creation – Christ the Truth

Talking about evolution, creation and intelligent design

GlenNovember 9, 2013November 9, 2013Leave a comment

A friend on Facebook is studying Biology and just posted the question: "Any ideas for or against intelligent design" she has a classroom discussion on the issue coming up.

The first bit of advice was this:

I'd just take a copy of 'On the origin of the species' ( hardback) and smack any proponent of ID over the head with it :)

Another commenter said:

Cordyceps fungi and various parasitic insects (i.e. wasps). No way they could have been 'designed'.

I weighed in, as is my wont, with these two comments. (I've altered a word here and there for clarity). Perhaps it might be useful in your context...

I'm a Christian who believes the universe was designed (in one sense every Christian believes in intelligent design - since God's quite smart) but I don't like ID as a movement, cos the Christian story is actually that A) Creation is *fallen* and B) God is known, not by studying irreducible complexity but by seeing Him in the face of Christ.

That said, ID proponents are not dummies (some are, many aren't). And when they raise tough questions about thorough-going naturalism, they should be heard. How do systems increase in informational content without an intelligent input? That is a good and vital question? How can natural selection account for irreducible complexity (systems where incremental developments could never add up to the system as a whole because the individual stages don't add survival value)? That is a good question and needs more than a dismissive answer. Like I say, I'm not any kind of proponent for the ID movement, but they do raise vital scientific questions that shouldn't simply be dubbed stupid.

On another note, for the Christian, parasites are a brilliant testimony to the Bible's story. Parasites are secondary things that come along and spoil an original and ultimate good. That is precisely the Bible's picture of good and evil. There is an original and ultimate good (God) spoiled by something secondary and derivative (evil).

Then...

Like I say I'm not a fan of the ID project - but... Remember where the whole discussion begins. It begins with the undoubted and gob-smacking *appearance* of intelligent design. Everyone agrees that the world looks designed. A biologist might come along and say "I've found a mechanism that accounts for that appearance." But even if the mechanism has tremendous explanatory power (and natural selection does), remember:

A) Good science involves questioning paradigms, and IDers should be allowed to question "Does this mechanism really explain this and that?" Irreducible complexity and the information problem are some *excellent* questions to ask of the materialistic paradigm. It's not good science to ridicule that questioning. It actually starts to sound like a power play.

B) Even if we grant that Darwin has sewn up 'the origin of the *species*', there are still three other origins questions that are at least as pressing: origin of the cosmos, origin of life itself, origin of consciousness. You might want to argue that natural selection explains all of these, but at that point I recall the old saying: If all you've got is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Natural selection is an excellent hammer to be applied to certain features of the natural world, but I'd seriously question its ability to explain everything. Darwin's finches are fascinating and tell us much about evolution - it's quite a stretch to make them explain the cosmos!

C) Remember that discovering a mechanism says precisely Nothing about the existence of a Maker. It's useful to know the workings of an internal combustion engine, but no matter how comprehensive the knowledge, the existence of Henry Ford is an explanation beyond the wit of reverse-engineering. Mechanism and Maker are two different questions.

D) Remember where the conversation begins. It begins with everyone agreeing that the world looks eerily like it's designed. Even if you come up with an elaborate mechanism and provide convincing answers to all objections, the simplest explanation (i.e. that it *is* designed - and natural selection is one mechanism among many) is a perfectly reasonable position to take! Those who ridicule it are betraying the rational, scientific ideals they claim to be upholding.

Like I say, I'm not an IDer, I'm just a Christian, but I look on the debate with interest.

You’re entirely unnecessary… 3

glenscrivApril 18, 20133 Comments

[A repost from the early days of the King's English]

On the King's English I've been thinking about a triune creation.

In the beginning

Let there be light

Let us make man in our image

Be fruitful and multiply

Behold, it was very good

God rested

The Breath of Life

It's really striking me how profligate is the triune God of grace. The Father, Son and Spirit bubble over in love. A unitarian god needs creation. And all relations between such a creator and its creature are quid pro quo arrangements. The triune God does nothing about of necessity. It's all about gift and free overflow.

We can genuinely say "You really didn't have to." And the Lord will reply, "I know, but I wanted to."

