In his Against Heresies, Irenaeus wrote the following, evidencing his belief in meritorious good works:
Paul the Apostle says to the Corinthians, "Know ye not, that they who run in a racecourse, do all indeed run, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. Every one also who engages in the contest is temperate in all things: now these men [do it] that they may obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. But I so run, not as uncertainty; I fight, not as one beating the air; but I make my body livid, and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when preaching to others, I may myself be rendered a castaway” (1 Cor 9:24-27). This able wrestler, therefore, exhorts us to the struggle for immortality, that we may be crowned, and may deem the crown precious, namely, that which is acquired by our struggle, but which does not encircle us of its own accord (sed non ultro coalitam). And the harder we strive, so much is it the more valuable; while so much the more valuable it is, so much the more should we esteem it. (Against Heresies 4.37.7 [ANF 1:520])
Such of course is inconsistent with Sola Fide.
Emil Brunner, interacting with the work of Adolf von Harnack on Irenaeus, his doctrine of justification, and its relationship to the incarnation:
He second thesis, about the “physical” effect of salvation, itself contradicts many of Harnack’s other statements about Irenaeus. For instance, is salvation, which is created objectively through the Incarnation, subjectively mediated? If there really were a physical effect there could be no subjective mediation at all. Salvation would not be connected with faith, but it would become the portion of every human being quite naturally, “mechanically” as Harnack says. That there can be no question of such an idea in Irenaeus, Harnack himself gives evidence. Salvation is the portion of believers only. (Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith [trans. Olive Wyon; London: The Lutterworth Press, 1934], 255)
In a footnote for the above paragraph, we read the following, which evidences how even informed Protestants have to engage in double speak and gymnastics to downplay the patristic evidence against their doctrines, in this instance, forensic justification (though in the end, he is forced to admit Irenaeus is a witness to infused righteousness/grace, not mere imputation):
Harnack hardly gives any idea that Irenaeus has not only a doctrine of the Incarnation but also a doctrine of faith, of the Spirit, and of good works which are the results of faith and the Spirit, by which also the doctrine of the Church is determined. Irenaeus shows clearly that the effect of the Incarnation is not physical when he says distinctly in V, 10, 2: “homo per fidem insertus et assumens spiritum dei, substantiam quidemcarnis non amittit, qualitatem autem fructus operum immutat.” But as many as feared God, and were anxious about His law, these ran to Christ and were all saved.” (IV, 2, 7). Cf. also the detailed arguments about the faith of Abraham in IV, 5. We tend to forget that the Fathers of the Church had a very different task from the Reformers; it was their duty to secure the objective aspect of the Gospel against false doctrines, whereas the Reformers had to secure the subjective aspect. The Fathers discharged their duty so excellently that the Reformers were able simply to take over their work without having to lay the foundation afresh. Therefore when Seeberg, in an otherwise penetrating estimate of Irenaeus, says: “On the other hand his mind was unable to grasp the meaning of the idea of justification” (Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, I, p. 434), he goes too far. If one looks at individual statements of Irenaeus and measures them by the standard of the Reformers, then doubtless Seeberg’s opinion is correct. But if we take into account the fact that Irenaeus was fighting on a front which differed totally from that of the Reformers and of Paul, and that, on the other hand, even the Reformers when they were fighting against other errors than that of the “righteousness of works” used expressions absolutely similar to those used by Irenaeus, and finally, when we examine the intention of Irenaeus as a whole, which is directed wholly towards the objective establishment of salvation in Christ, then it seems as though Seeberg’s view may be unjust to this Father of the Church. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that Irenaeus tends to formulate his ideas about the subjective aspect of faith somewhat carelessly, so that it is difficult to discern clearly what he really thought about the doctrine of justification, and that his expressions are open to misconstruction in detail, so that we might conclude that he means the infusio gratiae. (Ibid., 255, n. 1)
Some Protestants (e.g., Nathan Busenitz, Long Before Luther: Tracing the Heart of the Gospel from Christ to the Reformation [Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2017], 214 n. 17) have argued that the Odes of Solomon, a late first century text, is a witness for the early Christian belief in forensic justification. Such a claim only shows that these apologists do not read early Christian literature but rely on secondary sources. For a refutation, see:
