous with the teaching of the apostles: that which was preserved, without addition or loss, in the Scriptures. The Scriptures, then, ensured that the Church would lose nothing handed down by the apostles. For Irenaeus, “catholic” tradition would never introduce new beliefs. He also wrote that the truth is “clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures” (i.e., the perspicacity of Scripture, cf. Against Heresies 2.27.1). Yet, Irenaeus insisted that interpretation of Scripture must be tested in the community of faith; isolated “private interpretation” can lead to false doctrine (evangelical Protestants agree). Thus, the principles of sola Scriptura were articulated from the earliest days of the Church. For a partial list of early church fathers who attested to the final authority of the Scriptures see, “Does Early Church History Favor Roman Catholicism? An Answer to Cardinal Newman’s Claim,” in Christian Apologetics Journal (Fall 2007) by this author [in press].

[9] The Scriptures, particularly the Gospel of John, easily refute the Arian heresy that Jesus was created and not coeternal with God the Father. The Arian heresy, rather than proving the need for apostolic succession, is a clear example of the importance of rightly teaching the whole counsel of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Apostolic succession also failed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (cf. the author’s paper cited in the preceding footnote).

[10] Tertullian’s argument about apostolic faith parallels Paul’s argument about Abrahamic faith (cf. Gal 3:7).

[11] Examples of church fathers who associated Peter’s confession with Mt 16:19-20 include Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Epiphanius and Chrysostom; those who associated the rock with Christ include Jerome and Augustine.

[12] Early church fathers often praised the Church at Rome for its faithfulness, and honored it because both Paul and Peter were martyred there. The RCC concept of perpetual papal sovereignty appears to be an anachronistic appeal to the historic honor of the Church at Rome combined with sporadic statements (many focused on Peter, rather than his successors) by various popes and church fathers through the centuries. No consistent historical support for a universal papacy can be found in the records of the church fathers. Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr.David Hess (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1996) makes a valiant attempt to defend the papacy from Scripture and tradition, but it fails to convince that 1) Jesus promised unique powers and privileges to Peter’s successors, and 2) that those successors consistently exercised such powers in Church history. The Orthodox more accurately acknowledge that there was a time in history that the Church and Bishop of Rome were granted a “primacy of honor.”

[13] Early responses to Dominus Iesus from representatives of several ecclesiastical traditions can be found in Pro Ecclesia, Volume X, No. 1 (2001), 5-16. For additional insights on ecclesiology, see Timothy George, “Toward an Evangelical Ecclesiology,” in Catholics and Evangelicals: Do They Share a Common Future? (Thomas P. Raush, ed., Mahwah, NJ: California Province of the Society of Jesus, 2000), 122-144.

For additional resources by Mike Field on Roman Catholicism, please visit http://normangeisler.com/rcc/

By Christopher on Mike Licona

Dr. Emir Caner on the Path to Liberalism

The path to liberalism is paved by an incremental process that places a question mark over the theological and historical veracity of Scripture. And of all doctrines where liberals desire to interrogate Scripture under its dim light of naturalistic presuppositions, none is more coveted than the doctrine of the resurrection. It is imperative, then, that Bible believers stand firm on the historicity and trustworthiness on this doctrine and

http://www.viagragenericoes24.com/viagra-femenina

warn those, like Dr. Licona, who are undermining the historicity of parts of the Gospel record, even some texts associated with the resurrection, thus placing the resurrection of Jesus itself in jeopardy. Believers through the centuries have fought with their very lives to defend the complete truthfulness of Scripture; we cannot, in the name of friendships or sincere motives, let our guards down when a generation of new believers are relying on present Christian soldiers to take their proper stand.

Dr. Emir Caner
President of Truett-McConnell College
Cleveland, GA
February 6th, 2012

Truett McConnell

4 Apr

By Christopher on Bible Difficulties, Biblical Criticism / Higher Criticism, Book Review, Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Clark Pinnock, Craig Blomberg, Genre Criticism & Historical Criticism, ICBI, Matthew 27's Raised Saints, Mike Licona, Postmodernism, Reliability of the Bible, Resources, Theistic Evolution

Book Review: Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate (2016)

Book Review of Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate

Christopher T. Haun[1]

[Click here >> Book Review – Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate to open this review as a PDF file.]

Title:	Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate
Publisher:	Wipf & Stock
Date:	2016
General Editor:	F. David Farnell
Contributors:	F. David Farnell, Norman L. Geisler, Joseph P. Holden, William C. Roach, Phil Fernandes, Robert Wilkin, Paige Patterson, Shawn Nelson, Christopher T. Haun
PAGES:	563
PRICE:	$85.00 (Hardcover), $64.00 (Paperback)[2] Kindle: $15.00 at Amazon.com

In Kurosawa’s classic film The Seven Samurai, desperate farmers convince veteran warriors to help defend their village and harvest from raiding bandits. Six ronin and one apprentice accept the challenge. After fortifying the village and giving the farmers a crash course in asymmetric warfare, the seven samurai lead the defense when the marauders return. Some of this story line and imagery came to mind as I read Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate (VIID) because first and foremost it is a defense.

Twenty-eight of its thirty-two chapters are written by six veteran scholars (holding PhDs in various fields). Four of its chapters are written by two MDiv candidates. In every chapter the authors are, as the preface says, “earnestly contending for the faith delivered once and for all to God’s people.” Every one of its meaty pages defends the traditional, conservative evangelical views of inspiration, inerrancy, and hermeneutics from the destructive use of biblical criticism. By extension they are defending all the propositions in and doctrines derived from the Bible.

VIID is an anthology of some of the best and most recent articles on topics of inerrancy, hermeneutic, and the quest for the historical Jesus. While it does weave in some of the history of the main clashes in the battle for the Bible in the twentieth century—such as the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, Barth and Neo-Orthodoxy, Fuller, Ladd, Rogers, McKim, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), ETS and Robert Gundry—it doesn’t linger on them. Mainly it offers fresh and intelligent responses to the newest wave of challenges to the Bible offered by evangelicals in books like The Resurrection of Jesus (IVP, 2010), The Lost World of Scripture (IVP, 2013), Ten Guidelines for Evangelical Scholarship (Baker, 2013), Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Zondervan, 2013), Can We Still Believe the Bible? (Brazos, 2014), Lost World of Adam and Eve (IVP, 2015), Peter: False Disciple and Apostate According to Saint Matthew (Eerdmans, 2015), and I (Still) Believe (Zondervan, 2015).

Here is a sampling of the many thought-provoking questions which are discussed: How much emphasis should genre be given when doing interpretation? What is the nature of historical narratives? How do hermeneutics and inerrancy interrelate? Are the ideas of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy still important and relevant? What do the three living framers of the Chicago statements (Sproul, Packer, and Geisler) say about the new hermeneutic and the redefinitions of inerrancy? How do we deal with difficult passages in the Bible? What did the framers of the ICBI statements really mean? Where should one turn to get clarification about the Chicago Statements? Are the academic institutions of the evangelical world failing to learn the lessons of the past? Was the Apostle Matthew an Apostate? Which view has continuity with the early church fathers, Augustine, Aquinas, the Reformers, the writers of the 12-volume The Fundamentals, and the old Princetonians? Is inerrancy just for Calvinists? How early were the gospels really written? Is inerrancy just a peripheral doctrine? Is inerrancy derived from inductive and/or deductive logic? Was Matthew really the only one to mention the raising of the saints in Matthew 27? What do the Church fathers say about Matthew 27? Did any ancient Romans detect the influence of Roman historiography in Matthew 27? Should inerrancy be used as a litmus test of orthodoxy? Are the tools of biblical criticism really neutral? Does purpose or intention determine meaning? What does “truth” really mean? Is an intentionalist view of truth an alternative to the correspondence view of truth? Why did Bart Ehrman drift from fundamentalism to liberalism? What was the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention? Is there a resurgence of neo-evangelicalism? How does postmodernism fit into all this? Should the story of Adam and Eve be taken literally? Should organizations enforce their doctrinal statements amongst their own members? Does every scholarly evangelical organization lose its grip on inerrancy by the third generation? Should apologists defend both the Faith and the Bible? Should evangelicals send their budding scholars to earn PhDs at schools that specialize in biblical criticism?

VIID is provocative. The most controversial thing about the book is probably its willingness to name the names of many influential men. I’m not just talking about the old rascals like Bacon, Barth, Bart D. Ehrman, Bultmann, Darwin, Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Lessing, Perrin, Reimarus, Schweitzer, Spinoza, Strauss, Tillich, Troeltsch, and von Harnack. VIID does mention them. But if focuses more on the also names the names of present and recent scholars, publishers, and bloggers: Ben Meyer, Birger Gerhadsson, Bruce Waltke, Carlos Bovell, Charles Talbert, Christopher Ansberry, Christopher Hays, Christian Smith, Clark Pinnock, Craig Blomberg, Craig Evans, Craig Keener, D. Brent Sandy, Daniel P. Fuller, Daniel Harlow, Daniel Wallace, Darrell Bock, David Capes, David E. Garland, Donald Hagner, Donald K. McKim, Douglas Moo, Edwin Yamauchi, E. P. Sanders, Ernst Wendland, Gary R. Habermas, George Eldon Ladd, Gerd Theissen, Grant R. Osborne, Gregory A. Boyd, H. C. Kee, Heath Thomas, I. Howard Marshall, J. Merrick, J. P. Holding, Jack B. Rogers, James Barr, James Bruckner, James Charlesworth, James Crossley, James D. G. Dunn, Jeremy Evans, James Hamilton, Joel N. Lohr, Joel Watts, John Byron, John R. Franke, John Schneider, John H. Walton, Justin Taylor, Ken Schenck, Kenton Sparks, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Lee McDonald, Leith Anderson, Leon Morris, Martin Soskice, Matthew Montonini, Michael F. Bird, Michael Green, Michael R. Licona, Moises Silva, Murray Harris, N.T. Wright, Nick Peters, Nijya Gupta, Paul Copan, Paul Jewett, Peter E. Enns, Paul Ricouer, Peter H. Davids, Phillip Long, Richard Burridge, Richard Horsley, Robert H. Gundry, Robert W. Yarborough, Robert Webb, Scot McKnight, Stephen M. Garrett, Thomas Schreiner, Tremper Longman III, W. David Beck, Walter Liefield, William Lane Craig, William Warren, and William Webb. (I probably missed a few!) Many of these men are held in high esteem in by many evangelicals. And yet VIID says that each of these men have in some way and to some degree challenged the parameters delineated by the ICBI in The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI, 1978) and The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (CSBH, 1983).