So my friend, whoever you are. Know in your heart: You are entirely unnecessary. Entirely. Unnecessary. You are a profligate extravagance, a superfluous addendum, a needless flourish. The Lord, His universe, His church, His kindgom purposes could so easily do without you. You are completely surplus to requirements.

And you say "I need to be needed! If my children don't need me, I'll fall apart. If my church doesn't need me, I'll crumble. If my work doesn't need me, who am I?"

But you don't need to be needed. You only think you need to be needed because you've forgotten you're loved. So let me remind you...

You are wanted. You are desired. And not for anything 'you offer.' You are surplus to requirements. But our God doesn't deal in requirements, He enjoys the surplus. He delights in you.

Because of His great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. (Eph 2:4-5)

You are entirely unnecessary, but utterly loved.

Creation and Salvation: Irenaeus and Athanasius 2

glenscrivSeptember 6, 20122 Comments

Famously Adolf Von Harnack asserted in the History of Dogma that much of Christian theology betrayed the “work of the Greek spirit on the soil of the gospel.” Now to be fair, the old liberal didn't have much gospel himself but the observation has something to it.

On the one hand we have the Scriptures beginning with a very good creation, full of promises of land and seed and a Saviour taking flesh to renew heaven and earth. On the other we have a Hellenizing spirit which pits body and soul, earth and heaven, time and eternity against each other. When this spirit meets this gospel - and Harnack was right, this is a perennial danger - it always yields bad fruit.

But in this series I want to look at two towering exceptions in the history of theology - Irenaeus and Athanasius. In their day they resisted ‘the Greek spirit’ and called the church back to the fertile soil of the gospel. There they found the Fountainhead of those unities which escaped the philosophers of this age. In Jesus Christ they saw creation and salvation held together as one work performed by one Word. And from there flowed a unified account of all reality.

In our own day we would do well to hear their voices. Because we too find it completely obvious to fall for the old dualisms.

In the realm of the body, we see self-harm and eating disorders, promiscuity and confusion over sexual identity, compulsive dieting and body-building, cosmetic surgery and gender re-assignment. These are problems commonly found in the world but also in our churches. We seem deeply uncomfortable with our bodily existence.

In the realm of the environment, we see the extremes of those who simply consume the earth and those who worship it.

In worship there are the ritualists who consider their sacramental practice to work ex opere operato and there are the low church minimalists running scared from anything physical.

And theologically, as we consider the relationship of creation and redemption, some mistake political harmony, social justice or economic liberation for salvation. In reaction, some cut loose creation from salvation with an anti-physical gospel and an escapist eschatology. And some will dissolve any final distinction between creation and redemption and opt for universalism.

In view of this, the proper co-ordination of creation and redemption (and its attendant co-ordinations of body and soul, time and eternity, etc, etc) is a vital task for us all.

Irenaeus and Athanasius are going to help us massively. And they will help because they put Jesus Christ at the centre of their thinking.

This is a repost. The subsequent posts are here: part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7.

And here is Mike Reeves introducing Irenaeus and Athanasius - well worth a listen!

The Rising Sun Will Dawn On Us

glenscrivJuly 30, 2012Leave a comment

A round based on Luke 1:78-79.

Best on full screen with headphones. And do join it. That's the point...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FPBEyfQVts]

Happy Friday 3

glenscrivFebruary 24, 20123 Comments

Horribly, cringefully, hilarious...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faF2KGQ7sqQ]

Wonderfully, gloriously, beautiful...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdBqwGsEreM]

...and everything you always suspected...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKp29ZcslOM]

We all have our creation stories [repost] 4

glenscrivFebruary 23, 20124 Comments

Brian Cox - dream-boat physicist, not craggy-faced actor - recently said this:

Our civilization was built on the foundations of reason and rational thinking embodied in the scientific method, and our future depends on the widespread acceptance of science as THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE to meet many, if not all, of the great challenges we face. (here)

Well now. Them there's fighting words. Therefore, I thought it was time to repost this from two years ago (see how cutting edge CTT is? Discussing Cox two years ago!)

......

Just watched this documentary on the Large Hadron Collider: "The Big Bang Machine." (BBC4) presented by Brian Cox.

[youtube=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kaRKpQ5QvUQ&feature=channel]

Here's an extract from around 4:20 - 7:20.

Physics is stuck and the only thing left to do is recreate the universe as it was a fraction of a second after the big bang. That's what the LHC is designed to do. To smash bits of matter together at energies never before achieved so that we can stare at the face of creation...

