Please explain Irenaeus' theology surrounding 'unity with God'

[benjaminpott]

I have a theology essay to write to this affect: "Explain and evaluate the soteriological necessity of the union of humanity and deity in Christ" - and they gave this source as a beginning point: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103318.htm

Can someone help me understand what Irenaeun theology of 'unity of God', I found it difficult to understand from the suggested text. Furthermore, how would you approach a response to this essay question?

 

[benjaminpott]

Please explain Irenaeus' theology surrounding 'unity with God'

Can someone help me understand what Irenaeun theology of 'unity of God', I found it difficult to understand from the suggested text. Furthermore, how would you approach a response to this essay question?

 

[Sherman]

I have put both your posts here and removed the duplicate links. There are plenty of people on TOL that can discuss with you on the topic. I Am also moving it into ECT so you get Christian responses to this question.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

@benjaminpott

I have a theology essay to write to this affect: "Explain and evaluate the soteriological necessity of the union of humanity and deity in Christ" - and they gave this source as a beginning point: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103318.htm

Can someone help me understand what Irenaeun theology of 'unity of God', I found it difficult to understand from the suggested text. Furthermore, how would you approach a response to this essay question?

The essay topic concerns the mystical union of the fully divine and fully human natures in the incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This union is the subject of many misunderstandings that required the church to definitively state the proper understanding of this hypostatic union in the Chalcedon Definition.

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second subsistence of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this mystical union (together united in one distinguishable subsistence) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The mystical union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord is not^#:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct subsistence in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct subsistences (often called persons) (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

-^#Words in boldface identify heresies​

The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.

The question concerning Irenaeus is actually not directly related to the topic of the essay. Irenaeus likened humanity to a child growing from the womb or a stalk of corn growing from the ground. It is here that one can see then Irenaeus focusing on the essential unity of God. As Irenaeus continues, “But it is one and the same Creator who both fashioned the womb and created the sun; and one and the same Lord who both reared the stalk of corn, increased and multiplied the wheat, and prepared the barn." One could possibly strain these views into meaning Irenaeus was speaking to the unity of the Triune Godhead, in that God the Father sends God the Son, and the Father and the Son send God the Holy Spirit.

Our Lord's divine and human natures are required for salvation, hence the soteriological connection called for in the essay requirement.

Follow my argument below to understand why:

Spoiler

1. God exists. (Gen. 1:1)
2. God is infinite. (Psalm 90:2, 147:5; Jer. 23:24)
3. God is holy. (Isaiah 6:3; Rev. 4:8)
4. God is righteous. (Neh. 9:32-33; 1 Thess. 1:6)
5. Therefore, God is infinitely holy and just.

6. Furthermore, God speaks out of the character of who He is. (Matt. 12:34)

7. God spoke the Law. (Ex. 20:1-17)

8. Therefore, the Law is in the heart of God and is a reflection of God's character since it is Holy and Good. (Rom. 7:12)

9. Furthermore, to break the Law of God is to offend Him since it is His Law that we break. This sin results in an infinite offense because God is infinite and His wrath against sin is infinite, thus, the payment made by the reprobate must be unending.

10. Furthermore, it is also right that God punish the Law breaker. To not punish the Law breaker (sinner) is to allow an offense against His holiness to be ignored. (Amos 2:4; Rom. 4:15; Ex. 23:7; Ex. 34:7; Ps. 5:4-6; Rom. 2:5-6)

11. God says that the person who sins must die (be punished). The wages of sin is death. (Eze. 18:4; Rom. 6:23)

12. The sinner needs to escape the righteous judgment of God or he will face damnation. (Rom. 1:18; Matt. 25:46)

13. But, no sinner can undo an infinite offense since to please God and make things right, he must obey the Law, which is the standard of God's righteous character. (Gal. 2:16, 2:21)

14. But the sinner cannot fulfill the law because he is sinful (in the flesh). (Rom. 8:3)

15. Since the sinner cannot fulfill the law and satisfy God, it follows that only God can do this.

16. Jesus is God in flesh. (John 1:1, 1:14; Col. 2:9)

18. The substitute could not be an animal. (Heb. 10:4)

19. Neither could an angel be the substitute, for the substitute must take upon himself human nature. (Heb. 2:14)

20. No sinner could atone for his fellow sinners. (Psa. 49:7–8).

21. It was only God Himself who could be the exact, perfect and proper substitute to atone for the sins of His people, and completely satisfy the vindication of His justice and righteousness, and thus render man acceptable in His sight.

22. Jesus was also a man under the Law. (1 Tim. 2:5; Gal. 4:5-6)

23. Since then the children share in flesh and blood, Jesus, Himself, likewise partook of the same, that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.

24. Therefore, he had to be made like his brethren in all things, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Heb. 2:14–17)

25. Jesus Christ alone could be the fitting or proper high priest. (Heb. 7:26)

26. The sinlessness of the substitute is necessary. (2 Cor. 5:21)

27. Therefore, Jesus became sin for us and bore our sins unto death in His body on the cross, which revealed the specific penalty required for sin, thus fulfilling the Law. (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24; Rom. 3:24–26; Rom. 8:3-4)

28. The gift is valued according to the altar on which it is presented. Christ offered Himself through the eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14), that is to say, He offered His human nature on the altar of His divine nature. His divine nature being eternal, His offering possesses an eternal quality. Hence, although Christ did not sacrifice Himself eternally, He nevertheless offered an eternal sacrifice to satisfy divine justice.

29. Therefore, salvation is by grace through faith since it was not by our keeping the Law, but by Jesus, God in flesh, who fulfilled the Law and died in our place. (Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 5:2)

30. Finally, it follows from the above that a person’s duty is to believe, claiming Christ’s atoning sacrifice as their own in order to be declared righteous before God. Such a true believer will be known from their works.

Hope this helps. And welcome to TOL.

AMR

 

[whitestone]

lol,If ever their was an "tip" to ever give to another when approaching the writings of Irenaeus in A.H. my advice would be this,,,

Do not play "bible lottery" with these books(A.H.1-5),,,now I'll sat why.

As underlined in AMR's above post (eg."Is not") is key to understanding this. As in "bible lottery" if you open the bible at random some believe that theres an intended message for them(I dont hold to this),,,

In the case though of A.H. it is easy to make that very mistake in that Irenaeus rambels on for chapters at times explaining how others believed(not Irenaeus own view)and back and forth between those of the heratics and his own comparing them(basic they did but should have approach)in a letter to a third party.

So who are those he was speaking of in the ch. before this?,,sepperate the two...