Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 04-06-2013, 04:17 PM

Continue onward we see the very same Sabellian formula repeated over and over again. For instance at the end of chapter twelve:

Quote:

Thus did the apostles, whom the Lord made witnesses of every action and of every doctrine--for upon all occasions do we find Peter, and James, and John present with Him-- scrupulously act according to the dispensation of the Mosaic law, showing that it was from one and the same God; which they certainly never would have done, as I have already said, if they had learned from the Lord another Father besides Him who appointed the dispensation of the law. [3.12.15]

at the end of chapter 15:

Quote:

But let us revert to the same line of argument [hitherto pursued]. For when it has been manifestly declared, that they who were the preachers of the truth and the apostles of liberty termed no one else God, or named him Lord, except the only true God the Father, and His Word, who has the pre-eminence in all things; it shall then be clearly proved, that they confessed as the Lord God Him who was the Creator of heaven and earth, who also spoke with Moses, gave to him the dispensation of the law, and who called the fathers; and that they knew no other. The opinion of the apostles, therefore, and of those (Marks and Luke) who learned from their words, concerning God, has been made manifest.[3.15.3]

in the middle of chapter sixteen:

Quote:

The Gospel, therefore, knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again, as John, the disciple of the Lord, verities, saying: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have eternal life in His name,"--foreseeing these blasphemous systems which divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that He was formed of two different substances. [3.16.5]

Quote:

By which is made manifest, that all things which had been foreknown of the Father, our Lord did accomplish in their order, season, and hour, foreknown and fitting, being indeed one and the same, but rich and great. For He fulfils the bountiful and comprehensive will of His Father, inasmuch as He is Himself the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Lord of those who are under authority, and the God of all those things which have been formed, the only-begotten of the Father, Christ who was announced, and the Word of God, who became incarnate when the fulness of time had come, at which the Son of God had to become the Son of man. [3.16.7]

and again in chapter 19:

Quote:

For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. [3.19.2]

and at the beginning of chapter 21:

Quote:

God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin.

Quote:

But in this that he said, "The Lord Himself shall give you a sign," he declared an unlooked-for thing with regard to His generation, which could have been accomplished in no other way than by God the Lord of all, God Himself giving a sign in the house of David.

Quote:

And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil ("for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground"), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for "all things were made by Him,"(5) and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin.

and chapter 23:

Quote:

But this is Adam, if the truth should be told, the first formed man, of whom the Scripture says that the Lord spake, "Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness;" and we are all from him

At the end of the book, as he recapitulates its main arguments Irenaeus writes:

Quote:

Thus, then, have all these men been exposed, who bring in impious doctrines regarding our Maker and Framer, who also formed this world. and above whom there is no other God and those have been overthrown by their own arguments who teach falsehoods regarding the substance of our Lord, and the dispensation which He fulfilled for the sake of His own creature man. But [it has, on the other hand, been shown], that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples--as I have proved--through [those in] the beginning, the middle, and the end,(7) and through the entire dispensation of God, and that well-grounded system which tends(8) to man's salvation, namely, our faith; which, having been received from the Church, we do preserve, and which always, by the Spirit of God, renewing its youth, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel, causes the vessel itself containing it to renew its youth also. For this gift of God has been entrusted to the Church, as breath was to the first created man,(9) for this purpose, that all the members receiving it may be vivified; and the [means of] communion with Christ has been distributed throughout it, that is, the Holy Spirit, the earnest of incorruption, the means of confirming our faith, and the ladder of ascent to God. "For in the Church," it is said, "God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers,"(10) and all the other means through which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behaviour. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth. Those, therefore, who do not partake of Him, are neither nourished into life from the mother's breasts, nor do they enjoy that most limpid fountain which issues from the body of Christ; but they dig for themselves broken cisterns(11) out of earthly trenches, and drink putrid water out of the mire, fleeing from the faith of the Church lest they be convicted; and rejecting the Spirit, that they may not be instructed.

2. Alienated thus from the truth, they do deservedly wallow in all error, tossed to and fro by it, thinking differently in regard to the same things at different times, and never attaining to a well- grounded knowledge, being more anxious to be sophists of words than disciples of the truth. For they have not been founded upon the one rock, but upon the sand, which has in itself a multitude of stones. Wherefore they also imagine many gods, and they always have the excuse of searching [after truth] (for they are blind), but never succeed in finding it. For they blaspheme the Creator, Him who is truly God, who also furnishes power to find [the truth]; imagining that they have discovered another god beyond God, or another Pleroma, or another dispensation. Wherefore also the light which is from God does not illumine them, because they have dishonoured and despised God, holding Him of small account, because, through His love and infinite benignity, He has come within reach of human knowledge (knowledge, however, not with regard to His greatness, or with regard to His essence--for that has no man measured or handled--but after this sort: that we should know that He who made, and formed, and breathed in them the breath of life, and nourishes us by means of the creation, establishing all things by His Word, and binding them together by His Wisdom(1)--this is He who is the only true God); but they dream of a non-existent being above Him, that they may be regarded as having found out the great God, whom nobody, [they hold,] can recognise holding communication with the human race, or as directing mundane matters: that is to say, they find out the god of Epicurus, who does nothing either for himself or others; that is, he exercises no providence at all.

God does, however, exercise a providence over all things, and therefore He also gives counsel; and when giving counsel, He is present with those who attend to moral discipline. It follows then of course, that the things which are watched over and governed should be acquainted with their ruler; which things are not irrational or vain, but they have understanding derived from the providence of God. And, for this reason certain of the Gentiles, who were less addicted to [sensual] allurements and voluptuousness, and were not led away to such a degree of superstition with regard to idols, being moved, though but slightly, by His providence, were nevertheless convinced that they should call the Maker of this universe the Father, who exercises a providence over all things, and arranges the affairs of our world.

Again, that they might remove the rebuking and judicial power from the Father, reckoning that as unworthy of God, and thinking that they had found out a God both without anger and [merely] good, they have alleged that one [God] judges, but that another saves, unconsciously taking away the intelligence and justice of both deities. For if the judicial one is not also good, to bestow favours upon the deserving, and to direct reproofs against those requiring them, he will appear neither a just nor a wise judge. On the other hand, the good God, if he is merely good, and not one who tests those upon whom he shall send his goodness, will be out of the range of justice and goodness; and his goodness will seem imperfect, as not saving all; [for it should do so,] if it be not accompanied with judgment.

Marcion, therefore, himself, by dividing God into two, maintaining one to be good and the other judicial, does in fact, on both sides, put an end to deity. For he that is the judicial one, if he be not good, is not God, because he from whom goodness is absent is no God at all; and again, he who is good, if he has no judicial power, suffers the same [loss] as the former, by being deprived of his character of deity. And how can they call the Father of all wise, if they do not assign to Him a judicial faculty? For if He is wise, He is also one who tests [others]; but the judicial power belongs to him who tests, and justice follows the judicial faculty, that it may reach a just conclusion; justice calls forth judgment, and judgment, when it is executed with justice, will pass on to wisdom. Therefore the Father will excel in wisdom all human and angelic wisdom, because He is Lord, and Judge, and the Just One, and Ruler over all. For He is good, and merciful, and patient, and saves whom He ought: nor does goodness desert Him in the exercise of justice,(3) nor is His wisdom lessened; for He saves those whom He should save, and judges those worthy of judgment. Neither does He show Himself unmercifully just; for His goodness, no doubt, goes on before, and takes precedency.

The God, therefore, who does benevolently cause His sun to rise upon all, and sends rain upon the just and unjust, shall judge those who, enjoying His equally distributed kindness, have led lives not corresponding to the dignity of His bounty; but who have spent their days in wantonness and luxury, in opposition to His benevolence, and have, moreover, even blasphemed Him who has conferred so great benefits upon them.

Plato is proved to be more religious than these men, for he allowed that the same God was both just and good, having power over all things, and Himself executing judgment, expressing himself thus, "And God indeed, as He is also the ancient Word, possessing the beginning, the end, and the mean of all existing things, does everything rightly, moving round about them according to their nature; but retributive justice always follows Him against those who depart from the divine law."(5) Then, again, he points out that the Maker and Framer of the universe is good. "And to the good," he says, "no envy ever springs up with regard to anything;"(6) thus establishing the goodness of God, as the beginning and the cause of the creation of the world, but not ignorance, nor an erring Aeon, nor the consequence of a defect, nor the Mother weeping and lamenting, nor another God or Father. [3.24.1 - 25.3]

and then the closing words reinforcing that Jesus is both Lord and God (= John 20:18):

Quote:

We do indeed pray that these men may not remain in the pit which they themselves have dug, but separate themselves from a Mother of this nature, and depart from Bythus, and stand away from the void, and relinquish the shadow; and that they, being converted to the Church of God, may be lawfully begotten, and that Christ may be formed in them, and that they may know the Framer and Maker of this universe, the only true God and Lord of all. We pray for these things on their behalf, loving them better than they seem to love themselves. For our love, inasmuch as it is true, is salutary to them, if they will but receive it. It may be compared to a severe remedy, extirpating the proud and sloughing flesh of a wound; for it puts an end to their pride and haughtiness.

stephan huller · 04-06-2013, 05:38 PM

And then in Book Four Irenaeus begins again with the Valentinians:

Quote:

For their system is blasphemous above all [others], since they represent that the Maker and Framer, who is one God, as I have shown, was produced from a defect or apostasy. They utter blasphemy, also, against our Lord, by cutting off and dividing Jesus from Christ, and Christ from the Saviour, and again the Saviour from the Word, and the Word from the Only-begotten. And since they allege that the Creator originated from a defect or apostasy, so have they also taught that Christ and the Holy Spirit were emitted on account of this defect, and that the Saviour was a product of those Aeons who were produced from a defect; so that there is nothing but blasphemy to be found among them. In the preceding book, then, the ideas of the apostles as to all these points have been set forth, [to the effect] that not only did they, "who from the beginning were eye- witnesses and ministers of the word"(2) of truth, hold no such opinions, but that they did also preach to us to shun these doctrines,(3) foreseeing by the Spirit those weak-minded persons who should be led astray [4.intro.3]

and then the work begins with a familiar charge:

Quote:

Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption, that is, those who believe in the one and true God, and in Jesus Christ the Son of God; and likewise that the apostles did Of themselves term no one else as God, or name [no other] as Lord; and, what is much more important, [since it is true] that our Lord [acted likewise], who did also command us to confess no one as Father, except Him who is in the heavens, who is the one God and the one Father;--those things are clearly shown to be false which these deceivers and most perverse sophists advance, maintaining that the being whom they have themselves invented is by nature both God and Father; but that the I Demiurge is naturally neither God nor Father, but is so termed merely by courtesy (verbo tenus), because of his ruling the creation, these perverse mythologists state, setting their thoughts against God; and, putting aside the doctrine of Christ, and of themselves divining falsehoods, they dispute against the entire dispensation of God. For they maintain that their Aeons, and gods, and fathers, and lords, are also still further termed heavens, together with their Mother, whom they do also call "the Earth," and "Jerusalem," while they also style her many other names.

Now to whom is it not clear, that if the Lord had known many fathers and gods, He would not have taught His disciples to know [only] one God, and to call Him alone Father? But He did the rather distinguish those who by word merely (verbo tenus) are termed gods, from Him who is truly God, that they should not err as to His doctrine, nor understand one [in mistake] for another. And if He did indeed teach us to call one Being Father and God, while He does from time to time Himself confess other fathers and gods in the same sense, then He will appear to enjoin a different course upon His disciples from what He follows Himself. Such conduct, however, does not bespeak the good teacher, but a misleading and invidious one. The apostles, too, according to these men's showing, are proved to be transgressors of the commandment, since they confess the Creator as God, and Lord, and Father, as I have shown--if He is not alone God and Father. Jesus, therefore, will be to them the author and teacher of such transgression, inasmuch as He commanded that one Being should be called Father, thus imposing upon them the necessity of confessing the Creator as their Father, as has been pointed out. [4.1.1,2]

and that the Marcionites are included in this group of heretics is obvious from what follows:

Quote:

Again, our Lord Jesus Christ confesses this same Being as His Father, where He says: "I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth." What Father will those men have us to understand [by these words], those who are most perverse sophists of Pandora? Whether shall it be Bythus, whom they have fabled of themselves; or their Mother; or the Only-begotten? Or shall it be he whom the Marcionites or the others have invented as god (whom I indeed have amply demonstrated to be no god at all); or shall it be (what is really the case) the Maker of heaven and earth, whom also the prophets proclaimed,--whom Christ, too, confesses as His Father,--whom also the law announces, saying: "Hear, O Israel; The Lord thy God is one God?" [4.2.2]

and then specifically again in what immediately follows:

Quote:

For they do not receive from the Father the knowledge of the Son; neither do they learn who the Father is from the Son, who teaches clearly and without parables Him who truly is God. He says: "Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King."(7) For these words are evidently spoken with reference to the Creator, as also Esaias says: "Heaven is my throne, the earth is my footstool."(8) And besides this Being there is no other God; otherwise He would not be termed by the Lord either" God" or" the great King;" for a Being who can be so described admits neither of any other being compared with nor set above Him. For he who has any superior over him, and is under the power of another, this being never can be called either "God" or "the great King." [4.2.5]

and then at the beginning of chapter 3:

Quote:

Again, as to their malignantly asserting that if heaven is indeed the throne of God, and earth His footstool, and if it is declared that the heaven and earth shall pass away, then when these pass away the God who sitteth above must also pass away, and therefore He cannot be the God who is over all; in the first place, they are ignorant what the expression means, that heaven is [His] throne and earth [His] footstool. For they do not know what God is, but they imagine that He sits after the fashion of a man, and is contained within bounds, but does not contain. And they are also unacquainted with [the meaning of] the passing away of the heaven and earth [4.3.1]

and in chapter six:

Quote:

For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]." Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write in the following manner: "No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him];" and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord's advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ.

But if Christ did then [only] begin to have existence when He came [into the world] as man, and [if] the Father did remember [only] in the times of Tiberius Caesar to provide for [the wants of] men, and His Word was shown to have not always coexisted with His creatures; [it may be remarked that] neither then was it necessary that another God should be proclaimed, but [rather] that the reasons for so great carelessness and neglect on His part should be made the subject of investigation. For it is fitting that no such question should arise, and gather such strength, that it would indeed both change God, and destroy our faith in that Creator who supports us by means of His creation. For as we do direct our faith towards the Son, so also should we possess a firm and immoveable love towards the Father. In his book against Marcion, Justin does well say: "I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is steadfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us." [4.6.1,2]

and again a little later:

Quote:

But this [god] is the Maker of heaven and earth, as is shown from His words; and not he, the false father, who has been invented by Marcion, or by Valentinus, or by Basilides, or by Carpocrates, or by Simon, or by the rest of the "Gnostics," falsely so called. For none of these was the Son of God; but Christ Jesus our Lord [was], against whom they set their teaching in opposition, and have the daring to preach an unknown God. [4.6.4]

and then in chapter 12:

Quote:

As in the law, therefore, and in the Gospel [likewise], the first and greatest commandment is, to love the Lord God with the whole heart, and then there follows a commandment like to it, to love one's neighbour as one's self; the author of the law and the Gospel is shown to be one and the same. For the precepts of an absolutely perfect life, since they are the same in each Testament, have pointed out [to us] the same God, who certainly has promulgated particular laws adapted for each; but the more prominent and the greatest [commandments], without which salvation cannot [be attained], He has exhorted [us to observe] the same in both.

