Irenaeus and John Hick (PhD Edit)

Irenaeus and John Hick (PhD Edit)

Preface

Photo: Notre-Dame, Lyon France (trekearth)

Irenaeus was a Priest in Lyon, France

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

A section from my PhD thesis. Slight edits and revision on 20251206.

Irenaeus

It is widely accepted that Hick is writing a theodicy within the Irenean tradition.[1] To Hick, Irenaeus believed God’s creation of humanity was the initial stage in a process that would lead to persons ultimately possessing the likeness of God.[2] Hick quotes Irenaeus in Against Heresies where humanity, in its original state is called immature.[3] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005) in Against Heresies deduces that God could have made humanity originally perfect, but the newness and immaturity of his actual creation made it impossible to grant.[4]

In Proof of Apostolic Preaching (c185)(2005), Irenaeus notes that human beings were as children in the beginning and were easily led astray by the deceiver.[5] A child as such is immature and needs to grow towards perfection.[6] Hick agrees with these concepts and suggests that the approach of Irenaeus is a rejection of the Augustinian idea of a fall in which human beings are viewed as morally perfect beings who rebelled against God.[7] Instead, humanity in a child-like way wandered away from the rule of their creator in a rather innocent fashion.[8] According to Hick, for Irenaeus the breaking away of God’s children from their creator was not so much a crime, but a youthful error,[9] and Hick views this process as a divinely appointed situation for human beings to develop towards the ultimate likeness of God.[10]

It seems clear that Hick and Irenaeus are in agreement that original humanity was spiritually and morally immature.[11] There does, however, appear in Ireneaus’ writings the idea of a loss of moral right standing with God due to an initial disobedience. Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998) writes, that the disobedience of one man caused many to become sinners and forfeit life, so it was needed for one man to justify and provide salvation to all.[12] This seems to support the possibility Irenaeus believed in original sin that occurred as human beings disobeyed God for the first time.[13] Original sin historically views persons as being born alienated from God,[14] assuming that the sin nature of the literal and historical Adam and Eve has spread to all descendents.[15] Calvin reasonably claims solidarity with Augustine’s view,[16] and indicates that the consequences of original sin means persons do not have the power to resist, as the will is in bondage until set free.[17] Augustine writes there is a ‘chain of original sin’ by which persons die in Adam.[18] He adds that in this condition, persons were born into misery.[19] Erickson suggests that due to Adam’s sin, all human beings received a corrupted nature,[20] and this is viewed as the imputation of original sin to persons.[21] All persons are not personally responsible for Adam’s sin, but all have inherited a corrupt nature.[22]

The doctrine of original sin is related to the fall concept and is viewed by many traditionalists as being a result of the fall.[23] The fall has already been discussed within Chapters Two and Three and therefore an extended discussion of the subject would be redundant. Gebara has a non-traditional perspective and cautiously suggests that original sin could be the somber experience of the transcendence and immanence of evil permeating through existence.[24] With this view evil could be the sin that engulfs all of God’s creation.[25] F.R. Tennant (1906) rejects a traditional doctrine of original sin[26] as he writes that the doctrine is self-condemned as the idea involves original guilt.[27] He reasons that guilt is only applicable to someone who has willingly committed an act,[28] and I would agree. I do not think that all human beings are guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve, or if one prefers, the first persons that disobeyed God.[29] I accept the doctrine of original sin in that the corrupted nature of humanity will inevitably lead to the human choice to commit wrong actions.[30] Tennant’s concept is to reject hypothetical prior causes of ‘sin’[31] and instead views human evil as the normal process of development that takes place in the human race.[32] Moral law would need to be established as humanity gradually develops over centuries.[33]

