Irenaeus On “Endless Succession”

(from Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 24)

   2. But if any persons at this point maintain that those souls, which only began a little while ago to exist, cannot endure for any length of time; but that they must, on the one hand, either be unborn, in order that they may be immortal, or if they have had a beginning in the way of generation, that they should die with the body itself–let them learn that God alone, who is Lord of all, is without beginning and without end, being truly and for ever the same, and always remaining the same unchangeable Being. But all things which proceed from Him, whatsoever have been made, and are made, do indeed receive their own beginning of generation, and on this account are inferior to Him who formed them, inasmuch as they are not unbegotten. Nevertheless they endure, and extend their existence into a long series of ages in accordance with the will of God their Creator; so that He grants them that they should be thus formed at the beginning, and that they should so exist afterwards.

   3. For as the heaven which is above us, the firmament, the sun, the moon, the rest of the stars, and all their grandeur, although they had no previous existence, were called into being, and continue throughout a long course of time according to the will of God, so also any one who thinks thus respecting souls and spirits, and, in fact, respecting all created things, will not by any means go far astray, inasmuch as all things that have been made had a beginning when they were formed, but endure as long as God wills that they should have an existence and continuance. The prophetic Spirit bears testimony to these opinions, when He declares, “For He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created: He hath established them for ever, yea, forever and ever.”(Psalm 148: 5-6). And again, He thus speaks respecting the salvation of man: “He asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest him length of days for ever and ever“(Psalm 21: 4), indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved. For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but it is bestowed according to the grace of God. And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed [the gift upon him], deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever.  And, for this reason, the Lord declared to those who showed themselves ungrateful towards Him: “If ye have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great?” (Luke 16: 11), indicating that those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to Him who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever.

   4. But as the animal body is certainly not itself the soul, yet has fellowship with the soul as long as God pleases; so the soul herself is not life, but partakes in that life bestowed upon her by God. Wherefore also the prophetic word declares of the first-formed man, “He became a living soul” (Genesis 2: 7), teaching us that by the participation of life the soul became alive; so that the soul, and the life which it possesses, must be understood as being separate existences. When God therefore bestows life and perpetual duration, it comes to pass that even souls which did not previously exist should henceforth endure [for ever], since God has both willed that they should exist, and should continue in existence. For the will of God ought to govern and rule in all things, while all other things give way to Him, are in subjection, and devoted to His service. Thus far, then, let me speak concerning the creation and the continued duration of the soul. 

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/irenaeus/02-ag-he.htm

Battle Of The Premises

     As the administrators of Preterist News have been saying for several months, the ongoing debate between Hyper-Preterism and historic orthodoxy is, at its rock bottom, presuppositional rather than exegetical in nature.  The Hyper-Preterists would like nothing more than to make this whole matter look like a dispute over the correct interpretation of Bible passages, but in truth it is much more than that.  It involves the very way one approaches the sacred text.  Despite all of the rhetorical spin, Hyper-Preterists must admit (as we do) that one’s exegesis is really governed by one’s premises.  Once this fact is fully apprehended, it will become clear that the controvery between Hyper-Preterism and orthodoxy can only be settled by arguing on a presuppositional level..

The Premises Will Get You

       In previous articles, I have written a bit about the fallacy of holding to an “evolutionary” view of Christian theology.  Those who maintain this view usually teach that the church’s understanding of Christian doctrine has been “developing” since the close of the apostolic age, and that consequently, the man with the latest theories is to be eminently admired, and to have the nations sit at his feet while he pontificates on what everyone “missed” for the past 2,000 years.  Although I have articulated as best I could why such an understanding is erroneous, it was not until this afternoon that the root of the fallacy became clear to my apprehension..

Is Historic Continuity An Extra-Biblical Concept?

