Irenaeus and miraculous gifts
Irenaeus (2nd century AD – died around 202 AD) is one of the important figures in early church history. He wrote against heretical beliefs, and he pointed to both Scripture and the proper interpretation of Scripture (rule of faith) in his defense of orthodox beliefs.
A few weeks ago, I ran across a blog post on AdrianWarnock.com called “Historical Evidence that the gifts didn’t cease when the apostles died“. Reading through this post, and following links to other posts and comments, I found some very interesting information in one of Irenaeus’s important writings: Against Heresies.
To begin with, in Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 31, Paragraph 2, Irenaeus writes:
Moreover, those also will be thus confuted who belong to Simon and Carpocrates, and if there be any others who are said to perform miracles who do not perform what they do either through the power of God, or in connection with the truth, nor for the well-being of men, but for the sake of destroying and misleading mankind, by means of magical deceptions, and with universal deceit, thus entailing greater harm than good on those who believe them, with respect to the point on which they lead them astray. For they can neither confer sight on the blind, nor hearing on the deaf, nor chase away all sorts of demons [none, indeed,] except those that are sent into others by themselves, if they can even do so much as this. Nor can they cure the weak, or the lame, or the paralytic, or those who are distressed in any other part of the body, as has often been done in regard to bodily infirmity. Nor can they furnish effective remedies for those external accidents which may occur. And so far are they from being able to raise the dead, as the Lord raised them, and the apostles did by means of prayer, and as has been frequently done in the brotherhood on account of some necessity the entire Church in that particular locality entreating [the boon] with much fasting and prayer, the spirit of the dead man has returned, and he has been bestowed in answer to the prayers of the saints that they do not even believe this can be possibly be done, [and hold] that the resurrection from the dead is simply an acquaintance with that truth which they proclaim.
In this paragraph, Irenaeus is writing against false magicians who are performing “miracles” by deception and with the wrong motives. Apparently, motivation is very important to Irenaeus. He says that these false miracle workers cannot actually perform miracles. They so-called miracles do not stand up to evidential exams like the miracles of the Lord, the apostles, and brothers and sisters who are currently part of the church. Apparently, Irenaeus (and the entire church in some localities?) was witness to many of these real miracles.
Similarly, in Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 32, Paragraph 4, Irenaeus writes:
If, however, they maintain that the Lord, too, performed such works simply in appearance, we shall refer them to the prophetical writings, and prove from these both that all things were thus predicted regarding Him, and did take place undoubtedly, and that He is the only Son of God. Wherefore, also, those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles], so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe [in Christ], and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and which she exerts day by day for the benefit of the Gentiles, neither practising deception upon any, nor taking any reward (Acts 8:9, 18) from them [on account of such miraculous interpositions]. For as she has received freely (Matthew 10:8) from God, freely also does she minister [to others].
Once again, Irenaeus using living examples. He points to brothers and sisters in Christ who cast out demons, see visions, prophesy, heal the sick, and raise the dead. In fact, in this passage, Irenaeus uses current examples (in his day) of miracles as evidence that Christ actually performed miracles. This would not have been a very good argument if the miracles were not obvious to his readers.
Importantly, in this passage, Irenaeus connects these miracles back to the gifts that Christ gave the church after his death and resurrection. He also points out that these miracles are not performed from deception, and, instead, they were performed for a specific purpose: “the welfare of other men”.
So, if God continued to give people the ability to exercise miraculous (sign) gifts in the 2nd century, after the apostles died and after Scripture had been written, when did these gifts cease?
Reformation period church meetings
As part of my PhD studies, my PhD mentor, Dave Black, is guiding through the study of church meetings through various periods of church history. Last week, we looked at various aspects of church meetings during the Reformation period. One of the books that I found helpful was Owen Chadwick’s The Early Reformation on the Continent (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
In his discussion of church meetings, Chadwick begins with some common beliefs of the early reformers:
Everyone agreed that services in church should be simpler, with less elaborate ritual; that they should be in the language which the people understood; and that they should contain nothing which was contrary to Scripture or could not be justified from Scripture. (181)
Most would agree with this today. However, he continues:
It was also agreed that the congregation should be a people that took part with the clergy and did not sit or stand silent while the clergy read the service or the choir sang. How this could be done was harder. (181)
Thus, according to Chadwick, the early reformers recognized that the whole congregation (not just “the clergy”) should take part in the church meeting. They were not content with a passive audience who simple listened to teaching, reading, or singing. Instead, they expected a church that took part in the meeting.