Standing in the watchman tradition of books like The Battle for the Bible (Lindsell, 1976), The Bible in the Balance (Lindsell, 1979), The Jesus Crisis (Thomas and Farnell, 1998), The Jesus Quest (Geisler and Farnell, 2014), and Defending Inerrancy (Geisler and Roach, 2011), an exposé of this scope runs the risk of being accused of fratricide, libel, divisiveness, disunity, faction creating, quarrelsomeness, malice, and nastiness. But really all of its authors do a remarkable job of contending without being contentious. None of the pages were stuck together with drops of venom. With a passionate concern they succeeded in “not be[ing] quarrelsome but . . . correcting his opponents with gentleness” (2 Ti. 2:4) and in “not regard[ing] him as an enemy but warn[ing] him as a brother” (2 Th. 3:15).

There is merit in the maxim “attack the idea, not the man who holds it.” Perhaps the Apostle Paul anticipated this question when he wrote, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Co. 10:5). Ultimately the good fight of faith is not against people but against opinions and thoughts. But then must the defense always preclude the naming of names? As much as we might all prefer to avoid pointing fingers, it seems unavoidable at times. When specific professors are saying specific things to specific audiences, the defense cannot be sufficiently meaningful (certainly not in any actionable sense) unless specific names are named and their actual words are exposed and evaluated.

Also, in the act of naming names of men spreading ideas they deem corrosive to the orthodox faith, these watchmen are following apostolic precedents. The Apostle John named Cain as the old rascal who should not be imitated (1 Jn. 3:2) and named Diotrephes as the noteworthy contemporary antagonist inside the network of first-century churches. He described Diotrephes as one who does not properly recognize apostolic authority, who spoke “wicked nonsense” against them, and who should not be followed (3 Jn. 9-12). Similarly the Apostle Paul named Jannes and Jambres as the old rascals who will serve as patterns for many in these last days (2 Ti. 3:1-9). He also generalized that “all who are in Asia have turned away from me” and singled out Phygelus and Hermogenes as noteworthy examples (2 Ti. 1:15). Similarly he warned about Demas—a man who had been one of Paul’s coworkers and companions—because he preferred the world (2 Ti. 4:10). Paul also wanted church leaders to be wary of “Alexander the coppersmith” who “did me great harm” and “strongly opposed our message” (2 Ti. 4:14-15). He urged Timothy to “charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths . . . which promote speculations rather than . . . a good conscience and a sincere faith.” These “certain persons” had “wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers. . . without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions” (1 Ti. 13-7). He named three of them by name (“among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander” and “among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus”). These were men who also were operating inside the first-century network of apostolic churches. They were insiders who had “made shipwreck of their faith” and “swerved from the truth.” They were “upsetting the faith of some” with “irreverent babble” that will “lead people into more and more ungodliness” and “spread like gangrene” (1 Ti. 1:19-20; 2 Ti. 2:16-18). Similarly the authors of VIID are attempting to warn the Bible-believing world that many of the professors at evangelical schools (who generally earned their PhDs from prestigious post-protestant, anti-evangelical schools) are leading evangelicals away from evangelical orthodoxy through the use of unorthodox methodology.

VIID also runs the risk of being accused of trying to stymie the progress of biblical scholarship, of trying to keep us stuck in the past, of interfering with the grand quest to “follow the truth wherever it leads,” and of thus being overall anti-intellectual and anti-scholarly. But VIID is an intellectual and scholarly attempt to discourage the use of corrosive literary criticism while encouraging healthy biblical scholarship. The authors urge considering of lessons of the past which show how the higher critical path leads not to pinnacles of illumination, enlightenment, and progress but to precipices of doubt. The application of feminist criticism, form criticism, genre criticism, historical criticism, Marxist criticism, midrash criticism, mythological criticism, New Criticism, new historical criticism, post-colonial criticism, post-structuralist criticism, psychoanalytic criticism, redaction criticism, rhetorical criticism, sociological criticism, source criticism, and whatever the next flavor of literary criticism that becomes vogue among secular scholars in the next decade all have one thing in common: They are critical and revolutionary by nature. Progress is made by challenging traditions and creating new knowledge with new wisdom. VIID insists that when evangelical scholars use secular literary criticism in their biblical criticism, it will ultimately lead to the same doctrinal graveyard that the neo-orthodox and liberal/modernist scholars filled in former decades with their use of higher criticism. The speculations produced during the exercise of critical methodologies is invariably given precedence over the plain meanings in the text of the Bible, once again the word of God is nullified for the sake of human traditions.

The neo-evangelical revolution is also changing the field of historical-evidential Christian apologetics. More than once VIID touches upon the rising tendency among evangelical biblical scholars to meet the historical critics on their own turf. They often create scholarly defenses for the big things—such as the general historical reliability of the gospels and the historical likelihood of the resurrection of Jesus—while being overly willing to amputate some of the seemingly less defensible and more dispensable propositions in the Bible. This innovative (non-classical) approach seems to be creating a division between those satisfied with defending a historical, creedal, and “mere” Christianity and those who would also defend the Bible in whole and part.

Some of VIID’s chapters are derived from articles originally posted at DefendingInerrancy.com, a website that has had more than 200,000 visits, 55,000 Facebook likes, and 48,000 signatures on its petition in support of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. These statistics suggest that the latest battle for the Bible has not been lost yet. In The Magnificent Seven, a western adaptation of The Seven Samurai, the plot is further complicated by the ongoing question of whether the villagers will allow the bandits to continue to fleece them or whether they will really rise up and join the veterans in the fight. What will the villagers in the evangelical village do about neo-evangelical and neo-orthodox scholarship that is robbing them of their doctrinal heritage? To borrow a phrase from the oaths sworn by those seeking either citizenship or high office in the United States, will we defend our constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic?” Will we fight the good fight of faith not just against the siegeworks erected outside the city walls but also against those that have been smuggled inside the walls? Or will we watch the undermined walls collapse mysteriously around us and wonder how our harvest was plundered again? For those fighting the good fight of faith, Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate deserves consideration.

Chapter by Chapter

The book begins with a one-page tribute to Dr. Norman Geisler by the other contributors for his decades of defending and commending the faith. Indeed he is “worthy of a double honor” (1 Tim. 5:17). The two-page foreword by Dr. Paige Patterson sets the tone well with a call to continued vigilance. Patterson also provides excellent insights into the history of the inerrancy debate. He was part of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) and remembers it well. The two-page preface acknowledges the debt to the ICBI and adds another dimension to the history of the debate. The first 115 pages are devoted to defining inerrancy. The remaining pages are devoted to defending it.

The first chapter is titled “The Historic Documents of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.” It is 17 pages long and is largely a condensed adaptation of the book Explaining Biblical Inerrancy (Bastion Books, 2012). Geisler begins by pointing out that he is currently one of the last three living framers of the three statements produced by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. He writes to “dispel some contemporary misinterpretations of what the ICBI framers meant by inerrancy” and to set the record straight. He enumerates the four fundamental documents of the ICBI (all four of which are collected in Explaining Biblical Inerrancy) and the other important books produced by the ICBI. He explains why the ICBI view of inerrancy is important. He explains the four main areas where scholars on the more liberal end of the evangelical spectrum (and usually holding membership in the Evangelical Theological Society and signing agreement with CSBI) have ignored, misunderstood, or otherwise challenged the CSBI: (1) the meaning of “truth,” (2) the function of genre, (3) the nature of historical narratives, (4) the relationship between hermeneutics and inerrancy. He very ably bolsters these four areas. He also gives a subtle challenge to the Evangelical Theological Society to enforce their doctrinal statement among its members. This chapter also includes all the articles of affirmation and denial from the CSBI and CSBH. This may then be the first time these two statements have ever been put together in their entirely and placed into a printed book. This was an unbeatable choice for a first chapter. This is something everyone in the ETS and EPS should come to grips with. Those who appreciate this chapter will enjoy its expansion in Explaining Biblical Inerrancy.

Chapter two is titled “What Is Inerrancy and Why Should We Care?” It is only four pages long and is written by Geisler and Shawn Nelson. It begins with a brief explanation of the three “in’s”: Inspiration, Infallibility, and Inerrancy. It gives four reasons why inerrancy is important and ultimately an essential—not peripheral—doctrine. Pointing to CSBI as the standard for describing what inerrancy is and is not, it proceeds to explain that the historical view of inerrancy is under attack right now. It gives a focus on the new wave of challenges to CSBI that arguably began in 2010 with various published and spoken statements by apologist Michael Licona.

Chapter three is also by Nelson and is titled “A Voice from a New Generation: What’s at Stake?” Nelson makes it clear the attack upon inerrancy by Michael Licona in 2010 exposed a much bigger problem. Several highly esteemed scholars from the ETS (Craig Blomberg, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Daniel Wallace, J.P. Moreland, W. David Beck, Jeremy Evans, Craig Keener, Douglas Moo, Heath Thomas, William Warren, and Edwin Yamauchi) publically voiced their support for Licona’s right to trump both CSBI and CSBH with form criticism and historical criticism. And this despite very clear statements in both ICBI statements on inerrancy (CSBI and CSBH) that guard against the exact type of maneuver Licona was using. Nelson gives a helpful tour of the historical views of biblical inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy. He cites Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Pseudo-Barnabas, Papias, Ignatius of Antioch, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril, Jerome, and Augustine. He also gives a helpful and concise tour of how the thought of Bacon, Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, and Darwin led to a growing popularity of biblical errancy. He distinguishes between Evangelical, Liberal, and Neo-Evangelical views. He projects that the erosion of inerrancy will lead to further doubt and uses the regress of Bart Erhman as an example we should learn from. He makes additional arguments for the importance of an uncompromising view of inerrancy and ends with recommendations for staunching the decay.