If Adam and Eve (my view), or the first human beings, disobeyed God and humanity became sinful in Irenaeus’ theology,[34] this means previously persons were not sinful and had been acceptable in the presence of God.[35] In Proof of Apostolic Preaching as previously noted, humanity is described in terms of children that were led astray by the deceiver.[36] They were influenced and transformed from a position of being right with God morally, to a position of being at a wrong place morally with God.[37] This indicates that Irenaeus believed human beings lost their original glorious place of stature and fellowship with God, although not a fall from a perfect, mature righteousness, but rather a departure from living in obedience to God.[38] For Irenaeus, through human disobedience, Adam and Eve were no longer acceptable to live in God’s Eden and were cast out.[39] If Irenaeus did not agree with the Augustinian position concerning the original perfect sinless nature of humanity,[40] he at least seemingly would agree that human beings had lost their moral position and right standing with their maker.[41] Harvard Professor, Everett Ferguson (1996) in his article ‘Irenaeus’ claims Irenaeus believed that what was lost in the disobedience because of the first Adam, was restored through the second Adam, Jesus Christ.[42] This again appears to make it possible that although Irenaeus and Hick have a similar view on the original immaturity of humanity,[43] that to Irenaeus the first human beings lost a right standing with God because of disobedience,[44] forfeiting a life of abundance with God.[45] Clearly it is plausible that Irenaeus would view this as some type of fall or departure from grace.[46] This does not mean that Irenaeus held to an Augustinian view of the fall,[47] but it appears Irenaeus understood human beings as being morally inferior to what they were previous to their initial sin against God.[48]

---

[1] Badham (2003: 27).

[2] Hick (1970: 218). Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).

[3] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).

[4] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2).

[5] Irenaeus (c 185)(2005: 14).

[6] Irenaeus (c 185)(2005: 14).

[7] Hick in Davis (2001: 40).

[8] Hick (1970: 220-221).

[9] Hick (1970: 220-221).

[10] Hick in Davis (2001: 41).

[11] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2). Hick (1970: 218).

[12] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[13] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[14] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 87).

[15] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 87).

[16] Calvin (1543)(1996: 105).

[17] Calvin (1543)(1996: 105).

[18] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 82).

[19] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 197).

[20] Erickson (1994: 638).

[21] Erickson (1994: 638).

[22] Erickson (1994: 638).

[23] Erickson (1994: 915). Thiessen (1956: 253).

[24] Gebara (2002: 58-59).

[25] Gebara (2002: 58-59).

[26] Tennant (1906: 20).

[27] Tennant (1906: 20).

[28] Tennant (1906: 20).

[29] Tennant (1906: 20).

[30] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 82). Erickson (1994: 638).

[31] Tennant (1906: 20).

[32] Tennant (1906: 81).

[33] Tennant (1906: 81).

[34] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[35] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[36] Irenaeus (c.185-2005: 14).

[37] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[38] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[39] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[40] Hick’s conjecture.

[41] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[42] Ferguson (1996: 569).

[43] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2). Hick (1970: 218).

[44] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[45] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[46] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

[47] It may be closer to an Augustinian view than John Hick would be willing to admit.

[48] Irenaeus (c.175-185)(1998: Book III, Chapter 18: 7).

---

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BADHAM, PAUL (2003) ‘Profile: John Hick’, in Epworth Review, Volume 30, Number 1, pp. 24-31. Peterborough, England, Methodist Publishing House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FERGUSON, EVERETT (1996) ‘Irenaeus’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(1998) ‘Against Heresies’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(2005) Against Heresies, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

IRENAEUS (c 185)(2005) Proof of Apostolic Preaching, Translated by J. Armitage Robinson, London, The Macmillan CO.

TENNANT, F.R. (1906) The Origin and Propagation of Sin, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

TENNANT, F.R. (1930)(1956) Philosophical Theology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

---

Website work 

Photo: Saint Nizier d Azergues, Lyon

New Advent

St. Irenaeus: New Advent

'Bishop of Lyons, and Father of the Church.

Information as to his life is scarce, and in some measure inexact. He was born in Proconsular Asia, or at least in some province bordering thereon, in the first half of the second century; the exact date is controverted, between the years 115 and 125, according to some, or, according to others, between 130 and 142. It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard the holy Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna. During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyons. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the Faith, sent him (177 or 178) to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning Montanism, and on that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits. Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons. During the religious peace which followed the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the new bishop divided his activities between the duties of a pastor and of a missionary (as to which we have but brief data, late and not very certain) and his writings, almost all of which were directed against Gnosticism, the heresy then spreading in Gaul and elsewhere. In 190 or 191 he interceded with Pope Victor to lift the sentence of excommunication laid by that pontiff upon the Christian communities of Asia Minor which persevered in the practice of the Quartodecimans in regard to the celebration of Easter. Nothing is known of the date of his death, which must have occurred at the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. In spite of some isolated and later testimony to that effect, it is not very probable that he ended his career with martyrdom. His feast is celebrated on 28 June in the Latin Church, and on 23 August in the Greek.' 