So, what happened? Well, according to Chadwick, the reformers could not determine how to have this type of meeting while ensuring that the meeting also stayed focused on teaching the Scriptures. He said that the early reformers emphasized teaching (and a certain style of teaching) to such an extent that it eclipsed their desire to have a participatory meeting.
Unfortunately, many of the people could not read, which meant they could not read the Scriptures. So, for many of the reformers (but not the radical reformers) education took center stage. Only the educated could read and understand the Scriptures, so only the educated should be allowed to take part in the church meeting:
There must be teaching. If parts of the service were regarded as a vehicle for information, even if the lesson was about the Bible, then it was not like a corporate act but like a schoolmaster talking to pupils. In the eyes of reformers the crime of the medieval liturgy was its clericalism. Without seeing the peril, they brought back a new form of clericalism and made the role of the pastor as bulky as that of the former priest. (199)
So, according to Chadwick, this new “clericalism” arose from a desire to teach the Bible and especially the gospel. Since so many of the people within the congregation could not read, they could not take part in the readings or teachings or hymns, unless something was memorized, and thus the growth of creeds during the Reformation. However, as Chadwick points out, the “solution” turned out to be another form of “clericalism” where the pastor assumes the role of the medieval priest.
The question, at least for me, is the following: Is there a mediating position? Teaching is important and understanding Scripture is important. Does Scripture give us the idea that only those who can read should be allowed to take part in the church meeting?
I believe the early reformers were very sincere in their desire to uphold the importance of teaching Scripture in the church meetings. But, I think they made a mistake when they placed the emphasis on education. Would you agree? If they should not have emphasized teaching by the educated, then what type of teaching should they have emphasized?
Someone is questioning Calvin?
It appears that Lionel from “A Better Covenant” is questioning the great apostle Calvin in his last (no, really, this time it is the last) blog post called “Did Calvin’s Ecclesiology Produce a Faux Flower?” Before you burn Lionel in effigy (since you can’t burn him at the stake any longer), consider his questions carefully:
Did Calvin’s and the Reformers Ecclesiology force them to produce a faux flower? Given the fact that the Church and the State were in a ungodly marriage under the tyranny of the Reformers how could they both force people into Christendom and justify that these individuals, coerced by the sword as they were, were really part of the true Church? How about the invisible/visible church distinction?
So again if everyone in a given locale are in the “Church” (this was the doctrine of these gentleman ungodly as it was)who was genuinely saved? We understand that coercion of faith forced them to justify the erroneous doctrine of baptizing infants. So the questions are quite simple though maybe a bit more complex to answer.
We understand that Calvin’s false ecclesiology forced them to baptize infants so is the “TULIP” also a product of a false ecclesiology driven by the refusal to separate the State from the Kingdom? Also why do we feel that if Calvin was off on so much (and he was) why was he right on this?
John Calvin is a very important figure in Christianity. But, I think its good to examine his works critically, much like we would examine the works of any human. He is not perfect.
Unfortunately, listening to some people talk – especially around the seminary – it appears that we may have as many Calvinians (or the modern version – Piperinians) as Christians.
What do you think? How does Calvin’s ecclesiology affect other parts of his theology?
Following Ignatius
Ignatius of Antioch was one of the earliest Christian writers following the apostles. He died sometime around 110 AD in Rome. After being arrested in Antioch, he was led to Rome through Asia Minor. On the way, he wrote seven letters, six to churches and one to Polycarp.
Ignatius was very interested in the gospel. Ignatius’ gospel was a literal interpretation of the historical events and persons surrounding the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, and continuing ministry of Jesus Christ. His desire was to see Christians living in harmony with the one gospel.
In order to exhort Christians toward harmony with the one gospel, Ignatius also encouraged them toward a three-part church leadership structure that included one bishop, multiple elders, and multiple deacons per city.
