Against Heresies

by Irenaeus of Lyons

This work, which establishes Irenaeus as the most important of the theologians of the second century, is a detailed and effective refutation of Gnosticism, and a major source of information on the various Gnostic sects and doctrines.

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Religion, Catholic, History, Christian, Classics

668 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 177

About the author

St. Irenaeus (2nd cenutry C.E. – c. 202) was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (now Lyon, France). He was an early church father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. Irenaeus' best-known book, Adversus Haereses or Against Heresies (c. 180) is a detailed attack on Gnosticism, which was then a serious threat to the Church, and especially on the system of the Gnostic Valentinus.

Reviews

[Fergus, Weaver of Autistic Webs · Rating 5 out of 5]

Life’s hard. But AVOIDING it can be Hellish.

Irenaeus has been called the first great Christian thinker. He wrote at a time when the rotting Roman Empire was feeding us Christians to the lions - but to him that was the LEAST of believers’ fears.

No, the worst was listening to the siren call of those who hawk a HIDDEN path to happiness! Those who do, he warned, are falling into a cesspool.

Life’s tough. And a heck of a lot tougher as you reach your golden years, for those who listen to the scammers.

And no scam is worse than Gnosticism, because it can mortally sting your soul.

Let me tell you a little story...

Twenty-one years ago I woke up. Two things contributed to that phenomenon - firstly, I quit smoking; and secondly, my doc migrated my meds to a much less-soporific mood stabilizer.

The lights all went on and I was hanging on by my mere fingernails. Fortunately, my very busy career was nearing its conclusion - with full retirement benefits.

It’s as if God were saying - you’re burnt out, so now I’m going to lighten this purgatorial load!

So, once retired, I glued myself to some serious TV and music while my better half shopped.

But something was wrong.

For now, wide-awake, I understood many previously MISundertood intentions of my peers. It’s as if their hidden hearts were now visible on an X-ray screen.

The X-ray screen showed personalities fractured and inwardly anesthetized by the seduction of gnosticism. And me?

With X-ray vision, it was as if I could now see life though a gnostic lens. That hurt excruciatingly. The fracture had created a seismic shock.

My previous innocence was now out of reach. But WITHIN reach was something I had carried with me as a constant accessory:

My FAITH.

So wide-awake as I was I had only one way before me - that way went straight up the middle, into the thick of the battle.

Life’s tough.

Love. Pain. The Whole Darned Thing... as the song says.

Straight up. No chaser.

And that’s where this first Christian theologian takes us. The only secret of Christianity is the Incarnation.

And that is REAL.

It involves all the love and pain and hurt and aggravation of unplugged, ordinary life - WITHOUT the corrupt anaesthetic of our Mass Gnostic Imagination.

Yes, says Irenaeus: heretics, take it or leave it!

But we know in advance the Gnostics are gonna leave the pain out of their lives, and sugarcoat and soft-sell their corruption -

Cause, they would say, our life of the Cross is just too UNCOOL to believe in. But WE do, because:

For each ecstatic instant
We must an anguish pay
In keen and quivering ratio
To the ecstasy.

[S. Paterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gnosticism is stupid.

[Erik Graff · Rating 2 out of 5]

I enrolled in a course Elaine Pagels taught at Union Theological Seminary in New York during my last year there because I'd read some of her work on gnosticism as a part of preparing an undergraduate thesis on scholarly opinions regarding the origins of the phenomenon. Additionally, I'd come to know her a bit socially because my girlfriend had studied with her at Barnard College previously.

The course itself was ostensibly about Genesis, about materials which appeared in Pagel's Adam, Eve and the Serpent, but I enrolled only after receiving permission to concentrate instead on reading all the the ante-Nicene patristics in order to compile what I eventually entitled "On the Procession of the Heresiarchs of Gnosis"--an exhaustive compilation of all patristic texts pertaining to the subject.

Most of the early Church Fathers are very, very boring. Few wrote well. Excepting perhaps Origen, few even remotely approach the learning and intellectual acumen of a Plato or Aristotle. Consequently, the work was tedious, something I never could have done were it not for the project of seeking relevant texts, gems among the dross.

Most important because very early and quite extensive (2nd century) was Irenaeus, a bishop of Gaul. His Adversus haereses was filled with references to various "gnostic" teachers, both contemporary and historical. Like most writers of the period, Irenaeus saw belief systems, philosophies and ideologies as passing from teacher to pupil. In the case of "gnosticism", the origin, because biblical, was Simon Magus (Acts). Satanically "puffed up" with false pride, intent to feed on the body of the Church, his teachings spread like a cancer, metastasizing throughout the Christianizing world, proliferating to legions of sub-sects, each with its own leaders. Irenaeus' aim was to expose, ridicule and refute the teachings in order to maintain his own authority and that of his fellow bishops. This was, of course, more than a century before the Church became officially recognized in the Roman Empire.

Irenaeus is, as aforesaid, an important source, but he is not a good one. Not only does he come across as authoritarian and intellectually narrow, but his attempts to ridicule what and whom he believed to be heretical are themselves often ridiculous. Unfortunately, because most everything we knew about early "gnosticism" was, until Nag Hammadi, from patristics like him, his importance as a primary source led centuries of scholarship down wrong paths, one of them being the mistaken belief that there was something like a Gnostic religion which might be regarded as analogous to what became the Catholic.

Ironically, some of Irenaeus' own beliefs are themselves, albeit by standards established later, though still maintained, quite absolutely heretical. Most notably he appears to have taken it for granted that Jesus lived to a ripe old age--indeed, Jesus had to in order to serve as an archetype of humanity.

If you want some idea of how very different the Church of the second century was from that after Constantine, then you might want to read Irenaeus.

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great collection of Irenaeus' thought and early Christian apologetic. In particular his discussion of the meaning of sin, knowledge of good and evil and free will stand out to me.

(Review after second reading)
Irenaeus wrote The Scandal of the Incarnation in order to refute the various Gnostic sects that were challenging orthodox Christianity during his day. Gnostics were particularly bullish in their disparaging of the flesh and the elevation of the spirit (1). One of the most prevalent themes in Irenaeus’ work is that “Not only in works, but also in faith, God has safeguarded the freedom and self-determination of man” (34). Irenaeus’ emphasis on human agency and his belief that God has foreknowledge of all things (86) makes me wonder if he is a “proto-Arminian” (or rather, if Arminianism stands with classic Christianity regarding free will). There is also a tendency in the holiness tradition (which is largely Arminianism and Wesleyanism) to focus not just on justification but also to stress sanctification. This emphasis on sanctification also has affinity with Irenaeus because the church father believes that human beings, being inferior to the uncreated God, required increasing maturity because human beings could not be perfect right away (66). Sanctification stresses the ongoing work of the Spirit in the life of the Christian as s/he strives to imitate Christ. I was particularly intrigued by Irenaeus’ proposition that a human being is composed of body, spirit, and soul and that the soul mediates between the Spirit and the flesh (96). As well, there is a strong Trinitarian emphasis in Irenaeus’ theology. He relates that the Holy Spirit prepares us to receive the Son and Christ leads us to God who grants us eternal life (49). Irenaeus admits that Gnostics also use the Bible in order to back up their arguments while also appealing to a “secret tradition” but that they also contradict one another (30, 37-38). This demonstrates not only the constant appeal within the history of Christianity by some to another form of authority and to the inevitably of further schism that can occur as some groups hold one source of authority as more normative and superior to another. Another prominent theme in Irenaeus’ theology is the self-revelation of God. We could not know God on our own which is why the Son became incarnate in order to lead us to the Father who is invisible (19-21). However, Irenaeus also insists that Jesus was present in the Old Testament (50-51). Many Christians today struggle with how to understand the role of the Law; many insist that grace has entirely replaced the Law. This is true in some respects, but Irenaeus in fact contends that Jesus widened, rather than abolished, the Law. For instance, instead of merely not committing adultery, Jesus commands us to not lust (77).

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Typically I'm not a fan of books of 'selections' I would rather sit down and read a book cover to cover and find an author's thoughts, ancient or otherwise, in context.

That being said I have never read Irenaeus's Against Heresies cover-to-cover, but only in fits and starts. And this isn't just an ordinary edition of the 'Essential Irenaeus.'

With selections compiled and introduced by Hans Urs von Balthasar, arguably Roman Catholicism's greatest 20th Century theologian, Irenaeus words come to life. I enjoyed pondering these, and really appreciated Balthasar's commentary.

[Leonardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the thrust of the book: Jesus came in flesh and blood, sent by the Father who revealed himself to Abraham and to Moses and the prophets, to redeem God’s creation. The first two books deal with first the various Gnostic cults who were leading Christians astray and the absurdity of their beliefs and then directly refuting each one (such as the confounded numerology used to extract the gnostic pleromas and aeons) with scripture. The last three books build into a systematic theology concerning the resurrection of the body denied by the gnostics and how the work of Jesus is for the redemption of body and soul, material and immaterial, and not spirit only. Your mileage may vary since St. Irenaeus uses a lot of patterns to prove some points of his (i.e. there can only he four Gospels because there are four cardinal directions and four faces of the seraphim), but I think he lays out a good reason to distrust the teachers he refuted. So how does this apply to us? Examine your own beliefs about God. Do all of them come from the Bible? Do you disdain the matter God made without realizing it? Look for places in the Bible where God takes the things he made (water, bread, wine) and uses them to impart his grace (water and the word for baptism, bread and wine and the word for the Lord’s Supper). If you don’t recognize the impartation of grace through these gifts God gives you, then that is a place to start. Did you grow up thinking that the life hereafter would just be a bunch of souls in the clouds? There’s another way in which you share a gnostic belief. St. Irenaeus encourages us to believe the Bible in its entirety and not to base our theology on verses taken out of context. Do not rely on special revelation, but rather hold fast to the teaching of the Church handed down to you from the Apostles.

[Misael Galdámez · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel like Frodo after he threw the ring into the fires of Mt. Doom. "It's done," he said, with a look of weariness, after the book taunted him on his shelf for six months. For a much, much, shorter introduction to Irenaeus, check out On the Apostolic Preaching.

This book is so wide-ranging, it's hard to rate. Sometimes, his reading of scripture and redemptive history is so profound that you'll feel richly rewarded. Other times, you'll be scratching your head wondering what he meant, and then you read a footnote that says, "the text is obscure and corrupt." Great.

If you're wanting to get more of Irenaeus, I'd recommend readings Books III-V. I and II are fairly skippable, unless you want your head to hurt from how convoluted historic gnosticism was. Book III gave me a lot of content on recapitulation, Book V was also a favorite.

“For the Maker of all things, the Word of God, who did also from the beginning form man, When he found his handiwork impaired by wickedness, performed upon it all kinds of healing.”

[Bryce Beale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Irenaeus was a second-century church father of the Greek tradition (born in Smyrna, in modern-day Turkey), but who labored as a bishop in the West (Lyons, in modern-day France). He was an intellectual force, as evidenced by this five-volume work that deals in depth with an unusual religio-philosophical movement; yet he was not in an ivory tower. His bishopric began when, returning from a trip to Rome, he found his former bishop martyred by a wave of persecution that had struck in his absence.

Against Heresies (Latin Adversus Haeresies) is Irenaeus' best-known work. In two volumes, the Greek father exposes the "secret knowledge" invented by the Gnostics (especially Valentinus) and propogated in the early church. Gnosticism was a syncretistic hodge-podge of Greek philosophy and Christianity that, quite significantly, in some of its forms de-deified not only Jesus but also God in the Old Testament, shrinking him down to a "demiurge," and an evil one at that!

The last three volumes of Against Heresies are a response to and rebuttal of the Gnosticism exposed in the first two volumes.

I am always amazed, in reading the church fathers, by how profusely they quoted the Scriptures. They must have memorized large swaths of the word. But what also amazed me in this work by Irenaeus was how thoroughly he learned and reiterated the nonsensical but subtle doctrines of the Gnostics (it took two volumes to do it!). This was necessary in refuting the Gnostics, because they kept much of their teaching underwraps from the uninitiated (like Scientologists today). Irenaeus exposed their teaching, and he did it in remarkable detail.

Although Irenaeus could not more strongly disagree with the Gnostics, he recognized the need for intellectual integrity in refuting them. He wanted to show that he knew what he was talking about. And after working through the first two volumes of this work, I can testify that he certainly did.

One other thought that crossed my mind in hearing Irenaeus was this: there are many interpretations of Scripture that this church father asserted which I think are simply wrong. And yet these are not central matters. I disagree with the Gnostics right at the heart of Christianity; I disagree with Irenaeus, but not at the heart of things. These are two very different ways of disagreeing.

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tredje gången gillt!

Första gången jag försökte mig på denna var jag i tonåren, och kombinationen av min mentors motvilja mot den och en religiös kris gjorde att jag lämnade den. Andra gången var 2018/19, och när jobbet började igen, slutade jag läsa. Denna gång var motig, men värd det.

