Irenaeus was a very important second-century church father. He was Bishop of Lyon in Gaul. His work Against Heresies was written around 180 A.D. It's primary purpose was to combat the Gnostic heresies that were troubling the orthodox church in those days. His work is an important witness to the doctrine and practice of the orthodox church in his day.
I've reprinted the sections below because they shed light on the early church's view of the authority of Scripture. They are therefore particularly relevant for more recent controversies between Protestants and Romanists and Eastern Orthodox over Sola Scriptura, the authority of the church, extra-biblical apostolic traditions, etc. These passages are often cited as supporting a Romanist or an Eastern Orthodox view of the the authority of the church and extra-biblical traditions over against the Protestant assertion of Sola Scriptura, but I think a closer and more complete-context reading leads to the opposite conclusion. I will provide inline comments interspersed with the complete text below.
Chapter I:
1. 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. [3309] What is the ground and pillar of our faith? It is the Scriptures. Notice that Irenaeus does not speak of two permanent, distinct parts of revelation--Scripture and unwritten traditions--as Romanists and Eastern Orthodox do. He speaks of the oral tradition of the apostles as eventually having been written down and now found in the Scriptures. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews [3310] in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations 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. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.
__________________________________________________________________
[3309] See 1 Tim. iii. 15, where these terms are used in reference to the Church. [3310] On this and similar statements in the Fathers, the reader may consult Dr. Roberts's Discussions on the Gospels, in which they are fully criticised, and the Greek original of St. Matthew's Gospel maintained. __________________________________________________________________
Chapter II:
1. When, however, they That is, the Gnostics. are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same 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. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." [3311] And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, [3312] who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
Note the argument of the Gnostics rejected by Irenaeus: When Scripture is urged against their teachings, they respond that the Scripture is ambiguous or unclear (or even erroneous), and that it cannot be properly understood without the light of an extra-biblical tradition which exists not in written form but "vivâ voce" (that is, by "living voice"--i.e. orally). This is, of course, the same claim urged by Romanists and Eastern Orthodox today: Scripture is too ambiguous or unclear to be understood aright by ordinary people reading it, unless they submit to understand it as an extra-biblical oral tradition (preserved outside the Bible by the church) interprets it.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
There is indeed an authentic tradition passed down in the church, originating from the apostles and preserved by the succession of the presbyters (elders). The Gnostics reject this as well. Does this tradition passed down in the church consist of elements that aren't in the Scriptures? Irenaeus said earlier that what the apostles taught at one time in public, they eventually wrote down in the Scriptures, and he objected above to the Gnostic idea that the Scriptures are too ambiguous to be understood apart from a distinct extra-biblical oral tradition. So this tradition passed down in the church is not an extra-biblical revelation with extra-biblical content; it is simply the presbyters preserving in their teaching the same doctrine that was written down in the Scriptures.
3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Wherefore they must be opposed at all points, if perchance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it. __________________________________________________________________
[3311] 1 Cor. ii. 6. [3312] This is Harvey's rendering of the old Latin, in illo qui contra disputat. __________________________________________________________________
Chapter III:
1. 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; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
Irenaeus appeals to the universal (catholic) tradition of the mainstream church throughout the world. Each of the mainstream churches, in contrast with the Gnostics, can produce a pedigree that shows that their bishops are traceable to a line of bishops which goes back to the apostles. In other words, these bishops are those who received the appointment of the apostles originally. Surely, then, if the apostles had some secret, vivâ voce revelation which they wished to pass down, as the Gnostics claim, they would have delivered it to those whom they actually appointed as their successors in the churches. Therefore, the fact that these presbyters know nothing of the Gnostic ideas or claimed revelations is strong evidence that the Gnostics have made their claims up out of their own imaginations.
Note that Irenaeus's argument is not that we should trust the presbyters of the mainstream churches as infallible authorities who cannot err, or that we should trust what they say over our own reading of Scripture. His argument is not so much a theological argument about authority as a historical argument. He is simply appealing to the historical fact that the mainstream churches have an apostolic pedigree that that Gnostics lack to show the groundlessness of their claims to have secret, extra-biblical revelatory information. It is as if someone were to claim to know something secret and very important about me, and then my wife stepped forward to refute this claim by saying, "I am closer to my husband than anyone. If something as important as what you say were true, surely I would know about. But I don't, and so your claim is called into question." This is not an exact parallel, but hopefully it conveys the basic idea.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; We see here the importance of the unity of the church for determining the legitimacy of churches. A church which is unjustly out of communion with the rest of the catholic church does not possess formal legitimacy. Its meetings are thus "unauthorized." [we do this, I say,] by indicating 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 time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, [3313] that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Since we don't have time to give a rendering of the successions of all the bishops in all the catholic churches of the world, says Irenaeus, let's focus on the Church of Rome, as it is such a key church--founded by Peter and Paul, and of great importance and authority. What gives it such great authority? See footnote 3313 below, which points out the difficulty of understanding some of Irenaeus's language here. But the basic idea seems to be that the Church of Rome, having been founded by Peter and Paul, and being in the capital city which is the hub of the whole empire, is in some ways preeminently a "catholic" church. Similarly, Calvin's Geneva became the preeminent Reformed church during the early days of the Reformation (thinking of the Reformed rather than the Lutherans) because, by God's providence, many resorted there from various parts of the world to learn, and because of the great influence of Calvin's writings.