End citation

New Advent sources

Poncelet, A. (1910). St. Irenaeus. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm 

Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. 

The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight

---

20251206

The late John Hick (1922-2012) was a major exemplar I used for my PhD thesis and is known for writing a Soul-Making Theodicy, which in my opinion, is also a Soul-Building Theodicy. Hick's approach is a liberal theistic approach. It is widely accepted that Hick was writing a theodicy within the Irenean tradition.[1] Badham (2003: 27). 

It seems clear that Hick and Irenaeus were in agreement with each other that original humanity was spiritually and morally immature.[11] Irenaeus (c 175-185)(2005: Book IV: Chapter 39: 2). Hick (1970: 218). Irenaeus and John Hick both believed that original humanity had immaturity, were inexperienced, and had a child-like nature. I can agree with the immaturity and lack of experience from Adam and Eve from my Reformed theological perspective and I reason it did play a part in their sinning and therefore falling from their standing with God. I would not use the term child-like, as they were created by God as fully adult, as implied from Scripture. I will presume they had adult brain function and processing, but still lacked maturity and experience. 

However, John Hick did not believe in the theology of original sin, while Irenaeus, although widely considered as not being from an Augustinian perceptive, did hold to a belief in original sin. Irenaeus reasoned that the human fall from God's presence from sin, did occur, which would be in agreement with biblical and Augustinian perspectives. John Hick disagreed with original sin theology, which is within biblical, Augustinian and Irenean perspectives. 

Clockwork Angels and Religion

Germany (Google Images)


Belchen, Germany (trekearth)

Macleans: Peart: Clockwork Angels

Quotes:

'Rush’s 20th studio release, Clockwork Angels, hit No. 1 in Canada in June...'

'Its story, about a young man who flees a land designed to function in perfect mechanical order, reflects the philosophy of drummer and lyricist Neil Peart.'

'I help panhandlers, but other people are, “Oh look at that—why doesn’t he get a job?” While I believe in all that freedom, I also believe that no one should suffer needlessly. A realization I had lately: it is impossible to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and be a Republican. It’s philosophically absolutely opposed—if they could only think about what they were saying for a minute. That’s when you get caught up in the webs of what people call themselves and how they behave.'

'Because I know at the end of it, if I’m going to meet Jesus or Allah or Buddha, I’m going to be all right.'

End of quotes

A fairly short article on Neil Peart and his Macleans interview.

I will preface by stating I have listened to Rush since 1989 and have a large collection of their CDs and a few DVDs. I think Mr. Peart is an exceptional drummer and percussionist and basically a moral human being from what I can observe as an outsider.

The newest 2012 album Clockwork Angels is a concept album that revisits older Rush music stylistically of the 1970s and early 1980s but with modern technology and has a higher level of compositional and technical complexity than most recent material and therefore I find it more musically interesting.

This is apart from any philosophical considerations of the lyrics which are not and have never been a primary musical concern for me.

Philosophically assisting the poor is a worthy cause, whether one assists panhandlers or not. There are many ways to assist the poor with both time and money.

When Mr. Peart states that one cannot follow the teachings of Jesus and be a Republican, I will state I am Canadian (British) do not live in the United States and therefore am not Republican or Democrat and so I think I have a fairly high level of objectivity of the matter. I am however, a moderate conservative. I am reasoning that Mr. Peart may think that a conservative of a certain type cannot be a consistent follower of Jesus Christ.

But would Mr. Peart understand the teachings of Christ sufficiently to support the assertion?

This is not primarily a political blog but a theological and philosophical one, so I will deal with this according to blog themes.

'Because I know at the end of it, if I’m going to meet Jesus or Allah or Buddha, I’m going to be all right.'

One can try and separate the teachings of Christ from Biblical Christianity but it just does not philosophical work because Christ's words, work and ministry are Biblically recorded. In John 14: 6 from the English Standard Version it states 5-7:

⁵ Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” ⁶ Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷ If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

David J. Ellis in his John commentary states here that Jesus reasons that he is not showing the way, instead Christ is the vital link between the heavenly realm and the earthly realm. Apart from the gospel teaching of Christ in the truth, there is no salvation. Who Jesus is cannot be separated from what he does. Ellis (1986: 1254).