Irenaeus är en skicklig pedagog och retoriker, som tydligt förklarar sin synpunkt och motbevisar både de kändare och mindre kända gnostikerna. Han förefaller nästan besatt av djävulens påverkan på världen, och frälsningen i relation till denna. Detta påverkar hans betoningar, men i grunden förefaller hans teologi ortodox - han säger inget som i sig är märkligt.

Det mest intressanta för mig, som jag inte reflekterat över, är frälsningen i ljuset av Guds rättvisa, som en del av en multirollgud - inte bara fader och vän, utan domare, rådgivare och skapare. I ljuset av dessa roller blir naiv godhet inte möjligt; samtidigt förklaras den manipulativa "fuskande" gudsbilden, och hur detta kan fungera med fri vilja, tydliggjord. Jag säger det igen: Teodice-problemet är inte ett problem. Kärlek finns även i detta, även om det är en utvecklingsdrivande kärlek.

Jag är inte säker på att jag är benägen att tillskriva Irenaeus någon större auktoritet. Dels eftersom jag faktiskt inte tror att de förkristna religionerna var djävulens skapelser, vilket är en av Irenaeus bärande postulat; dels eftersom jag har svårt att se att vi kan tänka oss till en förståelse av Gud, och i den bokstavsläsning av bibeln som Ireneaus verkar göra tillskrivs Gud attribut utifrån profeterna. Det förutsätter vad jag kan se att profeterna hade en fattningsförmåga som går emot att Gud bara tillät sig ses på ryggen, vilket vore att förneka deras mänsklighet. På det sättet förstår jag min mentors, Gud välsigne hans minne, invändningar om att Ireneaus bygger fundamentalister snarare än goda kristna. Trots det ser jag också nyttan med honom, framförallt i en värld som har vänt sig ifrån en naturvetenskaplig förståelse - som ju, om vi accepterar en religiös värld, också är en förståelse av Gud, om än med andra verktyg.

Jag rekommenderar denna bok för tvivlare, och för de som (liksom jag) tycker att det är lite småspännande med sekter, och hur de tänker och har fungerat.

[Christian Barrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a major piece of Christian history. This translation is helpful, but the font is hard to read at times. The preface gives a little context for the work, but is not extensive. This piece contains five books. The first two focus on the heresies of the Gnostics. Irenaeus then moves to discuss Scripture and Christian doctrine. This book is helpful in realizing that orthodoxy extends well before the church councils and is rooted in the Scriptures.

Second read: This Christian classic is worth the read. I have read through it a couple of times, but took my time this read through as I sought to grasp what Irenaeus can teach us today. There is much we can still learn from the saints of old.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

A collection of writings from the bishop of Lyons in the 2nd century mostly in response toothed Gnostic heresies the day, it was a little difficult to read. However, it is amazing in its clarity of orthodoxy and defense of proper Christology and the salvation of our entire selves, body and soul. What is also evident is how thoroughly Catholic in belief and theology the church was even in the 2nd century.... Beliefs about Christ's redemption, faith and works, the nature of the Church, the Eucharist, the Blessed Virgin Mary, etc. are infused in his writings.

[Daniel Kleven · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The glory of God is man fully alive"

I first heard that phrase in a Sara Groves song twenty years ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqoxH...) on what is still one of my favorite records of all time (and by the way, was just re-released this year in a "Twentieth Anniversary" edition with three new tracks, but I digress [https://www.saragroves.com/store/p/ad...])

Since then, I picked up snippets here and there in college and then in seminary, and eventually read Book 4 of Against Heresies for a class, but never sat down and read the whole thing. It's monumental, my edition is 450+ pages of small print, but it's a classic, and I found it really helpful to get back to 2nd century Christian thought for a sense of what the faith meant to this particular church leader in the face of various alternatives.

In particular, it's against "heresies," and for Irenaeus, the main heresies were various forms of gnosticism. Now, I wasn't looking for analogs to the ideas of gnosticism as a way of trying to apply these insights to my own situation, but what I did find myself imagining was a more sociological approach, namely: gnosticism was popular, and had a variety of popular writers constructing elaborate systems of thought that included a "Christ" figure, and referenced the Bible, but which looked nothing like what the Bible actually teaches when you get down to it. Irenaeus painstakingly offered arguments against these positions, he didn't merely use ecclesial power to suppress them. I thought of "white american christianity" in general or the MAGA movement, and QAnonin particular (a good analogy to the truly bizarre teachings of gnosticism), and found grounding for a Christian faith that stands on Scripture against popular and powerful alternatives.