Evangelicals are proud of the fact that we follow Scripture and not traditions such as those espoused by Ignatius. But, do we follow Ignatius over Scripture? You can judge for yourself…
By being subject to the bishop and the elders, you might be sanctified concerning all things. (Ign. Eph. 2.2b)
Let us make every effort then not to oppose the bishop in order that we might submit ourselves to God. (Ign. Eph. 5.3b)
Therefore, as the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united with him, neither by himself nor by the apostles, in the same way you must do nothing without the biship and the elders. (Ign. Mag. 7.1a)
The one who does anything without the bishop, the elders, and the deacons, such a man is not clean in his conscience. (Ign. Trall. 7.2b)
Let that Eucharist be considered proper which is either by the bishop or by the one he permits. (Ign. Smyr. 8.1b)
It is not proper to baptize or to have a “love feast” without the bishop. (Ign. Smyr. 8.2b)
The one who honors the bishop is honored by God; the one who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop serves (worships?) the devil. (Ign. Smyr. 9.1b)
It is fitting for men and women who marry to make there union by the approval of the bishop. (Ign. Pol. 5.2b)
These are only a few of the passages. I left out passages where Ignatius said that same thing to different churches. So, according to Ignatius, believers should do nothing with the consent of the bishop and elders. In fact, those who do anything without their leaders obviously have impure motives (unclean conscience). No one should have a love feast (Eucharist, communion) or baptize without the bishop’s approval. No one should get married without the bishop’s approval. If believers stay within the bishop’s will, then they are sanctified. If they move outside the bishop’s will, then they are in trouble, actually going against God himself to serve the devil.
Change “bishop” to “senior pastor”, and I think this fits very closely with many modern teachings concerning church leadership. You can especially find these types of teachings under topic of spiritual “covering”. But, I don’t think you’ll find these in Scripture.
Are we willing to admit that in many of our leadership concepts and practices in the church we follow Ignatius more closely than we follow Scripture?
Early church gatherings
In his book From Synagogue to Church: Public services and offices in the earliest Christian communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), James Tunstead Burtchaell discusses the synagogue and the church in the first and early second century. In this book, Burtchaell discusses the history, development, practices, and officers of the synagogue and compares and contrasts these with the church as described in the New Testament and the writings of the apostolic fathers.
(By the way, for those who were interested in the previous post about meals in the synagogue – see, “Sacred Meals in the Synagogue” – Burtchaell also suggests that meals were shared as part of synagogue meetings, but he doesn’t go into detail.)
In his discussion of church meetings, Burtchaell begins with synagogue meetings. Why? Because he says that we can only understand what happened when the church met by studying what happened when the synagogue met, because early Christians came out of the synagogue. For example, he says:
We lack evidence that the first Christians assembled to read and consider the scriptures. Yet scholars without exception accept that they did. On what grounds? Because we can assume that the practice attested later can be projected backwards into the first century documentation? No. It is because this practice was established in the Jewish synagogue from which Christians emerged, and later reappeared, after a hiatus in specific information, in the churches of later years. (pg. 272)
Now, I disagree that we “lack evidence” that the early church read Scripture during their meetings. Paul seemed to think that they would read his letters (for example, Col. 4:16), and he specifically instructed Timothy to be devoted to reading, exhortation, and teaching. While the instruction to Timothy is not necessarily concerning Scripture, I think it makes sense.
Either way, Burtchaell’s statement is thought-provoking to say the least. How much of our understanding about early church practices should we take from the synagogue. Certainly, some things changed – and there were some major changes. But, what about the things that may not have changed?
Furthermore, Burtchaell gathered evidence from various NT books and early Christian writers to develop the following list of practices during the meeting of the early church:
Locally they would gather for various community undertakings: to deliberate and adopt common policy (Galatians, Acts, Barnabas); to read and discuss the scriptures (this we can only infer) and correspondence with the churches (1 Thessalonians, Colossians, Acts, Polycarp); to pray in common (1 Corinthians, Acts); to break bread (1 Corinthians, Acts, Didache, Ignatius, Diognetus); to exhort one another to walk morally before the Lord (1 Corinthians, Acts, 1 Timothy) and to discipline those who defaulted (Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, 2 John); to designate and empower officers (Acts, 1 Timothy, Polycarp, Hermas); to arrange for collections for the indigent (1 Corinthians, Hebrews). As we have noted already, this goes far to justifying Acts 2:42 as a summary of early Christian assemblies: “These remained faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers”. (pg. 287)
A couple of years ago, I put together a similar list from only the NT authors. Do you agree with Burtchaell’s list of early church meeting practices? Do you think something should be added or removed? Should the church continue these same practices when they meet together?
The changing role of the "layman"
Everett Ferguson edited a book called Church, Ministry, and Organization in the Early Church Era (New York: Garland Publishing, 1993). The book is a collection of articles concerning early church leadership.
One chapter, “The Role of the Layman in the Ancient Church,” was originally a speech given by George Huntston Williams to “the working party gathered by the Department on the Laity of the World Council of Churches, New Haven, Connecticut, July 21, 1957”. In this article, Huntston discusses the changing role of the layman in the early church.
First, Huntston defines what he means by “laity”:
Our understanding of the laity will be shaped, not primarily in terms of ordination and the lack thereof, nor of theological education and the relative want thereof, but rather in terms of the Church gathered for worship, instruction, and deliberation (ekklesia) over against the equally important “church†diffused or scattered or seeded in the work-a-day world (diaspora) as leaven in the lump (not as wheat among tares!). On this view even the ordained cleric is, in a sense, in his action as husbandman and citizen a ‘laic.’ (pg 273-274)
Thus, Huntston is differentiating between those who remain in one place (“laity”), and those who are scattered and move around from place to place.
While I don’t use the term “laity” in its traditional sense, it is a valid scriptural term. The Greek word behind the English “laity” simply means “people”. It is the term used when the church is referred to as the “people of God”. Thus, as Huntston says, all Christians are “laity” in this sense.
How did the “role of the layman” change in the early church? Well, Huntston describes three different states (although I would assume there would be some overlap):
At three points is the position of the laity markedly different in the ante- and the post-Nicene epochs. In the very first days of the Church’s self-consciousness as a new people set apart, the whole of the Church as the laos tou theou [people of God] was seen over against the people of the old covenant, while the baptismal recruits were understood to have entered into a priestly kingdom, neither Jew nor Gentile, no longer in bondage to the world about them, yet servants of the King to come. Then, with the maturation of subapostolic Christianity, this historico-thoelogical conviction made room for the functional differentiation between the clerical officers of the priestly people of God and the unordained faithful in a process which was completed before the end of the persecutions and which was indeed abetted by them. The bishop had become an awesome monarch… Finally, with the conversion of Constantine and the Christianization of his office, Christianity in the period of the great councils found itself contrasting not clergy and laity as in the ante-Nicene period, but clergy and the chief of the laity, namely, the Christian emperor. (pg. 274-275)
According to Huntston, the role changed from a focus on the service (ministry) of all people of God, to a focus on the “ordained” people of God, to a focus on what he calls “the imperious royal-priestly claims of the Christianized head of state”.
I think other historians have made similar claims. The questions for us to consider are the following: Is this development normal and natural and should we continue developing the role and responsibilities of believers as times and customs dictate? If so, how do we determine how the roles of the people of God change? If not, how do we determine which “state” is preferred?
Didache on loving God and loving others
The Didache (“Teaching”) is one of the earliest Christian writings, probably written in the late first or early second century. (Here is an English translation.) The first chapter reads as follows:
There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself, and do not do to another what you would not want done to you. And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what reward is there for loving those who love you? Do not the Gentiles do the same? But love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy. Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. If someone strikes your right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you shall be perfect. If someone impresses you for one mile, go with him two. If someone takes your cloak, give him also your coat. If someone takes from you what is yours, ask it not back, for indeed you are not able. Give to every one who asks you, and ask it not back; for the Father wills that to all should be given of our own blessings (free gifts). Happy is he who gives according to the commandment, for he is guiltless. Woe to him who receives; for if one receives who has need, he is guiltless; but he who receives not having need shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what. And coming into confinement, he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape from there until he pays back the last penny. And also concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give.
Did you notice that the author begins with the command to love God and love others, but then his exhortations shift to how we demonstrate love toward others. Why do you think the author did this? Was he wrong in his focus?
Polycarp to Presbyters
In the last few years, as I’ve been studying the history of the church, I have become very interested in the writings of the apostolic fathers – those Christians who lived and wrote soon after the death of the apostles. When they wrote about the church, they often diverged in their opinions – especially when it comes to church leadership.