Leon Morris in 'Jesus Is The Christ' explains that God makes the initiative in calling people to Christ (John 6: 44). The sinner is only saved via the Father through Christ and not through any other process. Morris (1989: 136). As noted on this blog many times Ephesians 1 and Romans 8 also note that persons are chosen (elected in Christ) and persons are born again as in John 3 and clearly this a divine work and not a human one. Ephesians 2, also has been cited many times on this blog explains that believers are saved by through faith unto good works. As in Romans 1, the believer shall live by faith as the righteousness of God is revealed. The believer lives legally justified in the righteousness of Christ and his atoning work.

Philosophically unless Islam and Buddhism would teach the same exclusivity of Christ for salvation, which they do not, as by definition they are different religious philosophies, then they would have different religious modes of salvation.

The deity of Christ is Biblically based John 1 (eternal word), John 8: 58 (eternal), Philippians 2 (a form of God), Colossians 2 (fullness of God in bodily form), Hebrews 1 (same substance and nature of the Father), is essential to the atonement and the idea that the infinite, eternal holy God outlasted finite sin as also a perfect finite man in the incarnation.

Islam denies this as it teaches a oneness and rejects the Trinity as polytheism. The prophet Mohammed was dogmatic on this point. Nigosian (1994: 442).

Concerning Buddhism, to quote my source: 'If deities, sacrifices, rituals, and prayers were all unnecessary, what need was there for Hindu priests? Nigosian (1994: 127). Philosophically and religiously the word Christian could replace Hindu although I realize historically Buddhism has very close roots in origin to Hinduism, but the point is that Buddhism would have no need for the salvific system within Christianity and Christ's atoning and resurrection work either.

This fusing of religions by Mr. Peart in the context of salvation and eschatology demonstrates at least some key misunderstandings of Christianity and therefore what a follower of Jesus Christ should be like and act like.

This is not  to state that Mr. Peart may not half a point and that sometimes Republicans may not be consistent in Christ-like behaviour, but philosophically most assuredly the same thing could be demonstrated for those that call themselves Democrats and Christians. This could be done in other countries where there are political parties of the left and right of varying degrees. Persons have sinful natures (Romans 1-3) and are in need of sanctification (1 Corinthians 1: 30).

ELLIS, DAVID J. (1986) 'John' in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

MORRIS, LEON (1989) Jesus Is The Christ, Eerdmans/IVP, Grand Rapids.

NIGOSIAN, S.A (1994) World Faiths, St. Martins Press, New York.

A Paradox

Caerphilly Castle, Wales (trekearth)


Gwbert, Wales (trekearth)


Hay-One-Wye, Wales (trekearth)

Philosopher Simon Blackburn explains a paradox arises when a set of apparently incontrovertible premises provides what would be viewed as unacceptable or contradictory conclusions. Blackburn (1996: 276). John Etchemendy writes that seemingly sound reasoning based on assumptions leads to conclusions contradictory or obviously false. Etchemendy (1996: 558).

Blackburn uses the 'barber paradox' (page 36) where a village has a barber in it, who shaves all and only the persons that do not shave themselves. Therefore who shaves the barber? If he shaves himself, then he does not, but if he shaves himself, then he does. Blackburn (1996: 36). Blackburn provides the opinion that in reality philosophically there would be no such barber. The situation is inconsistent. Blackburn (1996: 36).

He references Russell's paradox and the class of all classes that are not members of themselves.

'If it is, then it is not, and if it not, then it is'. Blackburn (1996: 336).

Again an inconsistency and Blackburn notes what a 'class' is needs to be more clearly defined.

With paradoxes such as these that arise in certain arguments within theology and philosophy it is often important to simply deny certain assumptions, premises, propositions that can lead to illogical, inconsistent and false conclusions.

I agree with Etchemendy as he stated paradoxes are often solved when mistaken principles or assumptions are found and rejected. Etchemendy (1996: 558).

This was a very useful in working through theological and philosophical theodicy and problem of evil arguments. Often a way to deny apparent paradoxes is to seriously examine if premises in actuality should be accepted as presented. Often this is more important than concentrating primarily on the conclusion or conclusions.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ETCHEMENDY, JOHN (1996) ‘Paradox’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.