Anyway, there's a TON more to get from Irenaeus, and I highly recommend reading him.

[Vic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gratefully dazzled by the “Doctor of Unity” - St Irenaeus. My experience reading this book was captured excellently in von Balthasar’s equally dazzling introduction:

“The theology of this first great Christian thinker may not be worked out to the last technical detail, but its basic intuition, its vision of what distinguishes the Church from heresy and the sects, is so clear and penetrating that, taken as a whole, it cannot fail to enlighten the unbiased observer.” (pg 11)

(Significantly, St Irenaeus’ explication of Incarnation as Recapitulation foreshadows St Maximus the Confessor’s later Christocentric-cosmological vision.)

Will have to reread this work of a paradigmatic importance that cannot be overstated for all Christian theology, not least in its relevance, as von Balthasar points out (with de Lubac), to today’s self-defeating atheist humanism.

[Ben Zornes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Grateful for men of old who helped the church fight against heresies, and give us orthodox doctrine. At points this is hard to follow, but when you read it in light of some other books on church history, it becomes a bit clearer why Irenaeus mocked gnosticism. He was thug life.

[A Fiore · Rating 5 out of 5]

Technically haven't finished this -- but great work to use as a sort of quick reference for early church heresies.

[Enrique Algarin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gnostic debates, Affirms the Church in Rome before the second century, and affirms the Bread and Wine - become - the Body and Blood of Christ.

[Jordan Carl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wow. What a ride.

Book 1: Really weird stuff. Here he lays out in painful detail the Gnostic system. This was a real slog.
Book 2: Philosophical arguments against Gnosticism. Slightly more enjoyable yet still a slog fest.
Book 3: A historical and biblical polemic against Gnosticism. This is a nascent version of covenant theology and is a great read.
Book 4: Defense of a single triune God from scripture. Really great.
Book 5: Somewhat of a recap and recapitulation of various arguments.

So, if you really want to know about Gnosticism, read Books 1 and 2. If not, read Wikipedia on Gnosticism and skip to books 3, 4, and 5.

[Dan Glover · Rating 5 out of 5]

(Read Sept. 2017 & Jan. 2018] This is a truly excellent work and deserves to be widely read. Irenaeus writing against the Gnostic heresies of his day, formulating and defending Jesus as both truly man and truly God, and how the two natures joined in Christ is a reconciliation of God with humanity. He also discusses the inherent goodness of the material world as God's good creation (over against the Gnostics equating matter with evil and creation with the fall), the initiation of salvation as God's gracious work and yet the requirement of human free will to receive it, the knowledge of good and evil, what sin is, and the fact that God's gracious redemptive plan was already being worked out in the OT times, all leading up to Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection as the pinnacle of redemption. Also, contra the Gnostics, Irenaeus shows how both the OT and NT are authoritative Christian Scripture, and there are great examples of his Christological and typological interpretation of the OT in light of the further revelation of the new. Irenaeus sees Christ's incarnation and saving work as a recapitulation of humanity, this time in obedience to the Father and as pattern of true humanity. You also see here some early trinitarian theological imagery, where Irenaeus views the Word/Son and the Wisdom/Spirit as the two hands of God/Father. I also appreciated von Balthasar's excellent introduction and helpful comments throughout.

[Joshua Pearsall · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful book, but definitely not something for everyone. If you don't need to refute a bunch of Gnostics (or aren't interested in reading on their beliefs) I recommend skipping the first two books (they largely cover different Gnostic beliefs), but there is a lot of wonderful work done throughout the entire text.

[Conor · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great compilation of St. Irenaeus' writings against the Gnostics. I read it in bits and pieces which I think diminished the quality of my read. Balthasar does a good job of introducing and selecting texts. There are many gems here. Well worth the read.

[loraknits · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sometimes I felt my eyes crossing...jest of book - gnosticism = bad

[Patrick Schlabs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Surprisingly accessible and relevant. Irenaeus should be widely read by pastors and laymen alike.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely important work, both from a history of Gnostic thought perspective, as well as an orthodox historical theological perspective. Finally worked through the whole thing, rather than excerpting.

If you want to learn about what Gnosticism was really about read books I and II (especially book I). If you're wondering, it's far more than just about the "secret knowledge" that you may have heard about; it's an entirely different cosmogony and religion.