So here's the aim - to stare at the face of creation.

And this is the means - to smash particles together.

Notice the disjunct between the stated aim and the means! Cox excites us about the scientific quest promising us a 'face' to creation. Of course "face" says communicative, conscious. It says personality. It's no wonder that Cox wants to reach for this kind of language because at bottom it's personal reality that we long to see. But all Cox can give us is particles. This is the trouble.

What do you say of a person who promises you a face but gives you only particles?

What do you say of an enterprise that can describe a face only in terms of its sub-atomic particles?

He continues...

...Every civilization has its own creation story. The ancient Chinese, indian mystics and Christian theologians all place a divine creator at the heart of their creation stories. Science too has an elaborate story that describes the universe's genesis. It tells us how the fundamental constituents of the cosmos took on their form. The difference with this story is that we can test it. We can find out if its true by tearing matter apart and looking at the pieces. All you need is a machine powerful enough to restage the first moments after creation...

This was the sentence that made me sit up and take notice: "Every civilization has its own creation story." And Cox puts 'science' in there among Indian mystics and Christian theologians. Ok good. We're all telling stories about the world around us - scientists included. But what does Cox say is the difference with science? Answer: "we can test it." Hmm. How will science be tested? Tearing apart matter and looking at the pieces.

Well now that's a very sensible test if you think that matter is what explains everything. If you have a story about the world that says everything came about via material means then test matter. Yes indeed that's testable. But it's not the only thing that's testable. What if your story about the world says 'Everything came about via the Word who was with God in the beginning and then became flesh and dwelt among us.' Is that testable? You betcha! Every bit as much as the 'science' story. It's just that you test this story in ways appropriate to its nature.

All science works by testing its object of study in accordance with its nature. You don't do astronomy with a microscope - your means of testing is adapted to the thing tested. So if you think it's all about matter, you study matter. But if you think it's all about the Word then you study the Word. Theology in this sense is completely scientific. It is taking its Object of enquiry completely seriously and pursuing thorough investigation according the nature of the Word - ie it is listening obediently to Him. That's good science. And it's our only hope of actually seeing the Face that explains our world. Particles won't get you to the Person - but the Person can help you explain particles...

Cox continues...

In the beginning there was nothing. No space, no time just endless nothing. Then 13.7 billion years ago from nothing came everything. The universe exploded into existence. From that fireball of energy emerged the simplest building blocks of matter. Finding experimental evidence of these fundamental entities has become the holy grail of physics.

Notice first that this creation story is just as miraculous as any other. "From nothing came everything". No explanations are given. None ever could be. This is the astonishing miracle at the heart of our modern creation story. It is not the case that only primitive 'religion' believes in miracles. The 'science' creation story is equally miraculous.

And again do you how science proceeds? It proceeds like theology. The scientific worldview says there must have been simple building blocks of matter that existed after the big bang. Of course we've never observed these. Nonetheless the worldview tells us they must have existed. Therefore science seeks after evidence of what it believes to be true even without the evidence. It has faith (an assurance of things hoped for (Heb 11:1f)) and from this faith it seeks understanding. That is the scientific pursuit and it is no more or less a faith-based enterprise than theology. And that's no bad thing, it's just the way things are. It would just be nice if scientists came clean about it!

The point is this - don't let anyone tell you science is about matter not miracles or fact and not faith. The truth is we all have our creation stories.

You are entirely unnecessary but utterly loved

GlenJanuary 7, 2011Leave a comment

On the King's English I've been thinking about a triune creation.

In the beginning

Let there be light

Let us make man in our image

Be fruitful and multiply

Behold, it was very good

God rested

The Breath of Life

We can genuinely say "You really didn't have to." And the Lord will reply, "I know, but I wanted to."

And you say "I need to be needed! If my children don't need me, I'll fall apart. If my church doesn't need me, I'll crumble. If my work doesn't need me, who am I?"

But you don't need to be needed. You only think you need to be needed because you've forgotten you're loved. So let me remind you...

You are wanted. You are desired. And not for anything 'you offer.' You are surplus to requirements. But our God doesn't deal in requirements, He enjoys the surplus. He delights in you.

Because of His great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. (Eph 2:4-5)

You are entirely unnecessary, but utterly loved.

