In the combox of the previous thread here at AF, the Reformed
Baptist, Ken Temple, raised some concerns about Irenaeus',
Proof/Demostration of the Apostolic Preaching. Ken wrote:
the parts about baptism that you brought out from
"the Proof of the Apostolic Preaching" (found in recent years from an
Armenian copy, right? - not found in the Philip Schaff collection of EFC) -
could they not be interpreted in the way that we usually handle Acts 2:38 and
Titus 3:5 ? (link)
Ken is correct that the Proof/Demonstration of the Apostolic
Preaching is not found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series edited by
Philip Schaff, and that the four English translations I am aware of are based
on an Armenian manuscript discovered in 1904. Note the following from CCEL
Staff Writer, Emmalon Davis:
Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching is a
second century guide for Christian converts. After disappearing for nearly two
millennia, an Armenian copy of St. Irenaeus' guidebook was discovered in 1904.
Current versions of this ancient text have been translated from the Armenian, a
language which greatly resembles the Greek in which it was originally
transcribed. St. Irenaeus wanted to set out the main points of the Apostolic
message, which was handed down to the Church from Old Testament Scriptures. St.
Irenaeus explains the doctrine of Christianity as it was understood by the
educated believers of his day. He defends the grounds of belief and aims to
demonstrate the truth of the ancient Biblical prophecy. As a result, his
project is both theological and historical. Even today, St. Irenaeus' book of
guidelines serves to help Christians find salvation and refute heretics.
(LINK)
I am not aware of any published Patristic scholar—e.g. John
Behr, Everett Ferguson, J. N.D. Kelly, John Lawson, Iain M. MacKenzie, J.
Armitage Robinson, Joseph P. Smith—who references the Proof/Demonstration of
the Apostolic Preaching, that has questioned the authenticity and/or
reliability of the Armenian manuscript. I concur with Dr. Joseph P. Smith, who
wrote:
AUTHENTICITY. That the work here presented to us is really,
as the manuscript describes it, the "Proof of the Apostolic
Preaching" of Irenaeus, is certain on internal grounds. The title and the
name (chapter 1) of the addressee agree with the information given us by
Eusebius; the work reflects the conditions of the end of the second century,
and its manner and many of its turns of expression agree with Irenaeus's known
writings, and with his views and preoccupations; the parallels with Adversus
haereses are many and striking... (Irenaeus, Proof of the
Apostolic Preaching, trans. by Joseph P. Smith, S.J., Newman Press, pp. 5,
6.)
Now, Ken seems to question the authenticity of the Proof/Demonstration
of the Apostolic Preaching because of its description concerning the nature
of Christian baptism (Ken, please correct me on this if I have misunderstood
you). Note the following:
THE RULE OF FAITH
3. So, lest the like befall us, we must keep strictly, without deviation, the rule of faith, and carry out the commands of God, believing in God, and fearing Him, because He is Lord, and loving Him, because He is Father. Action, then, is preserved by faith, because unless you believe, says Isaias, you shall not continue; and faith is given by truth, since faith rests upon reality: for we shall believe what really is, as it is, and, believing what really is, as it is for ever, keep a firm hold on our assent to it. Since, then, it is faith that maintains our salvation, one must take great care of this sustenance, to have a true perception of reality. Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God; and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and is rebirth unto God, that we be no more children of mortal men, but of the eternal everlasting God; and that the eternal and everlasting One is God, and is above all creatures, and that all things whatsoever are subject to Him; and that what is subject to Him was all made by Him; so that God is not ruler and Lord of what is another’s, but of His own, and all things are God’s; that God, therefore, is the Almighty, and all things whatsoever are from God. (Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, trans. by Joseph P. Smith, S.J., Newman Press, pp. 49, 50 - bold emphasis mine.)
