Ireanaeus on pillar and ground of truth

[DM_P]

When we read 1 Timothy 3:15 we see that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

However, Ireneaus pointed out in Against Heresies 3:1:1-2 he said “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.”

This is an argument from a baptist who wants to downplay Irenaeus’ credibility and probably an argument for sola scriptura.

Your thought on this? Thank you all in advance.

David

 

[MT1926]

However, Ireneaus pointed out in Against Heresies 3:1:1-2 he said “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.”

Faith is the complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Truth is the quality of being in accordance with fact or reality. It is also the final point in an argument and discussion.

Faith and truth are not synonyms.

The Scriptures are the ground and pillar of our trust in God, but we need the Church to guide us in all truth.

Why is this necessary? Because we can take the scriptures build a pillar on that ground and derive our faith. However, there is absolutely know way to know if our faith equals truth unless we also have a pillar and foundation of the truth. The Catholic Church is the one true Church, found by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to be His final arbiter, here on earth, to give us the knowledge to know our faith equals truth.

I looked up Against Heresies on New Advent and misread what you wrote. I clicked on Book 1 instead of Book 3. Now that I read it I think the Holy Spirit wanted me to find this…

Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 3)

Texts of Holy Scripture used by these heretics to support their opinions.

You can read the whole Chapter here if you like. Here’s the part that makes the most sense to me…

1. Such, then, is the account which they all give of their Pleroma, and of the formation of the universe, striving, as they do, to adapt the good words of revelation to their own wicked inventions. And it is not only from the writings of the evangelists and the apostles that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected. And others of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a steadfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

There is no way Irenaeus ever supported sola scriptura.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[Spyridon]

Tell your baptist friend that it is improper to quote the Fathers out of context.

In the same place in AH 3:1:1, the Saint writes:

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”

The Saint is not advocating sola Scriptura. He is saying that both the Gospels (Sacred Scripture) and the preaching of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul (Sacred Tradition) are the foundations of the Church!

And in the very next chapter of the same book III, we read:

“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.”

As is clearly seen even from these short snippets, St. Irenaeus was a Catholic Christian, not some sort of proto-Protestant.

St. Irenaeus, pray for us!

 

[Ernie07]

Hi David,

I’m going to take a different tact then most will take, but one I’ve found to be effective. Whenever I debated a Protestant on any topic it always was their interpretation of scripture versus mine (the Church’s interpretation), which almost always ended up with a back and forth discussion ending in an agreement to disagree. That is why even trained Catholic apologists have trouble convincing their Protestant counterparts. I found a similar thing happening when I quoted early Church Fathers. Those that I would debate would interpret what was quoted very differently than my interpretation and some early quotes seemed to even hurt my arguments. It became hugely frustrating for me. So I changed my strategy.

I now only quote Church councils as they are both much more direct in their language and represent the entire Church. As soon as your friend quoted Ireneaus I would quote from the second ecumenical council in Constantinople in 381 A.D. where the Church was deemed “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic”. At the same council Sabellius and Macedonius were excommunicated (before the NT was even decreed!). If the Church was able to excommunicate it clearly had authority and since this occurred prior to the decree of the books that comprised the NT, sola scriptura becomes moot. A lesson in the Bible timeline would also be appropriate so that your friend understands that the 73 book Bible that was used for 1000 years as the Bible of the Church was changed to 66 books.

Your friend will likely say something to the effect of not believing any “Catholic” council. At this point you can point out that at that time it was just the Christian Church called catholic (small “c”) because it was the universal church. No other group even claimed to be the universal church. Yes, there were heretical groups that may have disagreed with the universal Church on a certain belief, but not on the universal claim. Ask your friend what other Christian organization even claimed to be the Church Jesus described in MT 16:18 when Jesus said that He would build and protect His Church? Rather than playing the “my interpretation is better than yours” game I change the game to “who believed as you believe?”. If there is no evidence that the Church (not individual believers) believed as you believe then it is simply a man-made opinion and false.

I now use this type of logic for any attack someone has on the Catholic faith. Just another angle to defend the faith. Anyway, I hope this helps.

-Ernie-

 

[De_Maria]

When we read 1 Timothy 3:15 we see that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

However, Ireneaus pointed out in Against Heresies 3:1:1-2 he said “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.”

This is an argument from a baptist who wants to downplay Irenaeus’ credibility and probably an argument for sola scriptura.

Your thought on this? Thank you all in advance.

David

I’ll also take a slightly different tact. Let’s break that down a bit further and grab just a bit more context, as well. Just to give you a hint as to where I’m going with this, consider this question.

Why, during the Mass, do we stand for the Gospel reading, but not for the other Scripture readings?

Ok, here we go.

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation,

1. Who are these “none others”?
2. And what is this “plan of salvation”?

than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us,

That answers question #2. The plan of salvation is the Gospel.

which they did at one time proclaim in public,

They, these none others, at one time, proclaimed the Gospel in public.

and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures,

But later, handed down the Gospel in Scripture.

So, we’ve isolated two facts about these “none others”, they preached the Gospel in public, but later handed it down in Scripture. That means it started with the Apostles and continued with the Church.

to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

So, what is the ground and pillar of our faith? The Gospel or the Scriptures?

It sounds to me as though its the Gospel. Why? Because that has been the main point from the beginning. We’ll see more of that later in the treatise.

But, did you notice that they preached early on and then handed the Gospel down in Scripture? Does that mean they stopped preaching? Let’s read on.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

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.

Now, apparently, some of the heretics against whom St. Irenaeus is arguing, claimed that the Apostles’ preaching was not inspired. Hm? Haven’t we heard that before, even today, by those who claim that Scripture alone is inspired?

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:

That’s a pretty clear declaration that all the Apostles, not just the 12, but the 120 (see Acts 1:15) who were dwelling together at Pentecost, were filled with the Holy Spirit and given perfect knowledge of the Gospel.

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.

And so, they preached the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Thus, no, they never stopped preaching. Thus, they never stopped handing down the Gospel by oral Tradition. And, they did it perfectly.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

Note how St. Matthew is credited with writing a Gospel in Hebrew. But Sts. Peter and Paul were laying down the foundation of the Church, by preaching the Gospel in Rome.

Is “foundation of the Church” the same thing as “ground and pillar of our faith”? Yes, I think so. Sts. Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome.

So, if your friend likes St. Irenaeus, there are several anti-Catholic objections you can destroy with this excerpt.

1. The claim that Scripture alone is inspired, is false. The Apostles were inspired to preach with perfect knowledge.
2. Tradition continues after Scripture is written.
3. The Gospel is the pillar and ground of our faith and foundation of our Church.
4. Sts. Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.

Anyway, that’s the way I read it. I hope that helps.