Books III-V will hit your historical theology itch; too many significant passages to count. We see the doctrine of Scripture, doctrine of the deity of Christ, of the incarnation, what is seemingly a covenantal understanding of redemptive history, as well as his view concerning eschatology. Makes for a lot of fascinating reading, as well as much edifying reading.

Side note that I will need to explore further: Irenaeus understands the Eucharist as a sacrifice, but the way he understands it seems to be as an offering of thanksgiving, not a propitiatory sacrifice as would later develop.

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

“You Gnostics are insufferable! You force the Word of God, the Author and Maker of all things, into categories and numbers (sometimes thirty, sometimes twenty-four, sometimes only six). You cut Him up into four syllables and thirty elements. You reduce the Lord of all, the One who founded the heavens, to the number eight hundred and eighty-eight. You treat Him like the alphabet. You subdivide the Father, who contains all but is contained by nothing, into a group of four, eight, ten, twelve, hoping that these multiplications will help you expound the nature of the Father, which, as you say yourself, is inexpressible and inconceivable.

I am well aware that, when you read through all this, dear friend, you will have a good laugh at such pretentious nonsense. But really we should feel sorry for people who, with their alphabet and their numbers, coldly and perversely mock a religion so noble, power so immense, so truly inexpressible, dispositions of God so striking.”

[Mark Seeley · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was not an easy read. Irenaeus confronts the Gnostics complex theosophies which varied in great detail. According to the Gnostics, God is so transcendent that a host of lesser powers acting as intermediaries created the world. Irenaeus marshals Scripture text after Scripture text to prove otherwise. He opposes the Gnostics as they depart from the plain teaching of the Bible. Irenaeus vindicates creation's goodness. The key doctrine as I understand him is the incarnation. Book 5 develops his eschatology of two resurrections.

I thought the translation of this particular book publisher (Beloved Publishing?) was terribly awkward. Run on sentences, misspellings, no Scripture citations or references. This edition could have used a serious editor.

My favorite line was, "For the church has been planted as a garden in the world."

[Matt Villa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Will write a fuller review later. Quick thoughts:

First half was phenomenal, Book 1 description of all different Gnostic beliefs was great, and Book 2 in particular was the best part. The logical takedowns of Gnosticism were incredible, well written, and a great read.

About halfway through book 3, the writing took a nosedive. Irenaeus became unfocused, scatterbrained, and was stretching the material way further than needed. It really brought down my overall opinion of this work. The second half, beyond some fairly good theological writing in Book 5 regarding the future resurrection of Christians, was mindnumbing. If Books 1 and 2 (and portions of 3) weren’t so fantastic this would be brought down a star.

Full review to be updated here later

[Tyler Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book for my Theology of Irenaeus course under Dr. Steve McCormick at Nazarene Theological Seminary. This was a helpful compilation of key sections and quotations from St. Irenaeus' "Against Heresies." Balthasar grouped his selection of quotations and excerpts together topically, giving a nice overview of St. Irenaeus' theology and main points while cutting out a lot of the detailed descriptions of the various gnostic heresies he was writing against which are less specifically relevant to the modern reader and can be tedious.

Overall, although influenced by Bathasar as the editor, it was a nice introduction to St. Irenaeus in his own words.

[Richard Fitzgerald · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hans Urs von Balthasar has organized bits of Irenaeus’s Against the Heresies to produce this book. I was assigned bits of the books bits in seminary and years later have read all the bits. I wish I had just read Iranaeus’s work directly. The organization is interesting, but some of the individual quotes don’t seem to hold together well. It is clear to me, however, that Iranaeus’s thought is as relevant today as it was in the second century. It’s unfortunate that this volume hides the brilliance of Iranaeus behind bits of his reorganized work.

[Benjamin Stahl · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this is certainly an important and rigorously argued defence of Orthodox Christianity - written only a couple of centuries following the crucifixion of Our Lord - I found it hard to follow much of the time. Similar to when I read one of Thomas Aquinas's books, I wanted to like it much more than I was actually able to. As I often say after listening to this kind of thing on audio, I imagine I would have liked it more in the traditional format, even though that would have taken my five years.

[Jake Litwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written around 180 AD, this is a classic work in orthodox Christian theology against Gnosticism. Book 1-2 were a little slow but then it picks up in Books 3-5 with an amazing treatment of high Christology saturated with Scripture. Ancient but still just as important today as it was back then when the doctrine of Christ, sin, and salvation are attacked. Highly recommend.