Chapter four is written by F. David Farnell and titled, “Evangelical Mentoring: The Danger from Within.” With a shepherd’s heart and a scholar’s eye, Farnell starts by contrasting faithful mentoring with radical mentoring. A considerable amount of Jesus’ earthly ministry was in opposition with those who had interpretations of the Bible that made null the Word of God null. These men were disciples in a tradition and they were making disciples in that tradition. Jesus chose disciples like Peter and Paul to carry on his traditions and make disciples. Paul was a mentor to reliable men like Timothy and Titus. These men were to be mentors to other faithful men who could teach others. Farnell reminds us that some traditions attempt to stay faithful to the apostolic tradition and to the scriptures while other traditions do not represent them faithfully. In a way, it all comes down to mentoring. Against this backdrop he explains his concerns over some of the eighteen professors showcased in the 2015 book titled I Still Believe. He focuses upon the testimonies of Donald Hagner, Bruce Waltke, James Dunn, and Scot McKnight. He’s left questioning whether many of the professors—the teachers of the future teachers—in many evangelical institutions are passing on doubts rather than faith to the students who have been entrusted to them.

Chapter five is a review by Geisler of the 2013 book Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (FVBI). He begins by pointing out three serious problems with the approach of this book. Having five views in dialogue for inerrancy suggests that inerrancy is “up for grabs” when it really is not. There are not five views. There are ultimately two views. Either the Bible contains errors and contradictions or it does not. Also, of the five authors, only one is an actual inerrantist; the other four are varying degrees of errantists. The deck seems stacked. And since the book was to discuss the CSBI, why were none of the three living framers of the CSBI (Sproul, Packer, or Geisler) asked to participate in a dialogue? His review is 39 meaty pages in length. It’s daunting to try to summarize it. He points out that the Evangelical Theological Society officially adopted the CSBI as its definition of inerrancy. He provides five reasons for the importance and fundamental position of inerrancy. He notes that some of the authors of FVBI misunderstand “truth” and some of them wrongly assume purpose determines meaning. Propositional revelation, accommodation, lack of precision, the role of extra-biblica data, the role of hermeneutics, and the role of extra-biblical genre, pluralism, conventionalism, and foundationalism are all discussed. Geisler nails the coffin lid shut on the question of whether Licona’s views can be harmonized with CSBI and CSBH by pointing out that all three of the remaining framers of the Chicago statements (Sproul, Packer, and Geisler) have confirmed that they cannot. The story of ETS and Robert Gundry is retold. Examples of dealing with bible difficulties (what some of the authors of FBVI would call contradictions) in the OT and NT are given. Geisler also answers the errantists charges against inerrantists of being unbiblical, unhistorical, using the slippery slope argument, being parochial, unethical, divisive, and unloving. Reading this chapter reminded me that Geisler deserves the tribute that the book begins with.

Chapter six is by Dr. William Roach and is titled “The 2015 Shepherds’ Conference on Inerrancy.” John MacArthur and The Master’s Seminary hosted a conference on inerrancy in March 2015. They reaffirmed the importance of holding to total inerrancy and to defining it as the CSBI did. This seven page article reports positively on that conference.

Chapter seven is a fascinating interview William Roach conducted with Paige Patterson. They discuss the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention and how their seminaries were rescued from errantism. It discusses what interplay there was between it and the ICBI.

In chapter eight Geisler answers the question of whether one has to be a Calvinist to believe in inerrancy. Many of the leaders of the later ICBI inerrancy movement were

strong Calvinists but most of the signers of the ICBI statements on inerrancy identified as moderate Calvinists, Cal-minians, Arminians, Wesleyans, “or some other label.” Geisler establishes continuity with Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Warfield, Hodge, Wesley, and other Wesleyans. He shows how they upheld inerrancy. He concludes, “Inerrancy is neither a late nor a denominational doctrine. It is not provincial but universal. It is the foundation for every group that names the name of Christ. . .”

Chapter nine is where Geisler reexamines the relationship between inerrancy and hermeneutics. He is tackling the claim that is made by those who defend the attacks against CSBI and CSBH by saying, “Leave him alone. It’s just a matter of interpretation, not of inerrancy.” This could be the most important chapter of the book as it tackles what may be the thing that evangelicals have had the hardest time understanding. Today many evangelicals can try to claim to be inerrantists and to agree with CSBI while promoting hermeneutical gymnastics to trump inerrancy. Yet it was clear to the wise leaders of the ICBI that after producing the CSBI still had to proceed to create the CSBH. What good is it to reinforce the front door while leaving the backdoor unlocked? Geisler discusses how this played out with the controversies surrounding Jack Rodgers, Robert Gundry, Paul Jewett, and Michael Licona. He challenges various assumptions: inspiration and interpretation are separate matters, allegorical interpretation, truth is not correspondence to facts, biblical narratives are not necessarily historical, hermeneutic is neutral, and more.

In chapter ten Geisler responds to William Lane Craig’s advocacy of limited inerrancy based on inductive logic and his argument against unlimited inerrancy as based on deductive logic. Naturally Geisler begins with the question of whether inerrancy has an inductive or deductive basis. Explaining the “false disjunction,” the chapter quickly becomes a delight for those of us who appreciate logic. He then proceeds to tackle Craig’s claims that only the author’s intentions (and not all affirmations) are inerrant, that only essential matters are inerrant but not peripheral matters, and that extra-biblical genre determines the meaning of biblical texts. He discusses the question of genre and explains how inerrancy is an essential doctrine. He discusses Licona’s errors. He contrasts the evangelical and neo-evangelical views of inerrancy and reminds that the ETS adopted CSBI in 2006 as its definition of inerrancy. Geisler also makes the important correction that Kenneth Kantzer, the professor Craig claims to have learned the doctrine of inerrancy from, was actually a committed follower of the Warfield-Hodge view of total inerrancy. Kantzer would have been “clearly opposed to the Craig-Licona view of limited inerrancy.” He also reminds Craig that Packer, Sproul, and Geisler have all confirmed that Licona’s view of Mt 27 (which Craig also essentially holds) is not compatible at all with CSBI or CSBH. He concludes saying, “Thus evangelicalism is the rightful owner of unlimited inerrancy, and those professed evangelicals who modify it or limit it to redemptive matters are, at best, the rightful owners of the term Neo-Evangelical.”

Chapter eleven is by Farnell and is titled “Early Twentieth Century Challenges to Inerrancy.” Encouraging us to learn from history in order to not repeat its mistakes, Farnell compares what was happening in the early twentieth century (with the fundamentalist-modernist controversy) and what is happening here in the early twenty-first century (with the evangelical-neoevangelical controversy). The parallels seem uncanny. He explains how and why the The Fundamentals was produced and “left as a testimony by the faithful to the early twentieth-century church’s experience of the attack on orthodox Protestant beliefs, conducted aggressively by higher criticism, liberal theology, Catholicism. . . , socialism, Modernism, atheism, Christian Science, Mormonism, Millennial Dawn, Spiritualism, and evolutionism that had infiltrated its ranks and subsequently caused great damage within the church with regard to its vitality and theology. Above all, they left it as a warning to future generations in hopes of preventing a similar occurrence among God’s people in the future.” Farnell points out that after the divinity schools fell to modernism new schools like Westminster Theological Seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary, and Fuller Seminary were planted to serve as bastions of conservative, biblical doctrine, inerrancy, and the fundamentals of the faith.

In chapter twelve, Farnell picks up where he left off in chapter 11. He discusses the challenges (or crisis) in the twenty-first century caused largely by fundamentalist or evangelical scholars seeking the respect of mainline academia. Many of the young scholars were sent to Ivy League, British, or Continental European schools to earn their PhDs. Many schools began to hire professors who were from these schools that were dominated by theological liberalism. With them came the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth. He explains how Fuller Seminary drifted away from evangelical views about the Bible and became rather neo-evangelical. He discusses Ladd, Lindsell, Rogers, McKim, Woodbridge, Gundry, Barr, ICBI, ETS, Blomberg, Silva, Geisler, The Jesus Crisis, Bock, Webb, Osborne, The Jesus Quest, the third quest for the historical Jesus, Perrin, Ladd, Roach, Defending Inerrancy, Sparks, McCall, Thompson, Yarbrough, Linnemann, Gundry, more Blomberg, Dan Wallace, Bill Craig, Hagner, Ehrman, and more. This provides an excellent history which filled in many gaps for me. It shows that critical scholarship is still going today where it went in the past.

Chapter thirteen is titled “The Resurgence of Neo-Evangelicalism: Craig Blomberg’s Latest Book and the Future of Evangelical Theology.” Here William Roach provides a concise but helpful historical backdrop of the controversies over inerrancy. He is primarily critiquing Craig Blomberg’s book Can We Still Believe the Bible? But he also weaves in some other recent works by neo-evangelicals who advocate errantism. He corrects some inaccuracies and confirms that Blomberg is yet another scholar who is “now willing to move beyond the vision and legacy of classic evangelicalism and the ICBI.” In his critique of Blomberg’s ideas he also weaves in many other related bits with mastery of the subject matter.

In chapter fourteen Phil Fernandez describes how the battle for the Bible has begun again. He begins by saying, “This chapter is not meant to divide brothers in Christ. Rather, it is a call to honesty. Those who call themselves evangelicals must truly be evangelicals. . . . If we sign a doctrinal statement, we must actually believe what we affirmed in that statement. We should not have the liberty to redefine the doctrines addressed in that statement. . . . this chapter should not be understood as an attack on Christian brothers. Rather, it is an indictment on the present state of evangelical scholarship itself.” He explains how the battle for the Bible raged in the 1970s and how it led to the ICBI. He discusses the reason for Robert Gundry being asked to leave the ETS and how the ETS did not vote Clark Pinnock out. He also sees a revival of the battle for the Bible starting with Mike Licona in 2010. He discusses the problems of genre and historiography in a way that harmonizes well with the other chapters but which also remains distinct. One thing that stood out to me was the way Phil tied in the minimal facts case for the resurrection. He says, it “is a great way to defend the resurrection. But, we must never allow the minimal facts case to evolve into a minimal facts evangelicalism or a minimal facts New Testament scholarship.” He challenges the ETS to enforce and even enlarge their doctrinal statement.

Chapter fifteen considers the question of whether or not biblical inerrancy as a “litmus test” of evangelical orthodoxy. This was written by Christopher Haun in response to a blog post written by Daniel Wallace. Wallace had pointed out that Carl F. H. Henry remained averse to setting biblical inerrancy as the litmus test of orthodoxy. Haun attempts to show how Wallace is partially right and partially wrong. He clarifies Henry’s position using several quotes by Henry himself and some by Ronald Nash.