Sometime around 110 AD, Ignatius was being taken from Antioch to Rome to be executed. On the way, he wrote seven letters – six letters to churches and one to Polycarp, who he addressed as the bishop of the church in Antioch. A few years later, Polycarp wrote a letter to the church in Phillipi.
In his letters, Ignatius focused on the authority of the bishops and the presbyters. But, Polycarp focused on another aspect of the life of Christian leaders. This is what he wrote to the Christians in Phillipi:
And let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful to all, bringing back those who have been misled, being concerned about all the sick, and not neglecting a widow, an orphan, or a poor person, but always “providing for that which is good in the sight of God and man;” abstaining from all anger, partiality, and unrighteous judgment; staying far away from all covetousness, not hastily believing anything against anyone, not being abrupt in judgment, knowing that we are all debtors to sin. (Pol., Phil., 6.1)
As an elder, I think it is interesting to see this exhortation from Polycarp. Of course, this is powerful because it aligns with what Scripture says about elders, as well as all followers of Jesus Christ. May we all take Polycarps exhortation seriously, and exhort one another to live in a way (like this) that brings glory to God.
Spurgeon’s "Building the Church"
These are excerpts from Charles H. Spurgeon’s sermon entitled “Building the Church” (or “Additions to the Church”) concerning Acts 2 which he gave on April 5, 1874.
I want you to notice this, that they were breaking bread from house to house, and ate their food with gladness and singleness of heart. They did not think that religion was meant only for Sundays, and for what men now-a-days call the House of God. Their own houses were houses of God, and their own meals were so mixed and mingled with the Lord’s Supper that to this day the most cautious student of the Bible cannot tell when they stopped eating their common meals, and when they began eating the Supper of the Lord. They elevated their meals into diets for worship: they so consecrated everything with prayer and praise that all around them was holiness to the Lord. I wish our houses were, in this way, dedicated to the Lord, so that we worshipped God all day long, and made our homes temples for the living God…
Does God need a house? He who made the heavens and the earth, does he dwell in temples made with hands? What crass ignorance this is! No house beneath the sky is more holy than the place where a Christian lives, and eats, and drinks, and sleeps, and praises the Lord in all that he does, and there is no worship more heavenly than that which is presented by holy families, devoted to the fear of the Lord.
To sacrifice home worship to public worship is a most evil course of action. Morning and evening devotion in a little home is infinitely more pleasing in the sight of God than all the cathedral pomp which delights the carnal eye and ear. Every truly Christian household is a church, and as such it is competent for the discharge of any function of divine worship, whatever it may be. Are we not all priests? Why do we need to call in others to make devotion a performance? Let every man be a priest in his own house. Are you not all kings if you love the Lord? Then make your houses palaces of joy and temples of holiness. One reason why the early church had such a blessing was because her members had such homes. When we are like them we will have “added to the church those who were being saved.
(HT: Jeff)
Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 2
This blog posts continues my short series on a passage in Tertullian’s Apology that deals with church meetings around 200 AD. The first entry in this series was called “Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 1“. The following passage from chapter 39 follows from the passage in the previous post:
Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety’s deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God’s Church, they become the nurslings of their confession.
This passage obviously deals with money. The church that Tertullian met took up an offering. But, notice what this offering was used for: caring for the poor, orphans, older people confined to their homes, victims of shipwrecks, and those who were being punished in various ways because they were Christians.
It is interesting that this collection was taken monthly, not weekly. Also, it does not appear that believers were required or even asked to give a certain percentage of their income to this collection.
Tertullian was very clear in pointing out that this collection was not used to fund lavish feasts or parties. Some of his pagan opponents were probably suggesting that the Christian’s “Agape” feasts (which are discussed later) were simply drunken orgies. Tertullian is countering this claim by pointing out that the people gave money to support those who were in need – even those who were not part of their specific group of Christians.
What do you think about Tertullian’s description of church collections in 200 AD? How does Tertullian’s description of collections compare to collections (“tithes and offerings”?) today? How does Tertullian’s description compare to Scripture?
—————————————————–
Series:
1. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 1
2. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 2
3. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 3