The Lord, too, does not do away with this [God], when He shows that the law was not derived from another God, expressing Himself as follows to those who were being instructed by Him, to the multitude and to His disciples: "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens, and lay them upon men's shoulders; but they themselves will not so much as move them with a finger." [4.12.3,4]

and again in chapter 13:

Quote:

And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man(2) is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them, is shown from His words. "For," He remarks, "it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."(3) And again: "It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment."(4) And, "It hath been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay."(5) And other statements of a like nature. For all these do not contain or imply an opposition to and an overturning of the [precepts] of the past, as Marcion's followers do strenuously maintain; but [they exhibit] a fulfilling and an extension of them, as He does Himself declare: "Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." [4.13.1]

interestingly - unrecognized by many - it would appear that Irenaeus seems to echo the variant Diatessaron known to many Church Fathers including Ephrem (I will have to look into this later):

Quote:

And for this reason did the Lord, instead of that [commandment], "Thou shalt not commit adultery," forbid even lust; and instead of that which runs thus, "Thou shalt not kill," He prohibited anger; and instead of the law enjoining the giving of tithes, [He told us] to share(7) all our possessions with the poor; and not to love our neighbours only, but even our enemies; and not merely to be liberal givers and bestowers, but even that we should present a gratuitous gift to those who take away our goods. For "to him that taketh away thy coat," He says, "give to him thy cloak also; and from him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again; and as ye would that men should do unto you, do ye unto them:" [4.13.3]

and later in chapter 33:

Quote:

Moreover, he shall also examine the doctrine of Marcion, [inquiring] how he holds that there are two gods, separated from each other by an infinite distance. Or how can he be good who draws away men that do not belong to him from him who made them, and calls them into his own kingdom? And why is his goodness, which does not save all [thus], defective? Also, why does he, indeed, seem to be good as respects men, but most unjust with regard to him who made men, inasmuch as he deprives him of his possessions? Moreover, how could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood? And why did He acknowledge Himself to be the Son of man, if He had not gone through that birth which belongs to a human being? How, too, could He forgive us those sins for which we are answerable to our Maker and God? And how, again, supposing that He was not flesh, but was a man merely in appearance, could He have been crucified, and could blood and water have issued from His pierced side?(3) What body, moreover, was it that those who buried Him consigned to the tomb? And what was that which rose again from the dead? [4.33.1]

and again:

Quote:

And all those other points which I have shown the prophets to have uttered by means of so long a series of Scriptures, he who is truly spiritual will interpret by pointing out, in regard to every one of the things which have been spoken, to what special point in the dispensation of the Lord is referred, and [by thus exhibiting] the entire system of the work of the Son of God, knowing always the same God, and always acknowledging the same Word of God, although He has [but] now been manifested to us; acknowledging also at all times the same Spirit of God, although He has been poured out upon us after a new fashion in these last times, [knowing that He descends] even from the creation of the world to its end upon the human race simply as such, from whom those who believe God and follow His word receive that salvation which flows from Him. Those, on the other hand, who depart from Him, and despise His precepts, and by their deeds bring dishonour on Him who made them, and by their opinions blaspheme Him who nourishes them, heap up against themselves most righteous judgment.(3) He therefore (i.e., the spiritual man) sifts and tries them all, but he himself is tried by no man

4) he neither blasphemes his Father, nor sets aside His dispensations, nor inveighs against the fathers, nor dishonours the prophets, by maintaining that they were [sent] from another God [than he worships], or again, that their prophecies were derived from different sources.

Now I shall simply say, in opposition to all the heretics, and principally against the followers of Marcion, and against those who are like to these, in maintaining that time prophets were from another God [than He who is announced in the Gospel], read with earnest care that Gospel which has been conveyed to us by the apostles, and read with earnest care the prophets, and you will find that the whole conduct, and all the doctrine, and all the sufferings of our Lord, were predicted through them. But if a thought of this kind should then suggest itself to you, to say, What then did the Lord bring to us by His advent?--know ye that He brought all [possible] novelty, by bringing Himself who had been announced. For this very thing was proclaimed beforehand, that a novelty should come to renew and quicken mankind. For the advent of the King is previously announced by those servants who are sent [before Him], in order to the preparation and equipment of those men who are to entertain their Lord. But when the King has actually come, and those who are His subjects have been filled with that joy which was proclaimed beforehand, and have attained to that liberty which He bestows, and share in the sight of Him, and have listened to His words, and have enjoyed the gifts which He confers, the question will not then be asked by any that are possessed of sense what new thing the King has brought beyond [that proclaimed by] those who announced His coming. For He has brought Himself, and has bestowed on men those good things which were announced beforehand, which things the angels desired to look into [4.34.1]

and then at the end of the chapter again:

Quote:

Such are the arguments proper [to be used] in opposition to those who maintain that the prophets [were inspired] by a different God, and that our Lord [came] from another Father, if perchance [these heretics] may at length desist from such extreme folly. This is my earnest object in adducing these Scriptural proofs, that confuting them, as far as in me lies, by these very passages, I may restrain them from such great blasphemy, and from insanely fabricating a multitude of gods.[4.34.5]

stephan huller · 04-06-2013, 06:14 PM

And then close to the end of Book Four Irenaeus begins to summarize the contents of the book and reflects the clear evidence that the Marcionites are specifically referenced throughout the book:

Quote:

This is a people that obeyeth not the voice of the Lord, nor receiveth correction; faith has perished from their mouth." The Lord, therefore, who has called us everywhere by the apostles, is He who called those of old by the prophets, as appears by the words of the Lord; and although they preached to various nations, the prophets were not from one God, and the apostles from another; but, [proceeding] from one and the same, some of them announced the Lord, others preached the Father, and others again foretold the advent of the Son of God, while yet others declared Him as already present to those who then were afar off.

Still further did He also make it manifest, that we ought, after our calling, to be also adorned with works of righteousness, so that the Spirit of God may rest upon us; for this is the wedding garment, of which also the apostle speaks, "Not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up by immortality." But those who have indeed been called to God's supper, yet have not received the Holy Spirit, because of their wicked conduct "shall be," He declares, "cast into outer darkness." He thus clearly shows that the very same King who gathered from all quarters the faithful to the marriage of His Son, and who grants them the incorruptible banquet, [also] orders that man to be cast into outer darkness who has not on a wedding garment, that is, one who despises it. For as in the former covenant, "with many of them was He not well pleased;"(5) so also is it the case here, that "many are called, but few chosen." It is not, then, one God who judges, and another Father who calls us together to salvation; nor one, forsooth, who confers eternal light, but another who orders those who have not on the wedding garment to be sent into outer darkness. But it is one and the same God, the Father of our Lord, from whom also the prophets had their mission, who does indeed, through His infinite kindness, call the unworthy; but He examines those who are called, [to ascertain] if they have on the garment fit and proper for the marriage of His Son, because nothing unbecoming or evil pleases Him. This is in accordance with what the Lord said to the man who had been healed: "Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee."

For he who is good, and righteous, and pure, and spotless, will endure nothing evil, nor unjust, nor detestable in His wedding chamber. This is the Father of our Lord, by whose providence all things consist, and all are administered by His command; and He confers His free gifts upon those who should [receive them]; but the most righteous Retributor metes out [punishment] according to their deserts, most deservedly, to the ungrateful and to those that are insensible of His kindness .... Both the Lord, then, and the apostles announce as the one only God the Father, Him who gave the law, who sent the prophets, who made all things; and therefore does, He say, "He sent His armies," because every man, inasmuch as he is a man, is His workmanship, although he may be ignorant of his God. For He gives existence to all; He, "who maketh His sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain upon the just and unjust." (= an anti-Marcionite reference)

And not alone by what has been stated, but also by the parable of the two sons, the younger of whom consumed his substance by living luxuriously with harlots, did the Lord teach one and the same Father, who did not even allow a kid to his elder son; but for him who had been lost, [namely] his younger son, he ordered the fatted calf to be killed, and he gave him the best robe. Also by the parable of the workmen who were sent into the vineyard at different periods of the day, one and the same God is declared as having called some in the beginning, when the world was first created; but others afterwards, and others during the intermediate period, others after a long lapse of time, and others again in the end of lime; so that there are many workmen in their generations, but only one householder who calls them together. For there is but one vineyard, since there is also but one righteousness, and one dispensator, for there is one Spirit of God who arranges all things; and in like manner is there one hire, for they all received a penny each man, having [stamped upon it] the royal image and superscription, the knowledge of the Son of God, which is immortality. And therefore He began by giving the hire to those [who were engaged] last, because in the last times, when 'the Lord was revealed He presented Himself to all [as their reward].