Farnell is asking “Can We Still Believe Critical Evangelical Scholars?” in chapter sixteen. He reminds us of how vibrant Christianity had been in the 18^th and 19^th centuries and then asks how so many churches and cathedrals are boarded up now. How did British and Scottish universities become spiritually dead? And why do American evangelicals still go there to get their PhDs? He explains that the change was internal. He explains a few forces of change and talks about why things were different in the United States. One of the differences is that two wealthy laymen paid for a project that would produce the twelve volume set of The Fundamentals between 1910 and 1917. Three million of those volumes were distributed. As schools like Princeton succumbed to the forces of apostasy, schools like Westminster Theological Seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary, and Fuller Theological Seminary were started. He compares the similarities between the 20^th and 21^st century scenes and encourages us to learn the lessons of the past. He discusses some of the harmful ideas of Ladd, Blomberg, Hagner, and more.

In chapter seventeen Farnell discusses “The ‘Magic’ of Historical Criticism.” This is a 59 page essay.

In chapters 18 and 19, Farnell gives a “Critical Evaluation of Robert H. Gundry’s Westmont College Lecture, ‘Peter: False Disciple and Apostate according to Saint Matthew’”

In chapter 20 Geisler and Farnell provide “A Critical Review of Donald Hagner’s ‘Ten Guidelines for Evangelical Scholarship’”

Chapter 21. Geisler sets the record straight on “On Licona Muddying the Waters of the Chicago Statements of Biblical Inerrancy and Hermeneutics.”

Chapter 22. Geisler sets the record straight on “The Early Church Fathers and the Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27:51–54.”

Chapter 23. Geisler reviews Craig Blomberg’s book Can We Still Believe in the Bible? He shows how Blomberg’s views contradict, misunderstand, and attack the ICBI view on inerrancy. He responds to Blomberg’s Defense of Robert Gundry, Murray Harris, Mike Licona

Chapter 24 | ICBI Inerrancy Is Not for the Birds | Joseph Holden responds to the “current trend among evangelical New Testament scholars to utilize or approve of genre criticism (e.g., Craig Blomberg, Michael Licona, Darrell Bock, Michael Bird, Carlos Bovell, Kevin Vanhoozer, et al.) to dehistoricize the biblical text appears to stem from an aversion to the correspondence view of truth.”

Chapter 25. Contemporary Evangelical NT Genre Criticism Opening Pandora’s Box? Joseph M. Holden

Chapter 26 | Book Review: Craig Blomberg’s Can We Still Believe the Bible? |Joseph M. Holden

Chapter 27 | Book Review: The Lost World of Adam and Eve | Norman L. Geisler

Chapter 28 | An Exposition and Refutation of the Key Presuppositions of Contemporary Jesus Research | Phil Fernandes

Chapter 29 | Redating the Gospels | Phil Fernandes

Chapter 30 | Misinterpreting J. I. Packer on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics | William C. Roach and Norman L. Geisler

Chapter 31 | Can We Still Trust New Testament Professors? | Bob Wilkin

Chapter 32 | Christopher T. Haun explores the question of whether ancient Romans detected the influence of Roman historiography in Matthew 27:45–54 or not. He puts the theory that Roman historians influenced Matthew’s way of reporting history to the test by examining thirty case studies where ancient Romans referred to one or more of the events in Matthew 27:45–54. Did any of the ancients interpret these events less than literally? He also revisits the three case studies that Licona cited in The Resurrection of Jesus.

Epilogue | Historical Criticism vs. Grammatico-Historical: Quo Vadis Evangelicals? | F. David Farnell

Appendix: Statements on the Importance of Inerrancy from Prominent Christian Leaders

[1] Christopher T. Haun is a Master’s Degree candidate at Veritas Evangelical Seminary and an editorial associate at Bastion Books. This book review was written for the April 2016 issue of the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics.

[2] To purchase at a 40% discount, use “inerrant” as a coupon code upon checkout at http://wipfandstock.com/vital-issues-in-the-inerrancy-debate.html. Also available at http://www.amazon.com/Vital-Issues-Inerrancy-Debate-Farnell/dp/149823724X

By Christopher on Comparative Religion, Evolution, Philosophy of Religion, Theism tagged Evolution, Frazer, Mbiti, Schmidt, Theism

Primitive Monotheism

by Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D

THE PROBLEM OF EARLY MONOTHEISM

The Bible teaches that monotheism was the earliest conception of God. The very first verse of Genesis is monotheistic: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). All the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, reflect an early monotheism (Gen. 12-50). This reveals one God who created the world and who, therefore, is prior to, more than, and different from the world. These are the essential elements of theism or monotheism.

Likewise, long before Moses, Joseph clearly believed in a moral monotheism. His refusal to commit adultery was because it would be a sin against God. While resisting the temptation of Potiphar’s wife he declared: “How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Gen. 39:9).

The other book in the Bible that reflects an ancient pre-Mosaic period, Job, clearly has a monotheistic view of God. There is good evidence that the book of Job was set in pre-Mosaic patriarchal times (see below). It speaks of an “almighty” (see 5:17; 6:14; 8:3, etc.) personal God (cf. 1:7-8) who created the world (38:4) who is sovereign over it (42:1-2).

What is more, Romans 1 affirms that monotheism preceded animism and polytheism, affirming that “what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised” (Rom. 1:19-25).

FRAZER’S THESIS OF A LATE MONOTHEISM

The early monotheism thesis was championed by W. Schmidt in his High Gods in North

America (1933).^{^[1]} However, James Frazer’s The Golden Bough (1912)^{^[2]} has dominated the history of religion for the past few generations. His hypothesis is that religions evolved from animism through polytheism to henotheism and finally monotheism. In spite of its selective and anecdotal use of sources that are outdated by subsequent research, the ideas from the book are still widely believed. Frazer’s contention that a monotheistic conception of God evolved late is without foundation for many reasons.

ARGUMENTS FOR AN EARLY MONOTHEISM

There are many arguments in favor of primitive monotheism. Many come from the records and traditions we have of early civilization. These include Genesis, Job, the Ebla Tablets, and the study of preliterate tribes.

The Historicity of Genesis

There is no doubt that the book of Genesis represents a monotheistic God. Likewise, it is clear that the book of Genesis purports to be a record of the history of the human race back to the first human beings. Hence, what argues for the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis also argues in favor of an early monotheism. Noted archaeologist, William F. Albright, has demonstrated that the Genesis record of the patriarchs (12-50) is historical. He wrote, “Thanks to modern research we now recognize its [the Bible’s] substantial historicity. The narratives of the patriarchs, of Moses and the exodus, of the conquest of Canaan, of the judges, the monarchy, exile and restoration, have all been confirmed and illustrated to an extent that I should have thought impossible forty years ago.”^{^[3]} He added, “Aside from a few die-hards among older scholars, there is scarcely a single biblical historian who has not been impressed by the rapid accumulation of data supporting the substantial historicity of patriarchal tradition.”^{^[4]} However, Genesis is a literary and genealogical unity, being tied together by a listing of family descendants (Gen. 5, 10) and the literary phrase “this is the history of” (Gen. 2:4 NKJV) or the “account of” (NIV). The phrase is used throughout the book of Genesis (2:4; 5:1; 6:9: 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2). What is more, events from every one of the disputed first 11 chapters of Genesis are referred to by Jesus and New Testament writers as historical, including Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4-5); their temptation (1 Tim. 2:14); their fall (Rom. 5:12); the sacrifice of Cain and Abel (Heb. 11:4); the murder of Abel by Cain (1 Jn. 3:12); the birth of Seth (Luke 3:38); the translating of Enoch (Heb. 11:5); marriage before the flood (Lk. 17:27); the flood and destruction of man (Mt. 24:39); preservation of Noah and his family (2 Peter 2:5); the genealogy of Shem (Lk. 3:35-36), and the birth of Abraham (Luke 3:34). So, if one were to question the historicity of Genesis, then he would also have to question the authority of Christ and many other Scriptures which refer to Genesis.

There is strong evidence for the historicity of the Genesis record about Adam and Eve in particular. Yet this record reveals that the very first parents of the race were monotheists (see Gen. 1:1, 27; 2:16-17; 4:26; 5:1, 2). 1) Genesis 1-2 presents them as actual persons and even narrates the important events in their lives (=history). 2) They gave birth to literal children who did the same (Gen. 4:1, 25; 5:1f.). 3) The same phrase (“this is the history of”), used to record later history in Genesis (6:9; 9:12; 10:1, 32; 11:10, 27; 17:7, 9), is used of the creation account (2:4) and of Adam and Eve and their descendants (Gen. 5:1). 4) Later Old Testament chronologies place Adam at the top of the list (1 Chron. 1:1). 5) The New Testament places Adam at the beginning of Jesus’ literal ancestors (Luke 3:38). 6) Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as the first literal “male and female,” making their physical union the basis of marriage (Matt. 19:4). 7) The book of Romans declares that literal death was brought into the world by a literal “Adam” (Rom. 5:14). 8) The comparison of Adam (the “first Adam”) with Christ (the “last Adam”) in 1 Corinthians 15:45 manifests that Adam was understood as a literal, historical person. 9) Paul’s declaration that “Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13-14) reveals that he speaks of a real person. 10) Logically there had to be a first real set of human beings, male and female, or else the race would have had no way to get going. The Bible calls this literal couple “Adam and Eve,” and there is no reason to doubt their real existence. And what argues for their historicity also supports an early monotheism.

The Evidence from the Book of Job

Other than Genesis, Job is possibly the oldest book in the Old Testament. At the least the story is set in pre-Mosaic patriarchal times. Yet it too reveals a monotheistic view of God. God is the personal (see Job 1:6, 21), moral (1:1; 8:3-4) yet sovereign (42:1-2), and Almighty (5:17; 6:14; 8:3; 13:3, etc.) Creator (4:17; 9:8-9; 26:7; 38:6-7). The early setting of Job is evidenced by: 1) the pre-Mosaic family clan organization; 2) the lack of any reference to the Mosaic Law; 3) the use of the characteristic patriarchal name for God, “the Almighty” (Job 5:17; 6:4; 8:3 cf. Gen. 17:1; 28:3, etc.) 4) the comparative rarity of the name “LORD” (Yahweh) (cf. Ex. 6:3); 5) the offering of sacrifices by the head of a family rather than by a levitical priest; 6) the mention of early coinage (Job 42:11 cf. Gen. 33:19); 7) use of the phrase “sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) found elsewhere only in Genesis 6:2-4); and 8) the longevity of Job who lived 140 years after his family was grown (42:16) fits a patriarchal period. But Job speaks of One God who created the world (Job 38:4) and is sovereign over all things in it (cf. 42:2), including Satan (see Job. 1:1, 6, 21 etc.). But all of these are characteristics of a monotheistic God. Thus, the early time of Job reveals that monotheism was not a late development.

