Irenaeus and the Proof of the Gospel
It is a sad fact that most Protestants have ceded post-New Testament history to agnostics, skeptics, and liberal biblical critics. Because so much of church history was being used to defend the Roman Catholic Church, early Protestants insisted that no history after the Acts of the Apostles mattered. Such a position has proven extremely short-sighted as we have abandoned events important even to Protestants. In fact, early Christian history supports biblical doctrine. As an example, consider the proofs that church father Irenaeus used to defend the gospel.
Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyon in Gaul (today, France) in the second half of the second century A.D. He was best known for describing and rejecting Gnosticism and other “alternative Christianities” in his seminal work, Against Heresies, published between 170 and 189. He based his knowledge of the true teaching of Jesus on conversations with Polycarp, the bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, who tutored Irenaeus. Polycarp himself was a disciple of the Apostle John and learned from him. Unlike Gnostics or other second century heretics, the views of Irenaeus were based on what the apostles taught, not second-hand information or surmises. It was, therefore, more trustworthy.
Irenaeus defended biblical Christianity using three proofs. First, he based his beliefs about Jesus on the gospels. According to what he learned from Polycarp, there were only four gospels accepted, which were all eyewitness accounts from those who had known Jesus or the apostles. Irenaeus knew of and quoted from other gospels, but he averred these were almost all second-century forgeries. The four gospels, he observed, were far more reliable than the shifting doctrines of the Gnostics, which changed from one generation to the next because they were based only on secret oral teaching. The second proof that Irenaeus mentioned in defending biblical Christianity was apostolic tradition. While many today discount oral tradition, in fact eyewitness testimony is an important part of the historical record, and it is especially important in ancient history. Irenaeus’ views of tradition were based on his concept of apostolic succession, that the apostles appointed and taught church leaders, who then taught the next generation and the next in direct succession, but he defined the term narrowly to discuss transmission of the truth, not that bishops were above reproach, not least the bishop of Rome.
Catholics especially have made much of the doctrine of apostolic succession and the statement of Irenaeus that the bishop of Rome was the keeper of doctrine in his day. However, there are three problems with the belief that Irenaeus supported the infallibility of the pope or Roman priority. One is that he stressed that the writings of the apostles were superior to mere oral teachings. Another is that Irenaeus stated that every church established by the apostles (including his own) had similar access to traditions. The last is that, according to a letter quoted by church historian Eusebius, Irenaeus once rebuked Pope Victor for opposing celebration of the Passover. In other words, he wasn’t afraid of correcting the bishop of Rome or any other church leader if they opposed the scriptures. Thus, the apostolic tradition of which he spoke confirmed biblical doctrine taught to church leaders across Christendom; it couldn’t be used to support practices not discussed in the Bible or the dictates of one church over others. This is a misreading of Irenaeus.
The third proof that Irenaeus mentioned in defending biblical Christianity was miracles. He observed that in his day he had witnessed healing, exorcisms, people raised from the dead, prophecies, and other miracles. These signs happened routinely in the church. Gnostics and other heretics experienced none of this. It is amazing that so many in the church now reject all such signs, which were once considered convincing proof of the truth of the gospel. Irenaeus would no doubt have been appalled. Early Protestant leaders rejected miracles for the same reason they rejected extrabiblical history – they felt it supported the Catholic Church. However, those who reject the history of miracles in the church are cutting themselves off from one of the main signs used to defend the gospel in the New Testament and post-New Testament church.
Irenaeus shows us the importance of the history of the early church. Why do we believe that the gospel we preach is correct? Because the apostles passed down to later generations eyewitness accounts in the canonical gospels, because they affirmed in private teaching biblical doctrine, and because miracles confirmed the truth of biblical doctrine, not only in the apostles’ day, but continually. If we neglect Christian history, we surrender this clear testimony to those trying to rewrite the past. We must study history if we are to defend the truth.