Then, in the case of the publican, who excelled the Pharisee in prayer, [we find] that it was not because he worshipped another Father that he received testimony from the Lord that he was justified rather [than the other]; but because with great humility, apart from all boasting and pride, he made confession to the same God. The parable of the two sons also: those who are sent into the vineyard, of whom one indeed opposed his father, but afterwards repented, when repentance profited him nothing; the other, however, promised to go, at once assuring his father, but he did not go (for "every man is a liar;" "to will is present with him, but he finds not means to perform"),--[this parable, I say], points out one and the same Father. Then, again, this truth was clearly shown forth by the parable of the fig-tree, of which the Lord says, "Behold, now these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree, but I find none" (pointing onwards, by the prophets, to His advent, by whom He came from time to time, seeking the fruit of righteousness from them, which he did not find), and also by the circumstance that, for the reason already mentioned, the fig- tree should be hewn down. And, without using a parable, the Lord said to Jerusalem, 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest those that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens trader her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house shall be left unto you desolate." For that which had been said in the parable, "Behold, for three years I come seeking fruit," and in clear terms, again, [where He says]," How often would I have gathered thy children together," shall be [found] a falsehood, if we do not understand His advent, which is [announced] by the prophets--if, in fact, He came to them but once, and then for the first time. But since He who chose the patriarchs and those [who lived under the first covenant], is the same Word of God who did both visit them through the prophetic Spirit, and us also who have been called together from all quarters by His advent; in addition to what has been already said, He truly declared, "Many shall come from the east and from the west, and shall recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall go into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." If, then, those who do believe in Him through the preaching of His apostles throughout the east and west shall recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, partaking with them of the [heavenly] banquet, one and the same God is set forth as He who did indeed choose the patriarchs, visited also the people, and called the Gentiles. [4.36.5 - 8]

This material is extremely significant because it stands out to anyone familiar with Marcionite tradition as clearly directed against members of the sect. Unless I am completely mistaken as I sit here (I am working from memory) everyone of these saying can either be demonstrated to have been specifically removed from the gospel, to be passed over in silence in our sources or in the 'three years' reference specifically contradicts what we know of the Marcionite gospel (= one year ministry). I will take special time demonstrating this argument. I am exhausted but I don't believe there are any explicit references to Marcion in Book Five (again from memory). This is enough to begin our further refinement of the argument that Irenaeus knew Marcion divided the godhead along the line of 'the Lord' (= judgment) and 'God' (= mercy) in the tradition manner of the Jewish two powers in heaven argument.