Evidence from the Ebla Tablets

Outside the Bible, the oldest records come from Ebla in Syria. And they reveal a clear monotheism declaring: “Lord of heaven and earth: the earth was not, you created it, the light of day was not, you created it, the morning light you had not [yet] made exist.”^{^[5]} This lucid statement of monotheism from such early tablets is an evident sign of early monotheism. It alone should lay to rest the idea of an evolved and late monotheism.

Primitive Religions are Monotheistic

Contrary to popular belief, the primitive religions of Africa unanimously reveal an explicit monotheism. The noted authority on African religions, John S. Mbiti wrote of the 300 traditional religions, “In all these societies, without a single exception, people have a notion of God as the Supreme Being.”^{^[6]} This is true of other primitive religions as well, many of which have a High God or Sky God which reflects a basic monotheism.

The Influence of Evolution

The idea that monotheism evolved is itself late, gaining popularity in the wake of Charles Darwin’s theory of biological evolution (On The Origin of

http://www.viagragenericoes24.com/viagras

Species, 1859) and even stated by Darwin later in his Descent of Man (1896). He wrote:

Belief in God — Religion. — There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God.” On the contrary, Darwin believed that human “mental faculties . . . led man to believe in unseen spiritual agencies, then to fetishism, polytheism, and ultimately monotheism . . . .^{^[7]}

Frazer’s evolutionary idea in religion is based on several unproven assumptions. One, it assumes biological evolution is true when it fact it seriously lacks support. But this has been seriously challenged by noted scientists.^{^[8]} Second, even if biological evolution were true on a biological level, there is no reason to believe evolution is true in the religious realm. It is a methodological category mistake to assume that what is true in one discipline is also true in another. Social Darwinism is another case in point. Few Darwinians would agree with Hitler in Mein Kampf that we should weed out the inferior races since evolution has been doing this for centuries! He wrote: “If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”^{^[9]} But if evolution should not be applied to human social development, then there is no reason to apply it to religion either.

Anecdotal Evidence

Frazer’s evolution of monotheism thesis is based on fragmentary and anecdotal evidence, not a serious historical and chronological search for the origins of monotheism. Like the so-called evolution of the horse once used by evolutionists, alleged examples of the hypothesis are taken out of order and without due regard for their proper ancestors. In short, Frazer’s evolution of monotheism assumes an evolutionary thesis and then finds bits and pieces of evidence to fit it.

A BETTER EXPLANATION

The origins of polytheism can be explained as well, if not better, as a degeneration from original monotheism just as Rom. 1:19f. declare. That is, paganism is a falling away from the primitive monotheism. This is evident in the fact that most pre-literate religions have a latent monotheism in their view of the Sky God or High God (see Mbiti). William F. Albright likewise acknowledges that the “high gods may be all-powerful and they may be credited with creation of the world; they are generally cosmic deities who often, perhaps usually, reside in heaven.”^{^[10]} This clearly runs counter to the animistic and polytheistic conceptions of deity.

CONCLUSION

There is no real reason to deny the biblical account of an early monotheism. On the contrary, there is every evidence to believe that monotheism was the first religion from which others devolved just as Romans 1:19f. declare. Indeed, this fits better with the strong evidence for the existence of a monotheistic^{^[11]} God and the proven tendency of human beings to distort the truth God reveals to them (cf. Rom. 1:18f). In short, man’s view of God has devolved, not evolved, over the centuries. God made man in His image, but man has returned the compliment.

[1] See W. Schmidt, High Gods in North America (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933), The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories (London, Methuen, 1931), Primitive Revelation (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1939).

[2] James G. Frazer, The Golden Bough (London: Macmillan, 1890).

[3] William F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957), 1329.

[4] William F. Albright, The Biblical Period (New York: Harper, 1955), 1.

[5] Cited by Eugene Merrill, “Ebla and Biblical Historical Inerrancy,” Bibliotheca Sacra (Oct.Dec., 1983).

[6] See John S. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1969); Concepts of God in Africa (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970).

[7] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: Appleton and Company, 1896), 302, 303.

[8] See Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler, 1985) and Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996).

[9] Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf (London: Gurst and Blackett Ltds, Publishers, 1939), 239-242.

[10] Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, 170.

[11] See William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (London: The MacMillan Press, 1979); Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976), chapter 13; Fred Heeren, Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications, 1995); Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1993.

Further Reading

Winfried Corduan wrote In the Beginning God: A Fresh Look at the Case for Original Monotheism

ISBN: 9780805447781 | BHPublishingGroup | 2013

Christians believe that religion began when God created human beings and revealed himself to them. But is there scholarly evidence for this belief? In the nineteenth century academic world a stormy debate took shape over the origin of religion. Scholars explored the ancient languages of mythology and then considered evolutionary anthropology. A dominant view emerged that religion began with animism — the reverent honoring of spirits — and from there evolved into higher forms, from polytheism on to monotheism. However, scholars Andrew Lang and Wilhem Schmidt contended there were cultures throughout the world — pygmy people in Africa and Asia, certain Australian Aboriginal groups and Native American tribes — that originated as monotheistic, acknowledging the existence of one supreme God who created the world and holds people accountable for living morally upright lives. The debate wore on, and Schmidt, a member of the Catholic order and a priest, was accused (without evidence) of letting his faith interpret the facts. By the mid-twentieth century a silent consensus formed among scholars not to discuss the origin and evolution of religion any further. The discoveries of Lang and Schmidt have since been largely ignored. However, the evidence on which these scholars based their conclusion of monotheism is still out there. In the Beginning God attempts to educate Christians about the debate on this topic, the facts that were accepted and those that were ignored, and the use to which Christians can put all of this material in making a case for the truth of Christianity.

By Christopher on Evangelical Exodus, Roman Catholicism

Responses to Evangelical Exodus

A note from the faculty of Southern Evangelical Seminary:

Norman Geisler and all the rest of the faculty here have consistently made the point in their teaching and writing that there is no connection between Thomistic metaphysics, which we teach, and Roman Catholic theology, which we reject.

SES has set up a resource page on www.WhyDoYouBelieve.org to help anyone who would like to learn more on the topic. This resource page includes articles, research, and even a free set of classroom lectures from Dr. Geisler’s Roman Catholicism course he taught for SES last year.

For additional resources by Dr. Geisler on Roman Catholicism, please visit http://normangeisler.com/rcc/.

By Christopher on Evangelical Exodus, Roman Catholicism tagged ECT, Evangelical Exodus, RC, RCC, Roman Catholicism, Thomism

Why I’m not a Roman Catholic (MP3)

Why I’m not a Roman Catholic (MP3 audio file)

by Dr. Norman L. Geisler

45 minutes in length

Partial Transcript:

Why I’m not a Roman Catholic

by Dr. Norman L. Geisler

This is approaching October 31st, which is Reformation Sunday. The whole Catholic-Evangelical issue has been a controversy in the news recently with the publishing of the Colson-Neuhaus statement on Catholics and Evangelicals Together. This is the second of a two part series. The first I did in the previous hour; it was titled What Roman Catholics Believe. And this one is titled Why I’m not a Roman Catholic. I really should have been! I should have been because my father was and normally when your father is, you are too. In fact, almost all my relatives on both sides are Roman Catholic. I have over a hundred first cousins so that makes a lot of relatives. In fact I went to two Catholic schools—two Jesuit schools. I did my Master’s work at the University of Detroit and my doctoral work at Loyola University. My favorite philosopher and theologian of all time is a Roman Catholic theologian—Thomas Aquinas. I should have been a Roman Catholic. But I’m not. Why?

I like to divide my comments into two categories. There are many reasons why I never became a Roman Catholic to begin with. And there are many reasons why I continue to not to be one in the present.

There are a lot of evangelicals who have jumped camp and become Roman Catholics. Neuhaus is a recent example. He was a Lutheran who became Catholic. Peter Kreeft is another example. He from Calvin College became a Catholic. [Thomas] Howard from Gordon Seminary is another example. When I look at the reasons for which people are becoming Roman Catholic I find them inadequate. For example, let me tell you why my father left the Roman Catholic Church before I was ever born. He was reared German Catholic . . . very faithful and attending church . . . St. Clement’s Parish north of Detroit, Michigan. My father was very faithful in helping to build the church. . . a very devout catholic family. He fell in love with a Protestant and wanted to marry her. He went to his priest and the priest said, “You cannot do that. That is against the teaching of the Catholic Church.” Deeply in love with my mother, he decided to leave the Catholic Church because he didn’t feel that [this teaching] was right. Incidentally, history has proven my father right because the Catholic Church has changed its position since then. [Note: Norm did not mention here that the Priest tried to get his father to pay him a 500$ bribe to make it happen. Norm mentioned that in an interview at another time.]

I remember sitting on an airplane once and next to me was a gentleman who had a little card. It was Friday and we were eating steak. I looked mine; I looked at his. He was a Roman Catholic and he was eating steak. I said, “Now you’re a Roman Catholic so how can you eat that?” The card said for purposes of flights on airplanes he had a special dispensation that allowed him to eat meat on Friday rather than fish. I said to him, “You know there really is no difference whether you’re several feet above the ground or on the ground, is there?” And I tucked that away because just previous to that at the University of Detroit one of my top philosophy professors said, “I do not believe the Pope is infallible when he talks about dietary matters like whether we should eat fish on Friday or not.” And as we all know, the Roman Catholics changed on that. But I was taught that the Roman Catholic Church never changes. They changed on fish. They changed on mixed marriage. They changed on whether the mass should be in Latin or not. They changed on some of the issues that kept my father from being a Roman Catholic.

