PaulDupre:
Thank you. I also read the entire article, and it is just as I suspected. Iranaeus was not admitting that there might be a god above God the Father, and cautioning against speculating about it (which was your clear and dishonest implication).
This just shows that different people have different levels of reading comprehension. There is no need to question someone’s honesty here. I think it is pretty common as your post on my other thread suggests to interpret scripture differently. Well the same phenomenom occurs in interpretting the ECFs. If you think your reading is better, it might – if I can humbly suggest – be better to wow us with your brilliance instead of engaging in ad hominem. I linked to the article in question fully expecting others to read it and give us different takes.
He was condemning one of the many gnostic/pagan heresies (which have cropped up again in Mormonism - the new gnostic religion) that God has human attributes and so must have been born as a human is born and therefore must have a father and a mother.
I do see that he criticizing a strand of gnostic belief in a
Demiurge existing in between Jesus and God the Father. Whether Ireneaus believes God has human attributes has to be settled in his other writings. I see his caution about speculating about how many hairs God has on His head presumes God has hairs on his head. If he didn’t believe so, I would say he probably wouldn’t caution against speculating, but that he would flat out answer the question as “none, God doesn’t have hair, despite how Bible literalists have always interpretted.” Instead of, to paraphrase, you don’t worry about how many hairs humans have so why worry about how many God has?
His reasons for not speculating in that case are analogous. If he is confident that God has no Father, then what harm does it do to ask a question. The question could be confidently answered “no”. Instead Irenaeus’s analogy focuses on how unknowable it is since Paul says “we know in part, and prophesy in part”. Futhermore such things “cannot be placed under our observation.”
Iranaeus (sic) states that this is foolishness, and I agree with him.
Me too! But his nuanced position is more in alignment with LDS belief. Both Irenaeus and LDS agree it is foolishness to speculate about God having a Father. Present day Catholicism so confidently answers the question as “no” that a person might feel foolish for even asking.
later,
fool