stephan huller · 04-06-2013, 08:56 PM

head col1	head col2	head col3
There was a certain householder, and he planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and dug in it a winepress, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants unto the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants: they cut one to pieces, stoned another, and killed another. Again he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his only son, saying, Perchance they will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and we shall possess his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When, therefore, the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto these husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy these wicked men, and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their season. Again does the Lord say: Have you never read, The stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore I say unto you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.	Mt 21:33-41/Lk 20:9 - 19	Epiphanius Panarion Schol 55. "Again, he excised the material about the vineyard which was let out to husbandmen, and the verse, 'What is this, then, The stone which the builders rejected?'"
By these words He clearly points out to His disciples one and the same Householder— that is, one God the Father, who made all things by Himself; while [He shows] that there are various husbandmen, some obstinate, and proud, and worthless, and slayers of the Lord, but others who render Him, with all obedience, the fruits in their seasons; and that it is the same Householder who sends at one time His servants, at another His Son. From that Father, therefore, from whom the Son was sent to those husbandmen who slew Him, from Him also were the servants [sent]. But the Son, as coming from the Father with supreme authority (principali auctoritate), used to express Himself thus:	-	-
But I say unto you. Matthew 5:22 The servants, again, [who came] as from their Lord, spoke after the manner of servants, [delivering a message]; and they therefore used to say, Thus says the Lord.	Lk 6:27/Mt 5:44	-
Whom these men did therefore preach to the unbelievers as Lord, Him did Christ teach to those who obey Him; and the God who had called those of the former dispensation, is the same as He who has received those of the latter. In other words, He who at first used that law which entails bondage, is also He who did in after times [call His people] by means of adoption.	-	-
For God planted the vineyard of the human race when at the first He formed Adam and chose the fathers then He let it out to husbandmen when He established the Mosaic dispensation He hedged it round about, that is, He gave particular instructions with regard to their worship. He built a tower, [that is], He chose Jerusalem. He dug a winepress, that is, He prepared a receptacle of the prophetic Spirit. And thus did He send prophets prior to the transmigration to Babylon, and after that event others again in greater number than the former, to seek the fruits, saying thus to them (the Jews):	-	-
Thus says the Lord, Cleanse your ways and your doings,	Jeremiah 7:3	row2 col3
execute just judgment, and look each one with pity and compassion on his brother oppress not the widow nor the orphan, the proselyte nor the poor, and let none of you treasure up evil against his brother in your hearts, and love not false swearing.	Zechariah 7:9,10	-
Wash you, make you clean, put away evil from your hearts, learn to do well, seek judgment, protect the oppressed, judge the fatherless (pupillo), plead for the widow; and come, let us reason together, says the Lord.	Isaiah 1:16 - 18	-
And again: Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips that they speak no guile; depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.	Psalm 34:13, 14	-
In preaching these things, the prophets sought the fruits of righteousness ... God has justly rejected them, and given to the Gentiles outside the vineyard the fruits of its cultivation.	-	-
This is in accordance with what Jeremiah says, The Lord has rejected and cast off the nation which does these things; for the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, says the Lord.	Jeremiah 7:29-30	-
And again in like manner does Jeremiah speak: I set watchmen over you; hearken to the sound of the trumpet; and they said, We will not hearken. Therefore have the Gentiles heard, and they who feed the flocks in them.	Jeremiah 6:17-18	-
It is therefore one and the same Father who planted the vineyard, who led forth the people, who sent the prophets, who sent His own Son, and who gave the vineyard to those other husbandmen that render the fruits in their season. And therefore did the Lord say to His disciples, to make us become good workmen:	-	-
Take heed to yourselves, and watch continually upon every occasion, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day shall come upon you unawares; for as a snare shall it come upon all dwelling upon the face of the earth.	Lk 21:34-35	Tertullian Adv Marc 4:39
Let your loins, therefore, be girded about, and your lights burning, and you like to men who wait for their lord, when he shall return from the wedding.	Lk 12:35-36	Tertullian Adv Marc 4.29
For as it was in the days of Noe, they ate and drank, they bought and sold, they married and were given in marriage, and they knew not, until Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all; as also it was in the days of Lot, they ate and drank, they bought and sold, they planted and built, until the time that Lot went out of Sodom; it rained fire from heaven, and destroyed them all: so shall it also be at the coming of the Son of man.	Lk 17:26f	Tertullian Adv Marc 4:35
Watch therefore, for you know not in what day your Lord shall come.	Lk 21:34/Mt 24:42
[In these passages] He declares one and the same Lord, who in the times of Noah brought the deluge because of man's disobedience, and who also in the days of Lot rained fire from heaven because of the multitude of sinners among the Sodomites, and who, on account of this same disobedience and similar sins, will bring on the day of judgment at the end of time (in novissimo)	-	-
on which day He declares that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha than for that city and house which shall not receive the word of His apostles.	Mk 6:11/Mt 10:15	cf. Tertullian Adv Marc 4:23, 27, 29 (= missing from Marcionite gospel)
And you, Capernaum, He said, is it that you shall be exalted to heaven? You shall go down to hell.	Lk 10:15/Mt 11:23	(= unlikely to have been in the Marcionite gospel)
For if the mighty works which have been done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained unto this day. Verily I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.	Mt 11:23-24/Lk 10:12	cf. Tertullian Adv Marc 4:23, 27, 29 (= missing from Marcionite gospel)
Since the Son of God is always one and the same, He gives to those who believe in Him a well of water [springing up] to eternal life	Jn 4:14	-
but He causes the unfruitful fig-tree immediately to dry up	Mt 21:19, 20	cf. Tertullian Adv Marc 4:39 (= the Luke version is cited "Behold the fig tree and all the trees: when they have produced fruit, men understand that summer has come near: so ye also, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is at hand")
and in the days of Noah He justly brought on the deluge for the purpose of extinguishing that most infamous race of men then existent ... an example of the righteous judgment of God,	-	-
that all may know, that every tree that brings not forth good fruit shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.	Lk 3:9/Mt 3:10	(= the context seems to be more like the gospel of Justin cf. 1 Apol. 16 "Not every one who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of My Father which is in heaven. For whosoever hears Me, and does My sayings, hears Him that sent Me. And many will say unto Me, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten and drunk in Your name, and done wonders? And then will I say unto them, Depart from Me, you workers of iniquity. Then shall there be wailing and gnashing of teeth, when the righteous shall shine as the sun, and the wicked are sent into everlasting fire. For many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly being ravening wolves. By their works you shall know them. And every tree that brings not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire." see below)
And it is He who uses [the words], that it will be more tolerable for Sodom in the general judgment than for those who beheld His wonders, and did not believe in Him, nor receive His doctrine.	Lk 10:12/Mt 11:23	-
For as He gave by His advent a greater privilege to those who believed on Him, and who do His will, so also did He point out that those who did not believe in Him should have a more severe punishment in the judgment; thus extending equal justice to all, and being to exact more from those to whom He gives the more; the more, however, not because He reveals the knowledge of another Father, as I have shown so fully and so repeatedly, but because He has, by means of His advent, poured upon the human race the greater gift of paternal grace. If, however, what I have stated be insufficient to convince any one that the prophets were sent from one and the same Father, from whom also our Lord was sent, let such a one, opening the mouth of his heart, and calling upon the Master, Christ Jesus the Lord, listen to Him when He says,	-	-
The kingdom of heaven is like a king who made a marriage for his son, and he sent forth his servants to call them who were bidden to the marriage. And when they would not obey, He goes on to say, Again he sent other servants, saying, Tell them that are bidden, Come, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and all the fatlings are killed, and everything is ready; come unto the wedding. But they made light of it, and went their way, some to their farm, and others to their merchandize; but the remnant took his servants, and some they treated despitefully, while others they slew. But when the king heard this, he was angry, and sent his armies and destroyed these murderers, and burned up their city, and said to his servants, The wedding is indeed ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go out therefore into the highways, and as many as you shall find, gather in to the marriage. So the servants went out, and collected together as many as they found, bad and good, and the wedding was furnished with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man not having on a wedding garment; and he said unto him, Friend, how did you come here, not having on a wedding garment? But he was speechless. Then said the king to his servants, Take him away, hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.	Mt 22:1f/Lk 14:16f	Epiphanius Panarion Schol 40 "Again, he falsified, 'Then ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God.' In place of this he put, 'When ye see all the righteous in the kingdom of God and yourselves thrust'—but he put, 'kept'—'out.' 'There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'"; Tertullian Adv Marc 4:30, 31 "And when they knock he will answer them, I know not whence ye are: and again when they tell the tale of how they have eaten and drunk in his presence, and he has taught in their streets, he will continue, Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth: where? outside, of course, where those will be who were shut out when the door was shut to by him. Thus from him there will be punishment from whom comes that shutting out for punishment, when they see the righteous entering into the kingdom of God, but themselves kept outside. Kept out by whom? If by the Creator, who then is to be inside, receiving the righteous into the kingdom? The good god? What concern is it then to the Creator, to keep outside for punishment those whom his adversary has shut out, when they ought instead to have been accepted by himself, if you please, to spite that adversary? However, that god of yours, who is going to shut out the unrighteous, must either know or not know that the Creator is going to keep them in detention for punishment. Either then their detention will be against his will, in which case he is inferior to him who detains them, and against his will lets him have his way: or else, if he is willing for this to be done, he himself has passed judgement that it was right for it to be done, and will prove to be no better than the Creator, being himself in approval of the Creator's iniquitous act. If in no sense the theory will hold, that one <Christ> is supposed to punish and another to set free, it remains that both judgement and kingdom belong to one <Christ> only, and that so long as both belong to that one, then he who passes judgement is the Creator's Christ.
Now, by these words of His, does the Lord clearly show all [these points, viz.,] that there is one King and Lord, the Father of all, of whom He had previously said, Neither shall you swear by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King; and that He had from the beginning prepared the marriage for His Son, and used, with the utmost kindness, to call, by the instrumentality of His servants, the men of the former dispensation to the wedding feast; and when they would not obey, He still invited them by sending out other servants, yet that even then they did not obey Him, but even stoned and slew those who brought them the message of invitation. He accordingly sent forth His armies and destroyed them, and burned down their city; but He called together from all the highways, that is, from all nations, [guests] to the marriage feast of His Son,	-	-
as also He says by Jeremiah: I have sent also unto you my servants the prophets to say, Return now, every man, from his very evil way, and amend your doings.	Jeremiah 35:15	-
And again He says by the same prophet: I have also sent unto you my servants the prophets throughout the day and before the light; yet they did not obey me, nor incline their ears unto me. And you shall speak this word to them: This is a people that obeys not the voice of the Lord, nor receives correction; faith has perished from their mouth.	Jeremiah 7:25, etc.	-
The Lord, therefore, who has called us everywhere by the apostles, is He who called those of old by the prophets, as appears by the words of the Lord; and although they preached to various nations, the prophets were not from one God, and the apostles from another; but, [proceeding] from one and the same, some of them announced the Lord, others preached the Father, and others again foretold the advent of the Son of God, while yet others declared Him as already present to those who then were afar off.	-	-
Still further did He also make it manifest, that we ought, after our calling, to be also adorned with works of righteousness, so that the Spirit of God may rest upon us; for this is the wedding garment, of which also the apostle speaks, Not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up by immortality. 2 Corinthians 5:4 But those who have indeed been called to God's supper, yet have not received the Holy Spirit,	-	-
because of their wicked conduct shall be, He declares,cast into outer darkness.	Mt 22:13	-
He thus clearly shows that the very same King who gathered from all quarters the faithful to the marriage of His Son, and who grants them the incorruptible banquet, [also] orders that man to be cast into outer darkness who has not on a wedding garment, that is, one who despises it. For as in the former covenant, with many of them was He not well pleased;	1 Corinthians 10:5	-
so also is it the case here, that many are called, but few chosen.	Mt 22:14	-
It is not, then, one God who judges, and another Father who calls us together to salvation; nor one, forsooth, who confers eternal light, but another who orders those who have not on the wedding garment to be sent into outer darkness. But it is one and the same God, the Father of our Lord, from whom also the prophets had their mission, who does indeed, through His infinite kindness, call the unworthy; but He examines those who are called, [to ascertain] if they have on the garment fit and proper for the marriage of His Son, because nothing unbecoming or evil pleases Him.	-	-
This is in accordance with what the Lord said to the man who had been healed: Behold, you are made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto you.	Jn 5:14	-
For he who is good, and righteous, and pure, and spotless, will endure nothing evil, nor unjust, nor detestable in His wedding chamber. This is the Father of our Lord, by whose providence all things consist, and all are administered by His command; and He confers His free gifts upon those who should [receive them]; but the most righteous Retributor metes out [punishment] according to their deserts, most deservedly, to the ungrateful and to those that are insensible of His kindness	-	-
and therefore does He say, He sent His armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.	Mt 22:7
He says here, His armies, because all men are the property of God ... He sent His armies, because every man, inasmuch as he is a man, is His workmanship, although he may be ignorant of his God. For He gives existence to all;	-	-
He, who makes His sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sends rain upon the just and unjust.	Lk 6:35/Mt 5:45	-
And not alone by what has been stated, but also by the parable of the two sons, the younger of whom consumed his substance by living luxuriously with harlots, did the Lord teach one and the same Father, who did not even allow a kid to his elder son; but for him who had been lost, [namely] his younger son, he ordered the fatted calf to be killed, and he gave him the best robe.	Lk 15:11	-
Also by the parable of the workmen who were sent into the vineyard at different periods of the day, one and the same God is declared	Lk 20:10/Mt 20:1, etc.	-
as having called some in the beginning, when the world was first created ... when the Lord was revealed He presented Himself to all [as their reward].	-	-
Then, in the case of the publican, who excelled the Pharisee in prayer, [we find] that it was not because he worshipped another Father that he received testimony from the Lord that he was justified rather [than the other]; but because with great humility, apart from all boasting and pride, he made confession to the same God.	Lk 18:10	-
The parable of the two sons also: those who are sent into the vineyard, of whom one indeed opposed his father, but afterwards repented, when repentance profited him nothing; the other, however, promised to go, at once assuring his father, but he did not go (for every man is a liar; to will is present with him, but he finds not means to perform Romans 7:18)—[this parable, I say], points out one and the same Father.	Mt 21:28–32	-
Then, again, this truth was clearly shown forth by the parable of the fig-tree, of which the Lord says, Behold, now these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree, but I find none Luke 13:6	row2 col2	row2 col3
(pointing onwards, by the prophets, to His advent, by whom He came from time to time, seeking the fruit of righteousness from them, which he did not find), and also by the circumstance that, for the reason already mentioned, the fig-tree should be hewn down.	ibid	-
And, without using a parable, the Lord said to Jerusalem, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets, and stone those that are sent unto you; how often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house shall be left unto you desolate.	Lk 13:34; Mt 23:37	-
For that which had been said in the parable, Behold, for three years I come seeking fruit, and in clear terms, again, [where He says], How often would I have gathered your children together, shall be [found] a falsehood ... and us also who have been called together from all quarters by His advent	row2 col2	row2 col3
in addition to what has been already said, He truly declared, Many shall come from the east and from the west, and shall recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall go into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 8:11-12	row2 col2	row2 col3
If, then, those who do believe in Him through the preaching of His apostles throughout the east and west shall recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, partaking with them of the [heavenly] banquet, one and the same God is set forth as He who did indeed choose the patriarchs, visited also the people, and called the Gentiles.	row2 col2	row2 col3
This expression [of our Lord], How often would I have gathered your children together, and you would not, Matthew 23:37	row2 col2	row2 col3
set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning ... which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.	row2 col2	row2 col3
For this reason the Lord also said, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Matthew 5:16	row2 col2	row2 col3
And, Take heed to yourselves, lest perchance your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and worldly cares. Luke 21:34	row2 col2	row2 col3
And, Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning, and you like men that wait for their Lord, when He returns from the wedding, that when He comes and knocks, they may open to Him. Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He comes, shall find so doing. Luke 12:35-36 And again, The servant who knows his Lord's will, and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.	Lk 12:47	-
And, Why call me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?	Lk 6:46	-
And again, But if the servant say in his heart, The Lord delays, and begin to beat his fellow-servants, and to eat, and drink, and to be drunken, his Lord will come in a day on which he does not expect Him, and shall cut him in sunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites.	Lk 12:45-46; Mt 24:48-51	-
All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man, and at the same time the counsel which God conveys to him, by which He exhorts us to submit ourselves to Him, and seeks to turn us away from [the sin of] unbelief against Him, without, however, in any way coercing us. No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says,	-	-