Secondly I saw nothing in the lives of my Roman Catholic relatives that was appealing to me. All of them lived an unsaved life just like I did. Oh they would go to confession on Saturday but they would swear and curse just like I did. Oh they would go to Mass on Sunday but on Saturday night when the family got together they would get drunk just like everyone else in the family got drunk. I saw nothing in any life of any Catholic I knew—and I knew a lot of them because almost all my relatives and friends were Catholic—which made me want to become one. No change whatsoever.

At the same time, at age nine, since my parents did not take me to church a little Sunday school bus came and picked us up. The boy down the road had asked me to go to Vacation Bible School, I had said yes, and they said, “Why don’t you come back for the same thing on Sundays?” And then I began to see a difference. I began to see a belief system that made a difference in peoples’ lives. These people loved me. These people lived consistent lives. They practiced what they preached. These people prayed for me. These people picked me up in that little school bus 400 times before I became a Christian at age seventeen. I only remember two things: they loved me and they were happy. It made a difference in their life and they were concerned about me as a result. And at age seventeen I committed my life to Jesus Christ in this little Bible Church at ten mile and brown road north of Detroit, Michigan. And then I started to study the Bible. For the next five years I studied the Bible full time, day and night.

I went to Detroit Bible College (now William Tyndale College) and I studied the Bible. I studied the Bible for myself and I saw nothing in it that would make me want to become a Roman Catholic. In fact it was contrary to what I knew about Roman Catholicism and it resonated in my own heart and with what I believed to be true. I studied the Bible and saw no support for any unique Catholic doctrine. And then, after I was through, I decided I wanted to take another look—a closer look—[at the Catholic question].

I wanted to go right to the top and study it at a Roman Catholic institution. And so for the next five or six years I went almost full time to two Jesuit institutions. I studied Roman Catholicism from the sharpest philosophers and teachers that Roman Catholicism has—the Jesuits, the great defenders of the Papacy. I did my Master’s work in the University of Detroit. I wrote my Master’s thesis in a Catholic seminary—Maryknoll Fathers near Wheaton, Illinois, on a Catholic philosopher—Thomas Aquinas. I went on to do my doctoral work at a Roman Catholic university—Loyola University of Chicago, one of the best Catholic schools in the entire United States. In all of the exposure I had to Catholicism on the popular level with my relatives and on an intellectual level with the top, I never once was tempted to become a Roman Catholic because I never once saw any good reason why anyone should.

But that’s not really the reason that I am not a Roman Catholic; that’s just the reason I never became one even though I should have been. . . I never saw anything that changed someone’s life. I never saw anything comparable to what I had that I learned in that little Bible Church north of Detroit and the Bible school I attended.

There are many reasons, however, why I remain a Protestant and why I don’t become a Roman Catholic.

One of these reasons involves looking at the reasons people give for becoming Roman Catholic—like Howard, Kreeft, and Neuhaus. I see several fallacies with their reasoning. One [reason] seems to be an aesthetical reason—having to do with beauty. It’s a beautiful institution. If you’re into pomp and circumstance, if you’re into ritual, it is hard to find a system that is more beautiful and ritualistic than the Roman Catholic system. I’ve seen many people attracted to Rome because of its beauty. But of course beauty is not a test for truth. There are very beautiful people who are unsaved. There are very ugly people who are Christians. Which one has the truth? There are some very ugly buildings—I’ve been in mud huts in the middle of the jungle with the Jivaro headhunters in South America where they take your head and shrink it to the size of a grapefruit—and I’ve worshiped with them in their mud huts, but you know I’ve seen the beauty of holiness there. You don’t judge truth by beauty. If you judge truth by beauty, you might be a Buddhist because Buddhism is a very beautiful religion. The gold statues of the Buddha, the pomp and circumstances, they rival if not excel the Roman Catholic Church in ritual and beauty. They’ve got monks. They have colored robes. It’s a beautiful religion. Many are attracted to Roman Catholicism for its beauty but they fail to realize that beauty is not a test for truth.

Other people are being attracted for historical reasons. It’s an old institution that goes way back—they claim all the way back to the beginning, to the first bishop of Rome who they think was Peter. It is certainly an old institution. It has a history to it. But that’s not a good reason for becoming a Roman Catholic. After all, the Eastern Orthodox Church is just as old as the Roman Catholic Church; in fact it is older. . .

[Incomplete transcription. To be continued later. Reached minute 11:23 of 44:48.]

For more resources on Roman Catholicism, please visit http://normangeisler.com/rcc.

For more MP3s by Dr. Geisler, please visit http://NGIM.org.

By Christopher on Evangelical Exodus, Patristics / Church Fathers, Roman Catholicism tagged Catholic, early church fathers, Evangelical Exodus, fathers, patristics, RC, RCC, Roman Catholicism

Irenaeus on Scripture and Tradition

Irenaeus on Scripture and Tradition

by Dr. Norman L. Geisler

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200) is an important figure in the early Church. He was the Bishop of Lyons, France who heard Polycarp (the disciple of the apostle John) when he was a boy. He was thought to be a native of Smyrna who studied at Rome. He was the first great Father in the West. His major work was titled Against Heresies.

His View of Scripture

Irenaeus stood soundly on the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of Scripture. He also held to its inerrancy. Further, he is an important testimony to the authorship and dates of the Gospels.

On the Authority of Scripture

The Scriptures are said to have divine authority for they are called “divine Scriptures” (AH 2.35.4; 3.19.2). The Bible is called “the ground and pillar of our faith” (AH 3.1.1). It is “the Scripture of truth” as opposed to the “spurious writings” of heretics (1.20.1). For “…all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent” (AH 2.28.3). He affirms that “…even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God” (AH 3.21.2). Indeed, the apostle Paul’s words came from “the impetus of the Spirit within him” (AH 3.6.7).

On the Inerrancy of Scripture

Irenaeus declares that “the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit” (AH 2.28.2). They are also said to be “divine” (from God), and God cannot err (Rom. 3:4; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). They are called “the Scripture of truth” as opposed to the “spurious writings” of heretics (1.20.1). The fact that “all Scripture, which has been given to us by God” is further evidence of their inerrancy, since God cannot err (AH 2.28.3). Likewise, the fact that they are “found by us perfectly consistent” bespeaks of their flawless character. Indeed, Irenaeus speaks of the authors of Scripture as “the apostles, likewise, being disciples of the truth, are above all falsehood” in what they taught (3.5.1). They Gospels, written by the apostles, are based on the words of our Lord. And “our Lord, therefore, being the truth, did not speak lies” (AH 3.5.1)

On the Authenticity of the Gospels

Irenaeus held the traditional authorship of the Gospels were the contemporary eyewitness apostles and disciples whose names they bear. He speaks of “the Gospel of truth” (AH 3.11.9) that were written by the true apostles. He wrote: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” Further, “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John the disciple of the Lord…did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (AH .3.1.1). Irenaeus exhorts, “let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel” (ibid.). He speaks also of the certainty we have of the Gospel which we would not have were it not for the apostles. “For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings” (AH 3.4.1). Hence, “these [four] Gospels alone are true and reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminuition of the aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such arguments” (AH 3.11.9).

The Transmission of the Truth of Scriptures

Irenaeus offers two main arguments for the accuracy of the transmission of biblical truth. First, the translations are accurate. Second, the interpretation is the same as that of the apostles and associates who produced them with whom we have an unbroken historical connection.

The Accuracy of the Copies.–Little is said on this point because little needed to be said. After all, the available copies were only about a hundred years after the New Testament was completed. Nonetheless, Irenaeus does make some comments about both Testaments.

As for the Old Testament, he bases his belief in the reliability of the translation on the widely believed story of the alleged miraculous origin of the Septuagint (LXX). It was supposedly produced by some 70 different translators, each working independently and yet producing identical translations from Hebrew to Greek.[1] He wrote, “For all of them read out of the common translation which they had prepared in the very same words and the very same names from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God” (AH 3.21.2). As unlikely as this story is, there is a core of truth contained, namely, abundant available manuscripts verify that the Old Testament has been accurately reproduced down through the centuries (see Geisler, General Introduction, Chap. 21), is that the Old Testament has been accurately copied down through the centuries.

Irenaeus adds to this the argument that the text has not been corrupted because “the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and the grace of God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished;…This interpretation[2] of these Scriptures was made prior to the Lord’s descent to earth, and came into being before the Christians appeared…–but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted” (AH 3.21.3). Irenaeus’s argument is similar to that of current Christian apologist who point out that Isaiah 53 is a messianic prediction about Christ, since even the Rabbis before the time of Christ understood it to be about the Messiah, not about a suffering nation (see Driver, FTCIAJI, Vol. 2).

As for the New Testament manuscripts available in the second century, Irenaeus based their authenticity on several factors. He wrote: “But our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from the Scriptures, which were interpreted [transmitted] in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation.” This is evident because “…the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these heretics, agree with this aforesaid translation; and he translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical announcements, just as the interpretation of the elders contain them” (AH 3.21.3). He adds, “For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by the elders give a just [right] interpretation of what had been truly prophesied” (AH 3.21.4). In short, the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures also guided the early Fathers in interpreting them.

On the Unbroken Chain of Transmission

Irenaeus refers to the links in this unbroken chain transmitting the apostolic understanding of the Gospel, namely, it came from John the apostle to Polycarp to Irenaeus who knew him. Indeed, he spoke of Polycarp as one “not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but also, by the apostles in Asia appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth…” (AH 3.3, 4). Irenaeus wrote: “But, again,… we refer them [heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches” (AH 3.2.2). Indeed, Irenaeus refers to the “presbyters” as “the disciples of the apostles” (AH 5.35.2). For, “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times” (AH 3.3.1). Irenaeus added, “These things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp [who was a disciple of the apostle John), in his fourth book” (AH 5.333.4).

On the Canonicity of Scripture

Irenaeus cites freely from every major section of the Old Testament and from most of the books. He also cites from more New Testament books than any other early writer (all but Philemon, James, 2Peter, and 3John). And he gives no reason to believe he rejected any of these; he simply had no occasion to quote from them, three of them being tiny one chapter books (Geisler, GIB, 193). Further, he chides heretics because they “adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings” (1.22.1) as opposed to the authentic Scriptures.

On the Primacy of Scripture.