Note that although this passage is often quoted by Romanists as an important part of their argument for the authority of the papacy from the church fathers, the text, looked at more carefully and objectively, does not give much hope to that claim. If Irenaeus had held the Romanist view that the Bishop of Rome was Peter's unique successor and that his teachings were infallible and the ultimate basis to determine orthodox doctrine in the church, surely now was the time to say it! He could have refuted the Gnostics by appealing to the authority of the pope. But, instead, he simply alludes to Rome as one example among others (albeit a very important example) of historic apostolic succession, he says that Peter and Paul founded the church (a very strange way to talk for someone who held a Romanist view of the papacy), and he doesn't appeal to the authority of the Church of Rome any further than is involved in making his historical, not theological, argument. He never tries to refute the Gnostics from the teachings of the Bishop of Rome, but spends the vast majority of his book making Scriptural arguments against them.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. What does this list mean for modern Romanists (and some Eastern Orthodox) who don't believe in the literal history of the Genesis account of creation and the flood? From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. Again, note the historical nature of Irenaeus's argument. The letter of Clement is of older date than the Gnostic claims (and Clement himself knew the apostles well), and yet it reflects the tradition of the catholic churches and of the Scriptures and knows nothing of the Gnostic ideas and claims. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; Coincidence? :-) after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. And in all of this, there is nothing of the Gnostic heresies.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, [3314] departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. [3315] There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." [3316] There is also a very powerful [3317] Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
Not content with citing the example of Rome, Irenaeus appeals to Polycarp and the Church of Smyrna, and to the Church of Ephesus. Like the Church of Rome, these are churches which can trace their historical pedigree back to the apostles. Irenaeus points out that all these churches have the same faith, which happens to be the same faith taught in the Scriptures, and they know nothing of the Gnostic heresies but have opposed them since they arose.
It should be noted that Irenaeus, writing about 180 A.D. (less than a full hundred years after the time of the apostles and the end of the writing of the New Testament), is well situated to make the historical argument he is making here, and it is a very powerful argument. The argument grows weaker the further away from the apostles we get in history, and the bigger and more fragmented the church becomes. Today, the argument is meaningless. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, and a number of other churches can all trace themselves in a direct, clear line back to the apostles, and yet it is obvious that this does not guarantee their orthodoxy, for they contradict each other in various important points of doctrine and practice. This is one reason why it is important to note that Irenaeus's argument is a historical one, contingent on his own historical circumstances, and not a universal theological argument.
__________________________________________________________________
[3313] The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam." Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original "potiorem principalitatem" may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: "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." (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) 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 here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth's St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome. [3314] Polycarp suffered about the year 167, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. His great age of eighty-six years implies that he was contemporary with St. John for nearly twenty years. [3315] So the Greek. The Latin reads: "which he also handed down to the Church." [3316] Tit. iii. 10. [3317] ikanotate. Harvey translates this all-sufficient, and thus paraphrases: But his Epistle is all-sufficient, to teach those that are desirous to learn. __________________________________________________________________
Chapter IV:
1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. [3318] For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question [3319] among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
Does it not make sense, argues Irenaeus, that if a dispute should arise among us, we should consult the most ancient churches with the best pedigrees to help resolve it? After all, they are closer to the source and so more likely to be accurate. This is a good summary of the basic historical argument he has been making.