   The position taken by the author of this post, namely, that the fundamental truths of Christianity have been preserved from day one, has often come into collision with the doctrines of Hyper-Preterism.  Because of Hyper-Preterism’s iconoclastic stance on a number of issues relative to the salvation of men, the average Hyper-Preterist feels a distinct loathing toward the doctrine of historic continuity.  In many cases, this writer has been accused of inculcating a non-Biblical concept  —  as if continuity of the faith were a doctrine unfairly imposed on Christianity, but having no foundation in God’s word.  While most H.P.’s deny historicity altogether, a few adopt a species of historicity which may be called “interpretive Darwinism.”  When this ideology is employed, quotes from historic Christian leaders are usually tacked together in an attempt to show that Hyper-Preterism is really the end result of 2,000 years of church history.  And yet the method denies continuity no less than outright rejection, by teaching that doctrinal understanding belongs to an age long subsequent to that which immediately succeeded the apostolic era.  Under such a scenario, there is still a noticeable rift between the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages; and thus continuity remains fractured..

Remarks On Tertullian’s “De Resurrectione Carnis” (Part 4)

  In Chapter 26, Tertullian makes a point with which I disagree  —  though he does it with good taste  —  namely, that should heretics persist in allegorizing the Scriptures which speak of the resurrection, orthodox Christians may use the same allegorical method to show that it will be bodily rather than spiritual.  All the prophetic passages, for instance, which speak of blessings or punishments in relation to the earth, may, the apologist argues, be turned to good effect in our defense of the resurrection; inasmuch as the flesh of man was formed of earth (Gen. 2: 7).  Admittedly, this argument, bolstered though it is by sundry proof-texts and a forcible logic, is too cumbersome and heavy-handed for most evangelical Christians to adopt.  Besides, it leaves the table too open for alterations in the meaning of language, which any heretic can use to his advantage, when once orthodox Christians have surrendered the grammatical, contextual, historical, and canonical rule of interpretation..

Does It Matter How We Fight Hyper-Preterism?

   Ever since the recent split that occurred between those combating the doctrines of Hyper-Preterism, there has much talk in the air as to maintaining a neutral attitude towards those whose methods differ from our own.  I’ve been told several times that it doesn’t matter HOW one fights Hyper-Preterism, but that the method should be left up to each individual.  The reason for this stance is because since last year, Dr. Kenneth Talbot, president of Whitefield Seminary, has been (allegedly) engaging in a behind-the-scenes battle against Hyper-Preterism to prevent it from making serious headway in the church.  The strategic guidelines which he has been laying down have been deemed unacceptable by some (including myself), who feel that he is coddling Hyper-Preterists, and being unrealistic in his assessments.  Besides that, Talbot, instead of urging Christians to return to historic Christianity, has felt the need to invent an entirely new eschatology called “Realized Preterism” in order to deal with the problem of Hyper-Preterism.  

Remarks On Tertullian’s “De Resurrectione Carnis” (Part 2)

  In Chapter 14, Tertullian makes the astute observation that the flesh of all men must be raised, in order that God may judge the deeds of men which they did in their bodies.  Indeed, he reasons that the soul and flesh are so closely united, that no action in life is done without both components acting together.  Of course, he believed (as I myself am inclined to believe) in the corporeality of the soul.  Because the soul is corporeal, it is capable of being acted upon by the flesh; as the flesh is acted upon by the soul in almost everything we do. When we suffer bodily pain, our souls share the anguish.  That is the flesh acting upon the soul.  Or when we are happy and jubilant, we tend to forget about our aches and pains.  That is the soul acting upon the flesh.  I suppose this principle at the very least makes possible (while it certainly renders plausible) Tertullian’s view that both soul and body are corporeal.  For it is the characteristic of a body to both receive and impart motion to something else..

 

Remarks On Tertullian’s “De Resurrectione Carnis” (Part 1)

   As some readers of this blog already know, I have long been fond of the writings of Tertullian, the eminent North-African apologist who flourished at the turn of the third century.   With Irenaeus and Lactantius, he ranks among my favorite theologians.  I like him especially for the profound observations he makes on matters impacting orthodoxy.  During the past couple days, I’ve taken a siesta in my regular studies to take another gander at his famous treatise, “On The Resurrection of the Flesh.”  I read this awhile back, and must admit that it was influential in drawing me out of Hyper-Preterist mentality.  It is basically an orthodox defence of the doctrine which concerns the “resurrection of the body,” and is very a propos to the question being bandied about by some persons, as to whether the resurrection which takes place at Christ’s return is physical or spiritual..