Creation and Salvation – Irenaeus and Athanasius 7 6

GlenJuly 7, 20106 Comments

...continued from here...

Implications

We've been following the thought of Irenaeus and Athanasius and have seen creation and salvation united as the one divine work of the one divine Word. Creation is a gospel project for the Gospel God.

Let's sketch out some implications.

Perhaps the first application of these truths should be in the realm of evangelism. Such a theology of creation and redemption means that the call to “trust Jesus” is not just for Christians. It is the calling of every creature. All are to find their peace, their life, their goal in Him. If, as the Apostle Paul says, “All things are made by [Christ] and for [Christ]” then the question for every creature is, “Am I for Him?” Christians must have no embarrassment about the greatness of the commission laid upon them for the One they herald is not simply a spiritual Teacher for spiritual people. He is the Maker and Heir of each one of us. Pointing to Jesus is not simply a special calling for sprecial Christians but our vocation as human beings.

Secondly, the ‘cultural mandate’ as it's often called ('fill the earth and subdue it', Gen 1:28) is recapitulated in the great commission. If Irenaeus is right that Adam’s is a ‘sketched out’ ensouled humanity to be filled out by Christ’s spiritual humanity then it is right to see Adam’s commission as similarly recapitulated. In Matthew 28 Christ, as the Second Adam, tells His people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth with the gospel. “Making disciples” is not a second task alongside a quite separate ‘cultural mandate’. That would be to assume that God has two works, creation and redemption rather than one work of creation-redemption. Therefore, making disciples is the renewed and elevated mandate given to new creation people. This means that care for the environment and socio-political involvement must be strictly co-ordinated under the over-arching requirement of gospel proclamation. We are to care for this old creation, but we are to do so by pointing to its one hope, Jesus.

Thirdly, the gospel we proclaim needs to be much more comprehensive than the communication of certain moral or spiritual truths. The gospel is about everything. In fact, it is the reason for everything. In ‘pointing to Jesus’ we are not narrowing things down to a small range of religious truths. Rather we must see how all of history, philosophy, science and the arts, all of created life, is a gospel reality.

Fourthly, we should beware of escapist eschatologies that despise the body and our earthly future. Our great hope is not some aphysical, anaemic vision of heaven, but of a renewed creation summed up under Christ. Yet this rightly orients our concern for the environment. It is not environmentalism that will save the world but Christ Himself. Our love for the world must take its shape from God’s gospel love for the world. This will entail a passion for His gospel mission.

Fifthly, we must take seriously our embodied physicality in life. Our bodies are neither to be despised as unspiritual nor merely indulged or worshipped but they are “instruments for righteousness” (Rom 6:13). More specifically, our gendered embodiment, as part of God’s good creation, is internal to our identity and not something incidental to our personhood. It is a neo-Gnostic spirituality that would tell us that we are ‘trapped’ in the body of the opposite sex or that a union of bodies is not really a union of persons or that gender is immaterial to such unions. In modern debates about gender or sexuality, the liberal arguments may present on the surface as a celebration of bodily life. Yet this is quickly undermined as soon as it is asserted that “my gender or the gender of my partner is immaterial. What counts is...” Such arguments are a rejection of our concrete creatureliness in order to ground our true being elsewhere. It becomes the very opposite of a celebration of bodily life. We need to return to the more robust doctrine of creation provided by the bishops (the ancient ones, that is).

Seventhly, we must take seriously our embodied physicality in worship. The evangelical wing of the church will more usually emphasize worship as an all-of-life sacrificial service (Rom 12:1). This is a right application of the creation-redemption union. But the catholic wing of the church points with equal and justified concern to a right reverence for the sacraments. It is not more spiritual to bypass the creaturely gifts of water, bread and wine. It is not more spiritual to close our eyes and disregard the bodily. Our spiritual life takes shape precisely in our creatureliness and will do so eternally. This is not a fact to be lamented but celebrated. These two wings of the church can help each other to live out the creation-redemption link in worship.

Conclusion

Wherever salvation is spiritualized, wherever the body is denigrated, wherever gender is trivialized, wherever the future is immaterial, wherever the sacraments are Platonized, wherever worship is merely internalized, we have lost the insights of Irenaeus and Athanasius.