Note the importance of the last two sentences in this paragraph. "IF the apostles themselves had not left us writings," would it not have been necessary in that case to follow the traditions of the churches with the best historical pedigrees? But, in fact, they have left us writings--the Holy Scriptures. There, they wrote down their teachings, so that we can find them sufficiently there. In this case, we don't need to look to the traditions of the churches to find the apostolic teaching, though it is there as well. This way of speaking indicates again that Irenaeus did not think of the traditions of the churches as adding anything not already in the Scriptures. The tradition of the church is identical to the content of the Scriptures, because what the apostles originally taught, the same they handed down in writings, and the same did they commit to be handed down by the presbyters. These are all the same for Irenaeus, and that contradicts the Romanist and the Eastern Orthodox claim that the church has handed down extra-biblical traditions vivâ voce. The only place we find that idea in Irenaeus is his description of the beliefs of the Gnostics. It is the Gnostics, according to Irenaeus, who hold that the Scriptures are incomplete or unclear so that they cannot be understood except in light of extra-biblical vivâ voce traditions. The catholic orthodox church, by contrast, holds that the apostolic teaching, including all that the apostles preached publicly, is found in the Scriptures, that the Scriptures are clear enough to be understood (and so we would only need to appeal to the traditions of the catholic churches as our final authority if the apostles had not left us the Scriptures), and that therefore the Scriptures are the "ground and pillar of our faith."
2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, [3320] believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, [3321] have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
The barbarians are in fact in the situation described as hypothetical in the preceding paragraph. They cannot read Greek or Hebrew, and so do not have the Scriptures in their own language. They therefore must rely on the transmission of the teaching of the apostles through the traditions of the church. Their beliefs give the lie to the Gnostics because they match the same apostolic tradition which is held in all the mainstream, well-pedigreed, catholic churches and which is in the Scriptures that they cannot read.
3. For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity. For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. [3322] Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated [3323] from the assembly of the brethren. Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. But the rest, who are called Gnostics, take rise from Menander, Simon's disciple, as I have shown; and each one of them appeared to be both the father and the high priest of that doctrine into which he has been initiated. But all these (the Marcosians) broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church.
Having illustrated the apostolic pedigree of the catholic churches, Irenaeus now contrasts to that the pitiful pedigrees of the Gnostics. Unlike the catholics, the Gnostics took their rise from a variety of individual teachers (who contradict each other and founded different sects) who sprang up long after the Scriptures were written and the catholic tradition had been established in the apostolic churches. It would be absurd, therefore, to trust their testimonies over those of the bishops who were originally appointed by the apostles or who can trace themselves in a short, direct line from those first bishops.
__________________________________________________________________
[3318] Rev. xxii. 17. [3319] Latin, "modica quæstione." [3320] [The uneducated barbarians must receive the Gospel on testimony. Irenæus puts apostolic traditions, genuine and uncorrupt, in this relation to the primary authority of the written word. 2 Thess. ii. 15, 2 Thess. iii. 6.] [3321] Literally, "without letters;" equivalent to, "without paper and ink," a few lines previously. [3322] The old Latin translation says the eighth bishop; but there is no discrepancy. Eusebius, who has preserved the Greek of this passage, probably counted the apostles as the first step in the episcopal succession. As Irenæus tells us in the preceding chapter, Linus is to be counted as the first bishop. [3323] It is thought that this does not mean excommunication properly so called, but a species of self-excommunication, i.e., anticipating the sentence of the Church, by quitting it altogether. See Valesius's note in his edition of Eusebius.
I don't have much to add to my commentary above. It seems to me that far from supporting the claims of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches to have extra-biblical, unwritten apostolic traditions, Irenaeus gives great historical support to the Protestant position of Sola Scriptura--that all the apostolic doctrine is contained in the Scriptures, which are, as Irenaeus put it, the "ground and pillar of our faith." As to the Romanist and the Eastern Orthodox claims to have an ability to infallibly interpret the Scriptures, so that their interpretations should be relied on as the final authority even when they seem to contradict the better reading of the Scriptures as far as we can tell, there is nothing of this in Irenaeus. His comments on the traditions of the catholic churches do not at all provide support to this sort of claim. His arguments against the Gnostics suggest, on the contrary, that it is the Scriptures that are our final authority, and that they are clear in themselves so that we need not and should not resort to blind reliance on some vivâ voce extra-biblical tradition to interpret them correctly.
For those who are interesting in learning more about what the church fathers have to say about Sola Scriptura and related topics, and how what they say relates to controversies between Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox, of course my first recommendation is to read the fathers themselves. After this, I highly recommend the work of William Webster, who has done an enormous amount of helpful research on these topics. See here and here for a couple of particularly useful articles dealing with Sola Scriptura and the church fathers. Also, see here for the second of a series of three important books written on this topic from a Protestant point of view.
UPDATE 11/29/14: I thought I'd add here another comment from Irenaeus, from the same book, Book II, Chapter 27, where he complains about the subjective methods of biblical interpretation in vogue among the Gnostics, and in doing so articulates his view of the clarity of the Scriptures. Irenaeus appeals to the Scriptures to refute the Gnostics, because he believes they are clear enough to show from themselves that the Gnostic ideas are wrong.
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; and [3210] since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown [3211] from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it,--those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own.
No comments:
Post a Comment