No one reading the apostolic and other early Fathers can’t help but be stuck by their extensive and authoritative use of Scripture. Just seven major Fathers from Justin Martyr to Eusebius cites 36, 289 verses from the New Testament–every verse but eleven (most of which are from 3 John). Irenaeus alone cites nearly 2000 verses (1819 to be exact) (see Leach, OBHGI, 35-36).

Further, the manner in which they are cited reveal the great respect shown to the Scriptures as the very written word of God. As we have already seen, Irenaeus believed that the very words of Scripture were God-given, perfect, and without error. It is the very ground and pillar of truth.

Other than a few scant references in early Fathers to the oral words of apostles confirming what is in their written word, which alone is God-breathed (2Tim. 3:16 cf. 2Peter 1:20-21; 3:15-16), the Bible is not only the primary source of divine authority cited; it is the only source. Hence, it is not simply a matter of the primacy of Scripture but the exclusivity of Scripture as the sole written, God-breathed authority from God. Indeed, Irenaeus criticizes heretics because “they gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures” (1.8.1). Likewise, he condemns them because they “adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings” (1.22.1). In this sense, Irenaeus held to Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone)–one of the great principles of the later Reformation.

On the Perspicuity (Clarity) of Scripture

As J. N. D. Kelly notes, “Provided the Bible was taken as a whole, its teaching was self-evident” (ECD, 38). Only when heretics wrenched texts out of their proper context did the basic message seem confused. Of course, because the Bible is “spiritual in its entirety” it is not surprising that there are some obscurities (Kelly, ibid., 61). Nonetheless, the proper exegesis and aid of the Holy Spirit, the main message of the Bible is clear.

Irenaeus criticized those who “…accuse these Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition” (3.2.1). This shows clearly that he not only believed in the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture but also the sufficiency of the literal hermeneutic, apart from tradition, to understand what the Scriptures are teaching.

Irenaeus recognized, of course, that as clear as the Scriptures are there are depraved minds which will not accept it. He said, “I shall for the benefit of those at least who do not bring a depraved mind to bear upon them, devote a special book to the Scriptures referred to…, and I shall plainly set forth from these divine Scriptures proofs to satisfy all t he lovers of truth” (AH 2.35.4)

On the Interpretation of Scripture

Following on the clarity of Scripture is the belief in a literal historical-grammatical hermeneutic which alone can yield this clear message. Irenaeus believed that proper interpretation yields a harmonious and unambiguous understanding of Scripture. He wrote: “A sound mind…will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed with the power of mankind…and will make advancement in them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study” (AH 2.27.10). He added, “these things are such as fall plainly under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures” (ibid.).

Irenaeus concludes: “Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them,…those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such clear demonstrations…” (ibid.).

As for difficult passages, “the parables shall be harmonized with those passages which are perfectly clear…” (ibid.). Hence, there is a proper and improper way to read a text. And “if, then, one does not attend to the proper reading of the passage…there shall be not only incongruities, but also, when reading, he will utter blasphemy…” (AH 3.7.2). While Irenaeus did not hesitate to offer “proofs [of] the truths of Scripture” he was quick to point out that “proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except form the Scriptures themselves” (AH 3.12.9). That is, the Bible speaks best and most clearly for itself.

Referring of the New Jerusalem, Irenaeus speaks against the allegorical method of interpreting prophecy, saying, “nothing is capable of being allegorized, but all things are steadfast, and true, and substantial, having been made by God for righteous men’s enjoyment. For as it is God truly who raises up man, so also does man truly rise from the dead, and not allegorically, as I have shown repeatedly…. Then, when all things are made new, he shall truly dwell in the city of God” (AH 5.35.2).

As for Iraenaeus’ affirmation of the true exposition of the Scriptures is to be found in the church alone, the context indicates that he simply means that, as the repository of the true teaching that has come down from the apostles, the church alone, as opposed to heretics outside it, contains the true meaning of Scripture. This is clear from what he says in elaborating on this very point. For he wrote: “It behoves us to…adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do hold the doctrine of the apostles….” (AH 4.26.4). And, “it is also incumbent to hold in suspicion other who depart from the primitive succession…” (AH 4.26.2).

Likewise, Irenaeus places the correctness of his teaching this close link to the apostles, saying, “I have heard from a certain presbyter, who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles, and from their disciples, the punishment declared in Scripture was sufficient for the ancients in regard to what they did without the Spirit’s guidance” (4.27.1). Hence, “True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without an forging of Scripture, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor suffering curtailment in the truths which she believes; and it consists in reading the word of God without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures…; and above all it consists in the pre-eminent gift of love…” (AH 4.33.8, emphasis added).

It is evident from the emphasized words in the foregoing quote that the correct interpretation of Scripture is found by: 1) reading a text in its proper context; 2) in harmony with other Scripture; 3) as the apostles meant it; 4) and as it is expressed in the apostolic doctrines; 5) which is known to us by historical links with the apostles.

Thus, the succession of elders in the church were to be followed not because of any special divine revelatory authority that rest in them but because known historical link to the apostles gives validity to their claim to be offering a correct interpretation of what the apostles taught.

On the Canonicity of Scripture

Because the basis of the New Testament revelation is the authority of the apostles–both what they had originally proclaimed orally and later committed to writing (AH 3.1.1)–“it was not simply church custom but apostolicity, i..e., the fact that they had been composed by apostles and followers of the apostles” that was the basis for discovering their canonicity (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 38).

Not only does Irenaeus cite every New Testament writer as an apostle of accredited mouthpiece for God (like an associate of an apostle), but he cites from the vast majority of the twenty seven New Testament books. The same is true of the Old Testament. So, there is no reason to believe he rejects any one of the sixty six canonical books of Scripture. As for the so-called apocryphal books of the Old Testament later accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, there is no definitive evidence that Irenaeus believed they were inspired. Of the 14 apocryphal books (11 of which are accepted as inspired by the Roman Catholic Church), only two are alluded to by Irenaeus: 1) History of Susana ( AH 4. 26.2) that is quoted but not used as a divine authority to establish any doctrine. 2) The other book, Wisdom ( AH 2.18.9) is only a possible allusion, not a quotation or an authoritative citation at all. This in contrast to 1819 citations from a vast array of Old Testament books and 23 of the 27 books of the New Testament.

On the alleged citations of the Old Testament Apocrypha by Irenaeus and other early Fathers, the canonical authority Roger Beckwith notes:

When one examines the passages in the early Fathers which are supposed to establish the canonicity of the Apocrypha, one finds that some of them are taken from the alternative Greek text of Ezra (1Esdras) or from additions or appendicies to Daniel, Jeremiah or some other canonical book, which …are not really relevant; that others of them are not quotations from the Apocrypha at all; and that, of those which are, many do not give any indication that the book is regarded as Scripture (Beckwith, OTCNTC, 194, 382-383).

His View on Tradition

In defense of his orthodox interpretation of Scripture, Irenaeus appealed to several arguments. First, the correct means of interpretation of Scripture is used. This entails several factors: taking their words in their literal sense and the over-all theme of Scripture (see below). Second, the presence of the Holy Spirit is in the Church to guide it to correct interpretation (AH 3.21.4). Indeed, the Church is viewed as the home of the Holy Spirit who through its Spirit-endowed men who vouchsafed the truth of the Gospel (AH 4.26.2, 5).

Third, he refers to and unbroken chain of Bishops going back to the apostles to verify it was the correct interpretation (AH 3.2.2).

Finally, in connection with this later argument was Irenaeus’s belief that there was a living oral tradition housed in the Church which attests to the true apostolic interpretation of Scripture.

The Nature of Tradition

According to J.N.D. Kelly, not authority on the early Fathers, “Scripture and the Church’s living tradition [are viewed] as co-ordinate channels of this apostolic testimony….” (Kelly, ECD, 35-36). In contrast to Gnosticism, Irenaeus held this tradition to be public. It emanated from the apostles and them alone who were the sole authority on the matter (AH 3.1.1). He contended also, that regardless of differences in language and expression “the force of the tradition” communicated by the apostles was one and the same (AH, 1.10.2; 5.20.1).

The Locus of the Tradition

Unlike Papias who could refer to personal reminiscences of the apostles (Kelly, ECD, 37), Irenaeus believed in “the tradition from the apostles” which he said was available in the Church for all who care to look for it (AH, 3.4.2-5), having been faithfully “preserved by means of the succession of Presbyters in the Churches….” (AH 3.2.2) He also pointed to Barbarian tribes whom he believed had it in unwritten form (AH, 3.4.1). For all practical purposes this tradition could be found in what he called “the canon of truth,” Kelly calls a “condensed summary, fluid in its wording but fixed in content, setting out the key points of the Christian revelation in the form of a rule” (ECD, 37). Irenaeus makes numerous allusions to this body of truth (AH, 1.10.1, 22.1; 5.20.1 etc.).

The Relation of Scripture and Tradition

While some infer that Irenaeus exalted tradition alongside of, or ever over, Scripture, Kelley rejects this for several reasons. First, this only appears to be the case, since in his controversy with the Gnostics Irenaeus appealed to apostolic tradition as the proper way to interpret the Bible. Second, “the Gnostic’ appeal to their supposed secret traditions forced him to stress the superiority of the Church’s public tradition, [yet] his real defense of orthodoxy was founded on Scripture” (Kelly, ECD, 38-39, emphasis added). Third, “tradition itself, on his view, was confirmed by Scripture, which was `the foundation and pillar of our faith’ [3.1.1] (ibid., 39, emphasis added). Fourth, even the “canon of truth” which converts supposedly received at baptism used to help preserve orthodoxy was itself based on Scripture. Finally, Kelly said that Irenaeus believed that “Scripture and the Church’s unwritten tradition are identical in content” (ibid., 39, emphasis added). Kelly adds, “If tradition as conveyed in the “canon” is a more trustworthy guide, this is not because it comprises truths other than those revealed in Scripture, but because the true tenor of the apostolic message is there unambiguously set out” (ibid.)

Further, considering the overall context of Irenaeus’ polemic againt the Gnostics, who were misinterpreting Scripture, it is understandable that Irenaeus would stress the value of valid tradition supporting the orthodoxy of his anti-Gnostic views.