Irenaeus must be heard again as he proclaims the triune Creator’s good purposes for this world. Man ruling under God was the creation blueprint realized in Christ, the Heavenly Man ruling under God in the redeemed creation. Christ’s work is the triumphant reversal of Adam. More than this, it is the kingly accomplishment of God’s eternal plan for the creation. Christ reigns from the tree.

Athanasius must be heard as he holds out Christ as the divine Agent of creation and redemption. The incarnate work is nothing less than a re-creation of the de-created cosmos disintegrating under the weight of sin and death. The Redeemer is therefore no-one less than the Creator taking responsibility for His handiwork and making all things new.

When we fail to hold together creation and redemption, Christ’s work is entirely misunderstood. It is either considered as a superfluous addendum to the purpose of creation or it achieves a goal subordinate to it, or it begins a work alien to the creative intention or, worst of all, it is won as a salvation from the created order (and perhaps even from the Creator). Yet none of these say what the Scriptures insist and what Irenaeus and Athanasius knew must be proclaimed. That is, that redemption is the accomplishment of the one work of God, encompassing both creation and redemption. Christ’s work is not an awkward adjunct but rather the accomplishment and consummation of His own creative intent.

For more applications see Dev's recent post.

Here's Leon Sim on Irenaeus and the Trinitarian OT - great stuff.

Dan Hames on Irenaeus.

And Mike Reeves' introductions to Irenaeus and Athanasius
.

Creation and Salvation – Irenaeus and Athanasius 6

GlenJuly 6, 2010June 28, 2014Leave a comment

...continued from here...

Is salvation achieved merely by the incarnation?

Both Irenaeus and Athanasius are commonly accused of making the ‘bare fact’ of incarnation the sum total of Christ’s saving work. Yet this is unfair.

For Irenaeus, Christ’s filling out of Adam’s distorted image means necessarily a “filling up [of] the times of his disobedience” (Ad. Her. III.21.1) In taking on Adam’s substance, He took on Adam’s curse – this He satisfied at the cross, ‘propitiating indeed for us the Father, against Whom we had sinned’ (Ad. Her. V.17.1) and ‘redeeming us by His own blood’ (Ad. Her. V.14.3). Having put Adam to death, the resurrection then realizes Christ’s spiritual body bringing about the true glorified humanity to which the redeemed will belong and on which the renewed creation will be patterned.

Athanasius calls the cross "the very centre of our faith." For him, the curse of death is a key consideration. Within the creation narratives comes God's decree: "You will surely die." The word of Genesis 2:17 must be maintained lest God be proved false and, ironically, the serpent proved true. Christ’s incarnation is therefore that by which the Word can take a body capable of death “so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished." (De incarn. 8) Moreover this death is specifically a sacrifice (De. Incarn. 9; 10; 20) made under God’s curse (De incarn. 25) and offered without blemish (De. Incarn. 9) so as to be a ransom (De. Incarn. 9; 25) freeing us from Adam’s ‘primal transgression’. “In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.”

Thus, while the Bishops both see the union of divine and human as the goal of God’s creation-redemption purposes; and while the ‘Word become flesh’ is their sole hope for this union; the ‘bare fact’ will not do on its own. The nature of Adam’s race requires much work to be done. Mankind must turn from idols to the Truth, we must receive and truly own an active righteousness before the Father, Satan has to be defeated, justice must be upheld, sin must be dealt with, incorruptibility must be won. Thus, Christ’s divine teaching, His demonstrations of authority over man, nature and the devil, His active obedience, His suffering, His death, His resurrection and His ascension are all crucial in order to accomplish redemption.

Yet, against those (especially the Arians), who would uphold the necessity of these works yet deny the Person who worked them, it must be maintained that the Agent of these works is God and the locus of their working is man. These works are, therefore, only effective because they are the works of the God-Man. Thus, the incarnation is the necessary cause of redemption, but sufficient only when articulated as the full work of the Incarnate, Creator-Word.

In the final post I'll draw out some implications for today...

Creation and Salvation – Irenaeus and Athanasius 5

GlenJuly 5, 2010June 28, 2014Leave a comment

...continued from here...

The Fall - the Need for Re-Creation

In the philosophies of the third and fourth centuries, creation came out of great ruptures (e.g. wars in heaven). Against this, Athanasius maintained that physicality is not the issue for the creature before God. The problem – that is, the fall – occurs after creation. Thus it is humanity’s disobedience that gives rise to the rupture between God and man: an ethical rather than ontological problem.