spin · 04-06-2013, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It's called - being forty having two children, trying to hold down a job and typing these responses between exasperated sighs of my kids

Poor poor Stephen.

In any case, what's called being a burdened forty?

Quote:

I thought you said you don't have to work.'

Where ever did I say that??

Quote:

Now that's this is cleared up

Now that what's cleared up? Why you slip up in your claims, write poorly, shift goal posts, and post post confusing nonsense and off topic materials?

Quote:

we can discuss why I think the text shows signs of Sabellianism?

In a thread on Adamantius?

Quote:

Or are we still on the topic of using sloppiness in an anecdotal reference at a form that allows a rogues gallery of participants to demonstrate the worthlessness of the original suggestion?

I thought we were on the topic of whether you show that you are as well grounded as you posture yourself as being in the texts you make claims about so that when you make the claims you do, we have some reason to believe that you know what you are talking about.

But if you want to change the topic to how you think you should be able to excuse yourself from doing your homework, from being precise and intelligible, from being bound not to use fallacious arguments, and from having to offer the kind of evidence that needs to be offered if anyone is to entertain your suggestions as having any possibility of being worthy of consideration, by appealing to your being 40 and to who posts to this forum, go right ahead.

But don't expect anyone with any sense to think that you have any idea of what you are talking about, let alone that you are someone who is not more committed to his ego than to sound scholarship.

Sorry. I was foolish, given who you are how you argue when challenged and how you respond like a spoiled five year old at the slightest suggestion that in the end you are what you fear you are, a sour graped amateur, to abandon what I said previously about how engaging with your claims and your arguments is a waste of time.

Do me a favor and stop challenging for challenging's sake. To be constructive in the process that you are witnessing, ie exploring the possibilities in a wide sense or throwing things around to see how they fall together, would be either to join the party or at least let it go till it peters out. The topic is a starting point. Useful ideas may or may not be produced, but the process is not a vertically logical one. So, the persistent black hat will get the sort of reactions you are getting and you won't achieve anything, other than produce the vain peeved stuff like much of your last post.

stephan huller · 04-06-2013, 11:02 PM

It took me too long to edit but this should be included - I am not sure whether it represents the original author (= Irenaeus?) citing Matthew against Marcion or from Marcion's gospel: ibid Adv Marc 1:27 "Listen, you sinners, and any of you not yet so, that you may be able to become so: a better god has been discovered, one who is neither offended nor angry nor inflicts punishment, who has no fire warming up in hell, and no outer darkness wherein there is shuddering and gnashing of teeth: he is merely kind."

stephan huller · 04-06-2013, 11:41 PM

I think that we can agree that Irenaeus is writing here against the Marcionites. There is an incredible concentration of citations from Luke. If this is so then these references characterize the Marcionite system:

Quote:

It is not, then, one God who judges, and another Father who calls us together to salvation; nor one, forsooth, who confers eternal light, but another who orders those who have not on the wedding garment to be sent into outer darkness

and he corrects them throughout:

Quote:

For he who is good, and righteous, and pure, and spotless, will endure nothing evil, nor unjust, nor detestable in His wedding chamber. This is the Father of our Lord, by whose providence all things consist, and all are administered by His command; and He confers His free gifts upon those who should [receive them]; but the most righteous Retributor metes out [punishment] according to their deserts, most deservedly, to the ungrateful and to those that are insensible of His kindness

stephan huller · 04-07-2013, 12:31 AM

References to the Creation in the Church Fathers red emboldened for variations in the divine names from the received texts:

Now, although Adam was by reason of his condition under law subject to death, yet was hope preserved to him by the Lord's saying, "Behold, Adam is become as one of us; " that is, in consequence of the future taking of the man into the divine nature. Then what follows? "And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, (and eat), and live for ever." Inserting thus the particle of present time, "And now," He shows that He had made for a time, and at present, a prolongation of man's life. Therefore He did not actually curse Adam and Eve, for they were candidates for restoration, and they had been relieved by confession. Cain, however, He not only cursed; but when he wished to atone for his sin by death, He even prohibited his dying, so that he had to bear the load of this prohibition in addition to his crime. This, then, will prove to be the ignorance of our God, which was simulated on this account, that delinquent man should not be unaware of what he ought to do. Coming down to the case of Sodom and Gomorrha, he says: "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." [Tertullian Against Marcion 2:25.4 - 6]

maryhelena · 04-07-2013, 12:41 AM

Stephan, I can't fathom the extent you are going in your endeavor to portray Marcion as not upholding a good and an evil god. Why the reluctance to face the idea of an 'evil' god? It's not as though there are any gods at all in the sense usually depicted - of actual personages of some sort or another...It's principles we should be considering - not the ancient mindset.