On the Apostolicity of the Church

It is evident form repeated statement by Irenaeus that the final authority for the church rests in the teachings of the apostles, not in any one apostle. Even the founding of the Church at Rome was said to be by two apostles, Paul and Peter (AH .3.1.1). Irenaeus repeated speaks of “the apostolic tradition” (AH 3.3.2) and “the blessed apostles” who “founded and built up the Church” (3.3.3), “the doctrine of the apostles (AH 3.12.4), and “the tradition from the apostles” (AH 3.5.1). He wrote: “these [apostles] are the voices of the Church form which every Church had its origin...; these are the voices of the apostles; these are the voices of the disciples of the Lord, the truly perfect, who after the assumption of the Lord, were perfected by the Spirit…” (AH 3.12.4, emphasis added) For “He [God] sent forth His own apostles in the spirit of truth, and not in that of error, He did the very same also in the case of the prophets” (AH 4.35.2)

On the Unity of the Church

Irenaeus strongly stressed the unity of the Christian Church. As just shown, most often this is in connection with its central apostolic doctrines over against heretical views which denies some fundamental tenet of the Faith.

He spoke repeatedly against schisms, once declaring of “A spiritual disciple” that “He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ….” He then adds, “For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism” (AH 4.33.7).

On the Authority of the Church

A good deal of controversy revolves around a disputed text in Against Heresies, Book Three. Irenaeus refers to “that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our times by means of the succession of the bishops.” For “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree [Latin, Convenire] with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere” (AH 3.3.2, emphasis added).

Interpretation favoring the Primacy of Rome.–Kelly sets for the dispute in these words: “If convenire here means “agree with” and principalitas refers to the Roman primacy (in whatever sense), the gist of the sentence may be taken to be that Christians of every other church are required, in view of its special position of leadership, to fall in line with the Roman church, inasmuch as the authentic apostolic tradition is always preserved by the faithful who are everywhere” (Kelly, ECD, 193).

Interpretation not Favoring the Primacy of Rome.–Many scholars have found fault with this translations for two reasons. First, the weakness of the final clause has struck them as “intolerable” (ibid.). Second, “the normal meaning of convenire is “resort to”, “foregather at”, and necesse est does not easily bear the sense of “ought” (ibid.) Indeed, the editor of the Apostolic Fathers in the The Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Cleveland Coxe, cites one candid Roman Catholic scholar who translates is it as follows: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles” (ANF, 1.415). Coxe adds, “Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing her orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into focus” (ibid.). This is in direct contrast to the proclamation of Pope Pius IX who “informed his Bishops, at the late Council, that they were not called to bear their testimony, but to hear his infallible decree” (ibid., 461). In short, what Irenaeus meant was that Rome is the center of orthodoxy since she, by virtue of being the capitol of the empire, was the respository of all catholic tradition-–‘all this has been turned upside down by modern Romanism” (ibid.)

Kelly concurs, observing that many scholars “…have judged it more plausible to take Irenaeus’ point as being that the Roman church [of that day] supplies an ideal illustration for the reason that, in view of its being placed in the imperial city, representatives of all the different churches necessarily (i.e., inevitably) flock to it, so that there is some guarantee that the faith taught there faithfully reflects the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 193).

It is noteworthy that the apostles did not appoint more apostles to replace them after Pentecost where they became the “foundation” of the Church, Christ being the chief cornerstone (Eph,. 2:20). Rather, they appointed “elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). Irenaeus himself speaks of “the disciples of the apostles” as “presbyters” (elders) (AH 5.35.2). He wrote: “… we refer them [heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches” (AH 3.2.2).

Irenaeus seemed to believe that each church has a single Bishop over it, speaking of Polycarp as “bishop of Smyrna” (cf. AH 3.3.4) and a line of bishops in Rome beginning with Linus (AH 3.3.3). However, this is in contrast to the New Testament which is clear that every local church had its own “bishops and deacons” (cf. Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:13).[3] And it was they whose leadership was to be followed by their congregations (Heb. 13:7, 17, 24), not any ecclesiastical authority in Rome. For Christ, the Chief Shepherd, was the invisible Head of the visible church. For He walked among them and rebuked them for not recognizing His Headship (cf. Rev. 1-3).[4]

Conclusion

While the non-Catholic interpretation of Irenaeus seems preferable for the many reasons given, the outcome of this issue is not definitive for the debate about the alleged primacy of Rome. For if the former view is correct, it simply shows an earlier statement of what later developed into what came to be known as Roman Catholicism. If so, this would not be surprising for a couple reasons. For one thing, the beginning of false doctrine, even on the primacy of the episcopacy, was nearly a century before this time. John the apostle spoke of it in his third epistle when he warned: “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us” (3Jn. 9). Further, Irenaeus was over a century after most apostles had died–the very time that even apocryphal Gospels were emerging. Indeed, he is writing sometime after the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (c. 140). So, there was plenty of time for false views to emerge, even among those who were otherwise orthodox. What is more, considering the attacks on Christianity at the time, there was strong motivation to develop an ecclesiology that would provide a united front against the divergent heretical groups emerging at the time, which is reflected in Irenaeus’ emerging episcopal view of church government. Finally, there is no evidence Irenaeus favored the Roma Catholic view of the primacy of Peter. And even if he favored the primacy of Rome as the center of Christianity, he does not support the later Roman Catholic pronouncements on the infallibility of the Pope. His constant appeal was to the original “apostles” (plural) as the God-established authority. Peter was not singled out by him as superior to others. He, at best, was only a co-founder of the church at Rome along with Paul. He was in fact on the same level as Paul and the other “apostles” to whom Irenaeus repeatedly refers. Furthermore, his stress on the primacy of Scripture as the final written authority of the Christian Faith demonstrate that all ecclesiastic authority is based on Scripture, not the reverse. Finally, his stress on the sufficiency on the Holy Spirit and the proper mode of interpretation as sufficient to understand the Scripture denies the later Roman Catholic view that the church in an organizational authoritative sense is necessary to interpret Scripture.

Other Doctrines

Other doctrines of interest included his view on anthropology, human responsibility, and eschatology.

On Anthropology

Irenaeus strongly defended creation ex nihilo over against Greek and Gnostic views of ex deo and ex materia.

He also believed in a dualistic view of human nature. While united to the body in this life, the soul survives death and is immortal. Human’s a conscious between death and resurrection, but are not made complete again until they are reunited with their bodies.

On Human Responsibility

On the question of human free will, Irenaeus stood in the long tradition of those who maintained the self-determining nature of free choice. Irenaeus wrote, “Those persons, therefore, who have apostatized from the light given by the Father, and transgressed the law of liberty, have done so through their own fault, since they have been created free agents, and possessed of power over themselves” (AH 4.39.3).

On Redemption

Along with his orthodox views on the death and resurrection of Christ for our sins, Irenaeus is the author of the so-called “Recapitulation” theory of the atonement. According to this view, the fully divine Christ became fully man in order o sum up all humanity in Himself. So, what was lost through the disobedience of the First Adam, was restored through the Second Adam (Christ) who went through all the stages of human life, resisted all temptation, died, and rose victoriously over the Devil (AH 5.21.1).

Ecclesiology

Irenaeus said, “With regard to those (the Marcionites) who alleged that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them, when he says, that one and the same God wrought in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision, and in himself for the Gentiles [Gal. 2:8]” (AH 3.13.1). Likewise, his companion Luke knew what Paul taught. And he told Ephesians he told them the whole council of God (Acts 20). The Church is spiritual seed of Abraham (5.34.1, 3).

On Eschatology

Along with most other early Fathers, Irenaeus was premillennial (5.32.1-2; 33:1; 5.35.1-2). The millennium begins with the first resurrection (Rev. 20:4-6). Of this Irenaeus said, “John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the `first resurrection of the just.’ and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth” (AH 5.36.3). According to George Peters, other premillennial early Fathers included Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Melito, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian (Peters, TK 1.451). Irenaeus also believed in the literal fulfillment of the unconditional land promise to Abraham and His descendants (5.32.2).

The Conscious Survival of the Soul

Irenaeus believed that the soul consciously survives death and lives on immortally in the next world (AH 5.31.1). Here the soul of believers awaits the resurrection when it will be reunited with the body forever in a perfect state. Unbelievers will be banished from the presence of God in a place of punishment (call Hell) forever.

End Notes

[1] Justin Martyr had this same view (To the Greeks, 13), as did St. Augustine after this time (see City of God).

[2] The word “interpreted” includes the idea of translated, since one must interpret a text correctly in order to properly translate it.

[3] Indeed, bishop and elder were used interchangeably in the New Testament (cf. Titus 1:5, 7), the former being the term Greeks used or leaders and the later which Hebrews used. Indeed, the qualifications are the same for both; the duties are the same; there was a plurality of both in even small churches (cf. Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1). Thus Irenaeus, writing over a hundred years after the apostles, is reflecting an emerging episcopal form of government not found in the New Testament.

[4] See N. L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, Chap. 4.

Sources

Beckwith, Roger. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).

Behr, John. “Irenaeus and the Word of God” in Studia Patristica 36 (2001)

Driver, S.R. and Ad. Neubauer, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish Interpreters (Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1877). Vol. 2.

Jacobsen, Anders-Christian. “The Philosophical Argument in the Teaching on the Resurrection of the Flesh” in Studia Patristica 36 (2001).

Geisler, Norman and William E. Nix. General Introduction to the Bible, revised (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986).

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrine (NY: Harper and Row, 1960).

Leach, Charles. Our Bible: How We Got It ) (Chicago: Moody, 1897).

Morris, Richard. “Irenaeus” in Historical Handbook of Major Interpreters (IVP, 1998).

Osborn, Eric F. “Reason and The Rule of Faith in the Second Century” in Making of Orthodoxy (Cambridge University Press, 1989).

Peters, George. The Theocratic Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952 (originally published in 1884).

Tiessen, Terrance. “Gnosticism and Heresy: the Response of Irenaeus” in Hellenization Revisited (Lanham, MD, University Press of America, 1994)

Dr. Geisler is the author of Should Old Aquinas Be Forgotten? Many Say Yes but the Author Says No. (Bastion Books:2013), What Augustine Says (Bastion Books:2013), Is the Pope Infallible: A Look at the Evidence (Bastion Books:2012), Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (Crossway Books:2008), and Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker Academic:1995). For additional resources by Dr. Geisler on Roman Catholicism, please visit http://normangeisler.com/rcc/.