The fall was a rejection of the Word, in consequence of which mankind no longer knew God and instead pursued false images (idols), not the true Image.Since God’s intention for creation is His fellowship with man in His Image, then this disruption affects the whole cosmos. The fall is thus ‘the work of God… being undone’ - de-creation.

Time and again Athanasius stresses how ‘supremely unfitting’ and ‘unthinkable’ it would be for the ‘All Good’ ‘Father of Truth’ to allow His creation to run such a ruinous path. He also notes that humanity has no resources within itself to remedy the situation. Thus God’s commitment to creation demands a reversal of the fall. Without redemption, God’s “consistency of character with all” is compromised. Or as Irenaeus had said, God must act lest He “be conquered [and] His wisdom lessened.” Since the fall was a ‘de-creation’ so redemption must be a re-creation. And if this is so, then the Creator Himself must be the Redeemer. Thus, creation and redemption are held together by the One Divine Word.

The Fall - the Need for Recapitulation

Where Athanasius speaks of re-creation, Irenaeus speaks of recapitulation.

Recapitulation (anakephalaiosis; see especially Ephesians 1:10; also Romans 13:9) has been variously understood: to sum up, to go over the same ground again, to unite under a single head, to restore to the original, to bring to a climax. All of these capture something of Irenaeus’ meaning though I prefer the picture of 'a spiral climb'. It means going over the same ground but thereby raising it to a higher plane. Fundamentally, redemption is described as God “recapitulating in Himself His own handiwork." (Adv.H., III.22.1)

Thus “what we had lost in Adam – namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God – that we might recover in Christ Jesus.” (Adv. H., III.18.1) Christ achieves this by taking the very flesh of Adam (Adv. H. V.1.3) – the head of the old humanity – and, going over the ground of Adam’s history. E.g:

just as Adam had no earthly father, so too Christ (III.18.7); just as Eve was disobedient, so Mary is obedient (V.19.1); just as Adam was tempted through food and failed, so Christ was tempted through fasting and succeeded (V.21.2); just as Adam was disobedient with the tree, so Christ is obedient on the tree (V.16.3) etc. etc.

Christ achieves victory where Adam failed.

“He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things… in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm [of victory] against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death.” Adv. H. V.21.1

Thus Christ can become the Head of the true spiritual humanity to which we must belong. This is, of course, not an innovation of Irenaeus’, but the plain teaching of the Scriptures – Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, 44-50.

What's important for out purposes is the fact that God’s creative work has moved in this direction from the beginning. Adam is always heading towards Christ. Eden is always heading towards the New Jerusalem, etc, etc. Christ’s incarnate work is completely ‘of-a-piece’ with His creation. The goal of all God’s ways with the creation has ever been to sum up everything under the Heavenly Man, Christ (Eph 1:10)

Thus, the humanity of Adam, for Irenaeus, was ‘sketched out’ expressly as that which must be filled out by Christ.

“The Word – the Creator of all – prefigured in Adam the future economy of His own incarnation. God first sketched out the ensouled human being, with a view to his being saved by the spiritual human being. Since the Saviour was already in existence, the one who was to be saved had to come into existence, or the Saviour would have been Saviour of no one." (Adv.H. III.22.3)

Notice that Adam was always 'to be saved' and that Christ is ‘Saviour’ even before the fall. Thus Minns must be right when he says of Irenaeus’ theology:

“Adam’s sin conditions the salvation to be worked by the incarnate Word but it does not call it into existence. For the earth creature does not come to be in the image and likeness of God until God becomes flesh, until the human being in whose image Adam was created stands on the earth.” (D. Minns, Irenaeus, p87)

For Irenaeus, Christ’s work is not simply the answer to sin (though it certainly accomplished this). Christ’s incarnate work inhabits and realizes the one dynamic story of creation’s fulfilment moving from Adam to Christ, from flesh to spirit, from Eden to the New Jerusalem. Salvation is not a response to the fall and it's not paradise restored. Salvation is the drawing into God of what has been made through the Son. And what has been made has always been destined for this redemption.

Thus, creation and redemption are not just held together by One Divine Word, they are also held together as one divine work.

CONTINUED HERE