Yes, that ancient mindset might have had it's arsenal of gods - but it's the 21st century now and we have to tally the ancient world view with our understanding of the world we live in. An 'evil' god is only a bad god when used outside a context in which 'evil' can function with a positive outcome. Philosophy, Stephan, is where this debate over Marcion's good and evil gods has to go. Philosophy prior to any theological applications. Principles first - theological fancy dressing is the add-on. An add-on that, in this case, has been subject to a lst century theological mindset.

I know you don't care for Sebastian Moll's book on Marcion! However, for the sake of having another voice in this thread - a few points from his book.

[T2]The Arch-Heretic Marcion, Sebastian Moll (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Page 71

Marcion’s original doctrine:

Good God vs. Evil God

Ptolemy, Letter to Flora (ca. 150)

Although most scholars agree that the second position referred to at the beginning of Ptolemy’s letter is Marcion’s (see Chapter I), they also mostly agree that Ptolemy is misportraying it. That the Law was given by the Creator is commonly accepted as Marcionite doctrine, but it is felt that Marcion would not have identified the Creator with the Devil/Adversary. Having established that in this letter we find the earliest argument against Marcion’s doctrine known to us (see Chapter I), we must attach the highest importance to Ptolemy’s statement and, in an unprejudiced manner, ask if there is any reason to assume that his portrayal of Marcion’s doctrine is in fact faulty. If it is faulty there are two possibilities. Either Ptolemy actually misunderstood Marcion’s doctrine or he is deliberately presenting it wrongly. The first possibility is most unlikely. Ptolemy lived in Rome at the same time as Marcion (see Chapter I). Both men were prominent Christian figures in the capital at that time and further belonged to the rare group of educated Christians. It is thus almost certain that they knew each other in person, and even if not, Ptolemy certainly had contact with some of Marcion’s followers. Thus, there is no reason to assume that Ptolemy would have been misinformed about Marcion’s doctrine. As to the question of Ptolemy deliberately misportraying it, we have to ask what reason he might have had for doing so. Concerning the Fathers’ reports on Marcion’s life for instance, it has turned out that later generations of writers very often used obviously fabricated stories in order to make their opponent look bad. Ptolemy, however, is about to engage in a real and above all topical theological dispute with Marcion, trying to expose his doctrine as deficient, and proving his own to be superior. He is therefore not interested in polemics but rather in an honest argument. Besides, as already mentioned in Chapter I, we have to assume that Flora was also familiar with these two different positions concerning the Law, so Ptolemy could not simply ascribe a certain doctrine to Marcion which was not his own.

The main reason, however, why the possibility of a deliberate misrepresentation of Marcion’s doctrine on the part of Ptolemy should be excluded, is Ptolemy’s own theology which he presents in the letter as an alternative to both the orthodox and the Marcionite position. Ptolemy’s answer to the all-decisive question of who gave the Law is that it is neither the ‘good God’ nor the ‘evil one’, but the just (di,kaioj) Creator. Let us be clear about this: the orthodox Christians, Marcion and Ptolemy all agree that the Creator of the world is also the Lawgiver. For the orthodox Christians this God is again identical, so to speak, with the good God, the Father of Jesus Christ. This position is absurd to Ptolemy since the imperfect Law could not have been given by the perfect God. For the Marcionites, the Creator forms a second, evil deity who is in opposition to the good God. This position is even more absurd to Ptolemy, as it is obvious that the unjust Adversary cannot be the author of the Law which eliminates injustice. Because of these two prevailing, yet in his eyes wrong positions, Ptolemy felt compelled to write a rectification. This rectification consists in the introduction of a third figure, the Just God, who is Lawgiver and Creator. Now, if Marcion had already proclaimed a just Demiurge/Lawgiver, as the Harnack-legacy maintains, Ptolemy’s counter argument would lose its entire purpose. Ptolemy would come up with a figure already provided by Marcion. Therefore, are we really supposed to think that Ptolemy deliberately misportrayed Marcion’s doctrine just so that he could claim to have come up with the idea of a just Demiurge himself? Ptolemy’s testimony clearly labels Marcion’s creator God as evil, and as long as this testimony is not refuted by other witnesses, it is to be trusted.

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/5817

[/T2]

Whatever fault one might find with Moll's book - and I'm sure it's not perfect...

- I do think this whole Marcion two gods and two sons idea can't be as easily washed away as some might like for it to be....

Taming Marcion is not the way forward...(where are the Marcionites today? Yep, the 'church' labeled them heretics. However, interestingly, Moll indicates that the original doctrine of a good and an evil god was watered down - thereby, to my thinking, losing it's power......) Good and evil are what we are - we can't run away...Life is not a fairy tale! Our job is to channel the 'evil' - we cannot overcome it...We are not only creators of our world - we are also it's destroyers...Yep, I always maintain - destruction is a creator's prerogative....:wave:

stephan huller · 04-07-2013, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Stephan, I can't fathom the extent you are going in your endeavor to portray Marcion as not upholding a good and an evil god.

Because I found the arguments of Segal, Drijvers and others more compelling. We've gone through this before - there are two sets of reports about the Marcionites and the exist side by side in the same text. To accept Moll's entire position one would also have to accept that Marcion took Luke and altered that text to support this dualism. I don't accept that. Many others agree with me. I think Moll's understanding is superficial and unworkable.

Quote:

Why the reluctance to face the idea of an 'evil' god? It's not as though there are any gods at all in the sense usually depicted - of actual personages of some sort or another...It's principles we should be considering - not the ancient mindset.

In the reports that accuse Marcion of dividing the godhead into the powers of mercy and justice there exists a third god - matter - who is considered to be the god of evil.

Quote:

Yes, that ancient mindset might have had it's arsenal of gods - but it's the 21st century now and we have to tally the ancient world view with our understanding of the world we live in. An 'evil' god is only a bad god when used outside a context in which 'evil' can function with a positive outcome. Philosophy, Stephan, is where this debate over Marcion's good and evil gods has to go. Philosophy prior to any theological applications. Principles first - theological fancy dressing is the add-on. An add-on that, in this case, has been subject to a lst century theological mindset.

My opinion is being led by the ancient sources. It has nothing to do with following notions from modernity. Like Segal I saw Jewish dimensions to the Marcionite debate including what is said about Marcion by the earliest sources. Like Drijvers I wasn't willing to ignore the Syriac testimonies like Moll.

Quote:

I know you don't care for Sebastian Moll's book on Marcion! However, for the sake of having another voice in this thread - a few points from his book.