3. So, lest the like befall us, we must keep strictly, without deviation, the rule of faith, and carry out the commands of God, believing in God, and fearing Him, because He is Lord, and loving Him, because He is Father. Action, then, is preserved by faith, because unless you believe, says Isaias, you shall not continue; and faith is given by truth, since faith rests upon reality: for we shall believe what really is, as it is, and, believing what really is, as it is for ever, keep a firm hold on our assent to it. Since, then, it is faith that maintains our salvation, one must take great care of this sustenance, to have a true perception of reality. Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God; and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and is rebirth unto God, that we be no more children of mortal men, but of the eternal everlasting God; and that the eternal and everlasting One is God, and is above all creatures, and that all things whatsoever are subject to Him; and that what is subject to Him was all made by Him; so that God is not ruler and Lord of what is another’s, but of His own, and all things are God’s; that God, therefore, is the Almighty, and all things whatsoever are from God. (Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, trans. by Joseph P. Smith, S.J., Newman Press, pp. 49, 50 - bold emphasis mine.)
Keeping in mind Dr. Smith's assessment that, "the
parallels with Adversus haereses are many and striking", one should
expect to find "baptism for the remission of sins" and baptism
as, "rebirth unto God" (i.e. regeneration). One clearly finds
such parallels in Irenaeus' Against Heresies (bold emphasis in
the following quotes is mine):
1.
It happens that their tradition respecting redemption is invisible and
incomprehensible, as being the mother of things which are incomprehensible and
invisible; and on this account, since it is fluctuating, it is impossible
simply and all at once to make known its nature, for every one of them hands it
down just as his own inclination prompts. Thus there are as many schemes of
“redemption” as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come
to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men
have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration
to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.
2.
They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge must of
necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all. For it is
otherwise impossible to find admittance within the Pleroma, since this
[regeneration] it is which leads them down into the depths of Bythus. For
the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins...
(Against Heresies, 1.21.1, 2a - ANF 1.345)
But it is evident from Peter's words that he did indeed still
retain the God who was already known to them ; but he also bare witness to them
that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, the Judge of quick and dead, into whom he
did also command them to be baptized for the remission of sins; and not
this alone, but he witnessed that Jesus was Himself the Son of God, who also,
having been anointed with the Holy Spirit, is called Jesus Christ. (Against Heresies, 3.12.7
- ANF 1.443)
And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which was
after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the laver of
regeneration, [the Lord] said to him [upon whom He had conferred sight],
after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, "Go to Siloam, and wash
;" thus restoring to him both [his
perfect] confirmation, and that regeneration which takes place by means of
the laver. And for this reason when he was washed he came seeing, that he
might both know Him who had fashioned him, and that man might learn [to know]
Him who has conferred upon him life. (Against Heresies, 5.15.3 - ANF 1.543)
Before ending, I would like to provide a selection from the
esteemed Lutheran scholar, R. C. H. Lenski, who I believe does an excellent job
in addressing how one is to interpret Acts 2:38, which is directly germane to Irenaeus' understanding of "baptism for the remission of sins":
Baptism is pure that conveys grace and salvation from God
through Christ: it dare not be changed into a legal or legalistic requirement
that is akin to the ceremonial requirement of Moses such as circumcision. God
does something for us in baptism, we do we do nothing for him. Our acceptance
of baptism is only acceptance of God's gift.
This is emphasized strongly in the addition: "for or
unto remission of your sins." It amounts to nothing more than a formal
grammatical difference whether εἰς is again
regarded as denoting sphere (equal to ἐν), R.
592, or, as is commonly supposed, as indicating aim and purpose, R. 592, as
better still as denoting effect. Sphere would mean that baptism is inside the
same circle as remission; he who steps into this circle has both. Aim and
purpose would mean that baptism intends to give remission; in him, then, who
receives baptism aright this intention, aim, and purpose would be attained. The
same is true regarding the idea of effect in εἰς this
preposition connects remission so closely with baptism that nobody has as yet
been able to separate the two. It is this gift of remission that makes baptism
a true sacrament; otherwise it would be only a sign or a symbol that conveys
nothing real. (R. C. H. Lenski, The
Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 107, 108.)
A few sentences later, Dr. Lenski then asked the following
question:
And how can Ananias in 22:16 say, "Be baptized and wash
away thy sins!" as though the water of baptism washed them
away by their connection with the Name? (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation
of the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 107, 108.)
Shall end here for now. Hope to have part 4 of this series
ready for posting early next week.
Grace and peace,