Robert Bowman has written a "response" to this article, Irenaeus, Sola Scriptura, and Modern Restorationism: A Response to Anabaptist and Mormon Apologists. Unfortunately for Bowman, his article mirrors much of his colleague C. Michael Patton's abuse (actually Keith Mathison whom Patton was reliant upon) of Irenaeus, so his arguments have already been answered:
Irenaeus did not hold to Sola Scriptura
To show how deceptive Bowman's response is, he imputes to me the following interpretation of Irenaeus of Lyons that I never did:
I never claimed that Irenaeus held to the same theology as Latter-day Saints do vis-á-vis final authority, so Bowman is being his usual disingenuous self yet again. All his talk about me knocking down a straw man of my own creation earlier in his article is nothing short of projection on his behalf.
Finally, Errol noted the following:
It should also be noted that Irenaeus held to doctrines that Bowman would reject as false if not downright heretical, such as baptismal regeneration (Against Heresies 3.17.1-2), as noted above. Further, and rather ironically, Bowman describes himself and other Protestants like Mathison, Webster, and other proponents of sola scriptura perfectly in his summary:
Irenaeus did not hold to Sola Scriptura
To show how deceptive Bowman's response is, he imputes to me the following interpretation of Irenaeus of Lyons that I never did:
This is the other passage in Against Heresies that Mr. Amey and Mr. Boylan quote (in part) to counter one of my quotations from the same book. However, there is nothing here that supports either Mr. Amey’s position (the Bible cannot be understood on its own because it is unclear but must be interpreted according to whatever the ante-Nicene fathers as a whole taught) or Mr. Boylan’s Mormon position (the Bible cannot be understood on its own because it is incomplete or altered but must be interpreted through latter-day scriptures and the voice of the modern prophets).
I never claimed that Irenaeus held to the same theology as Latter-day Saints do vis-á-vis final authority, so Bowman is being his usual disingenuous self yet again. All his talk about me knocking down a straw man of my own creation earlier in his article is nothing short of projection on his behalf.
Errol, who is a friend of mine (perhaps the only thing Bowman got correct in his article) forwarded the following brief response to me:
"Mr. Amey’s position (the Bible cannot be understood on its own because it is unclear but must be interpreted according to whatever the ante-Nicene fathers as a whole taught)"
Here we see Bowman attacking a straw-man. My position is that the Scriptures can be understood without the assistance of ecumenical pre-Nicene teachings, except that persons who are indoctrinated with misinterpretations will not be inclined to see the clear teachings of the Scriptures. Case in point: If Rob Bowman, as a Calvinist, were to attempt to explain to Irenaeus the Scriptural basis for his belief in the TULIP, then Irenaeus would necessarily accuse Bowman of doing violence to the Scriptures just as the Gnostics did, and not seeing the clear Scriptural teachings of libertarian free-will, synergistic soteriology, conditional security, and baptismal regeneration, all of which Irenaeus has repeatedly espoused elsewhere.Errol also cogently noted that:
The crucial portion of Irenaeus that Bowman glossed over:
"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?"
This clearly demonstrates that Irenaeus' position is vastly closer to prima scriptura than to sola scriptura. What is the need for conferring with the most ancient churches who were in intimate communion with the Apostles unless the oral tradition of the Apostles was not viewed as at least a secondary authority and supplemental to the Scriptures? This is why we see Irenaeus complain that the Gnostics claim, "that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters,"
Another translation of Bowman's key portion of Irenaeus, and commentary from the scholar who translated it:
"Indeed, when they are exposed by means of the Scriptures, they turn round and make accusations against the Scriptures themselves, as if these were not correct or were not authentic and stated things variously"
(Irenaeus, ca. 180, 'Against the Heresies' 3:2:1, in 'Ancient Christian Writers' 64:31)
This is noted as having reference, "to ambiguous interpretations not in themselves but in relation to other texts that they contradict, with the result that they do not give a harmonious explanation of all the Scriptures. According to such groups, the Scriptures state things 'variously'; that is, they give a variety of opinions. Irenaeus regularly denounces his opponents for giving an interpretation to one passage which contradicts others, and he consistently argues for the harmony of revelation in all the Scriptures."
(Dominic J. Unger, 'Ancient Christian Writers' 64:124)
This understanding of Irenaeus undermines Bowman's attempt to link my own perspectives to those of the Gnostics as the Gnostics were not arguing that the Scriptures are sometimes hard to understand (which the Scriptures say regarding themselves, cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16), but rather that the Scriptures contradict themselves as opposed to being harmonious.
Finally, Errol noted the following:
And now for the crowning obliteration of Bowman's abuse of Irenaeus, from the most current patristic scholarship at my disposal:
"For Irenaeus of Lyons the canon of the writings of the NT, which had recently been formed in response to Marcion, became the chief weapon in his battle against gnosticism. But he was aware that this weapon, by itself, was not enough. He had to provide proof, moreover, that this canon of the church contained the complete and authentic apostolic tradition and also that this tradition was correctly interpreted in the church. The first proof was supplied, in Irenaeus's eyes, by the uninterrupted succession of the bishops in the apostolic churches (see 'Adv. haer.' III, praef.; 1,1; 2,1-4,1); the second proof is given by the fact that there is a perfect concordance between the 'rule of faith' of the apostolic churches and their interpretation of Scripture."
(W. Rordorf, 'Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity' 3:821-822)
It should also be noted that Irenaeus held to doctrines that Bowman would reject as false if not downright heretical, such as baptismal regeneration (Against Heresies 3.17.1-2), as noted above. Further, and rather ironically, Bowman describes himself and other Protestants like Mathison, Webster, and other proponents of sola scriptura perfectly in his summary:
Like the Bible, different religious groups today appeal piecemeal to isolated statements from the church fathers to advance their modern agendas, interpreting them in different ways and sometimes distorting and abusing the patristic writings.