Yes the fact that Moll works at a religious college in the Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät (= faculty of Protestant theology) doesn't necessarily mean that he is an idiot. That's true. The fact that the faculty also is said on the website to conduct the service for the students at the university does not mean that Moll's opinions about Marcion can be discounted:

Quote:

The faculty of protestant theology is responsible for the university service which takes place on the last Sunday of the month, 11.15, in Christuskirche, Mainz. The university sermon is regularly delivered by professors of theology, the music is provided by Bachchor Mainz and Bachorchester Mainz directed by Prof. Ralf Otto, and by organist Prof. Hans-Joachim Bartsch http://www.ev.theologie.uni-mainz.de/eng/440.php

But the combination of Moll's participation in an overtly theological university, his uncritical interpretation of Marcion (= accepting basically all the highly partisan views of the Western Church Fathers without much question) and the fact that other scholars who are not practicing Christians see the Marcionite problem in a generally different light leads to the possibility that his religious beliefs may possibly be getting in the way of his interpretative efforts. We don't know for sure.

Quote:

Whatever fault one might find with Moll's book - and I'm sure it's not perfect... - I do think this whole Marcion two gods and two sons idea can't be as easily washed away as some might like for it to be....

I think it can be. Justin Martyr is the ultimate source for that view and he misread this statue as being devoted to Simon Magus:

If he was wrong about something as basic as whether a statue was devoted to Simon Magus why should we trust him to report about Marcion? (whom he links with this Simon Magus)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-06-2013, 11:02 PM	#86
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It took me too long to edit but this should be included - I am not sure whether it represents the original author (= Irenaeus?) citing Matthew against Marcion or from Marcion's gospel: ibid Adv Marc 1:27 "Listen, you sinners, and any of you not yet so, that you may be able to become so: a better god has been discovered, one who is neither offended nor angry nor inflicts punishment, who has no fire warming up in hell, and no outer darkness wherein there is shuddering and gnashing of teeth: he is merely kind."

04-07-2013, 12:31 AM	#88
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	References to the Creation in the Church Fathers red emboldened for variations in the divine names from the received texts: Now, although Adam was by reason of his condition under law subject to death, yet was hope preserved to him by the Lord's saying, "Behold, Adam is become as one of us; " that is, in consequence of the future taking of the man into the divine nature. Then what follows? "And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, (and eat), and live for ever." Inserting thus the particle of present time, "And now," He shows that He had made for a time, and at present, a prolongation of man's life. Therefore He did not actually curse Adam and Eve, for they were candidates for restoration, and they had been relieved by confession. Cain, however, He not only cursed; but when he wished to atone for his sin by death, He even prohibited his dying, so that he had to bear the load of this prohibition in addition to his crime. This, then, will prove to be the ignorance of our God, which was simulated on this account, that delinquent man should not be unaware of what he ought to do. Coming down to the case of Sodom and Gomorrha, he says: "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." [Tertullian Against Marcion 2:25.4 - 6]

04-07-2013, 12:41 AM	#89
maryhelena Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England Posts: 2,527	Stephan, I can't fathom the extent you are going in your endeavor to portray Marcion as not upholding a good and an evil god. Why the reluctance to face the idea of an 'evil' god? It's not as though there are any gods at all in the sense usually depicted - of actual personages of some sort or another...It's principles we should be considering - not the ancient mindset. Yes, that ancient mindset might have had it's arsenal of gods - but it's the 21st century now and we have to tally the ancient world view with our understanding of the world we live in. An 'evil' god is only a bad god when used outside a context in which 'evil' can function with a positive outcome. Philosophy, Stephan, is where this debate over Marcion's good and evil gods has to go. Philosophy prior to any theological applications. Principles first - theological fancy dressing is the add-on. An add-on that, in this case, has been subject to a lst century theological mindset. I know you don't care for Sebastian Moll's book on Marcion! However, for the sake of having another voice in this thread - a few points from his book. [T2]The Arch-Heretic Marcion, Sebastian Moll (or via: amazon.co.uk) Page 71 Marcion’s original doctrine: Good God vs. Evil God Ptolemy, Letter to Flora (ca. 150) Although most scholars agree that the second position referred to at the beginning of Ptolemy’s letter is Marcion’s (see Chapter I), they also mostly agree that Ptolemy is misportraying it. That the Law was given by the Creator is commonly accepted as Marcionite doctrine, but it is felt that Marcion would not have identified the Creator with the Devil/Adversary. Having established that in this letter we find the earliest argument against Marcion’s doctrine known to us (see Chapter I), we must attach the highest importance to Ptolemy’s statement and, in an unprejudiced manner, ask if there is any reason to assume that his portrayal of Marcion’s doctrine is in fact faulty. If it is faulty there are two possibilities. Either Ptolemy actually misunderstood Marcion’s doctrine or he is deliberately presenting it wrongly. The first possibility is most unlikely. Ptolemy lived in Rome at the same time as Marcion (see Chapter I). Both men were prominent Christian figures in the capital at that time and further belonged to the rare group of educated Christians. It is thus almost certain that they knew each other in person, and even if not, Ptolemy certainly had contact with some of Marcion’s followers. Thus, there is no reason to assume that Ptolemy would have been misinformed about Marcion’s doctrine. As to the question of Ptolemy deliberately misportraying it, we have to ask what reason he might have had for doing so. Concerning the Fathers’ reports on Marcion’s life for instance, it has turned out that later generations of writers very often used obviously fabricated stories in order to make their opponent look bad. Ptolemy, however, is about to engage in a real and above all topical theological dispute with Marcion, trying to expose his doctrine as deficient, and proving his own to be superior. He is therefore not interested in polemics but rather in an honest argument. Besides, as already mentioned in Chapter I, we have to assume that Flora was also familiar with these two different positions concerning the Law, so Ptolemy could not simply ascribe a certain doctrine to Marcion which was not his own. The main reason, however, why the possibility of a deliberate misrepresentation of Marcion’s doctrine on the part of Ptolemy should be excluded, is Ptolemy’s own theology which he presents in the letter as an alternative to both the orthodox and the Marcionite position. Ptolemy’s answer to the all-decisive question of who gave the Law is that it is neither the ‘good God’ nor the ‘evil one’, but the just (di,kaioj) Creator. Let us be clear about this: the orthodox Christians, Marcion and Ptolemy all agree that the Creator of the world is also the Lawgiver. For the orthodox Christians this God is again identical, so to speak, with the good God, the Father of Jesus Christ. This position is absurd to Ptolemy since the imperfect Law could not have been given by the perfect God. For the Marcionites, the Creator forms a second, evil deity who is in opposition to the good God. This position is even more absurd to Ptolemy, as it is obvious that the unjust Adversary cannot be the author of the Law which eliminates injustice. Because of these two prevailing, yet in his eyes wrong positions, Ptolemy felt compelled to write a rectification. This rectification consists in the introduction of a third figure, the Just God, who is Lawgiver and Creator. Now, if Marcion had already proclaimed a just Demiurge/Lawgiver, as the Harnack-legacy maintains, Ptolemy’s counter argument would lose its entire purpose. Ptolemy would come up with a figure already provided by Marcion. Therefore, are we really supposed to think that Ptolemy deliberately misportrayed Marcion’s doctrine just so that he could claim to have come up with the idea of a just Demiurge himself? Ptolemy’s testimony clearly labels Marcion’s creator God as evil, and as long as this testimony is not refuted by other witnesses, it is to be trusted. http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/5817 [/T2] Whatever fault one might find with Moll's book - and I'm sure it's not perfect... - I do think this whole Marcion two gods and two sons idea can't be as easily washed away as some might like for it to be.... Taming Marcion is not the way forward...(where are the Marcionites today? Yep, the 'church' labeled them heretics. However, interestingly, Moll indicates that the original doctrine of a good and an evil god was watered down - thereby, to my thinking, losing it's power......) Good and evil are what we are - we can't run away...Life is not a fairy tale! Our job is to channel the 'evil' - we cannot overcome it...We are not only creators of our world - we are also it's destroyers...Yep, I always maintain - destruction is a creator's prerogative....:wave:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.