christianity2.0

Table of Contents

The Patristic Era Also Blasted Paul s Doctrine on Eating Idol Meat

The Patristic Era Also Blasted Paul s Doctrine on Eating Idol Meat

We previously demonstrated that Paul three times expresses complete indifference if a Christian eats meat sacrificed to idols. Paul would prohibit it only being eaten in front of a weaker brother who thinks an idol is something. ((Rom. 14:21); (1Cor. 8:4-13), and (1Cor. 10:19-29). (For further discussion, see page 122 et seq.)

In the Patristic Era (125-325 A.D.), Paul's teaching was condemned with no thought of even discussing Paul. Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.) wrote in his Against Heresies, chapter XXIV, that Saturninus and Basilides were heretics because:

He attaches no importance to [the question regarding] meats
offered in sacrifice to idols, thinks them of no consequence, and
makes use of them without any hesitation; he holds also the use of
other things, and the practice of every kind of lust, a matter of
perfect indifference.

By today's standards, however, Saturninus and Basilides are not heretics on the issue of idol meat. They simply took time to read Paul's words. They got the issue straightened out by Paul's clear pennission to eat such meat. However, Irenaeus' view is so clearly opposed to Paul's teaching that it reminds us how little regard anyone had for Paul's words back then.

However, the most intriguing quote on this issue is Irenaeus' criticism of Valentinus as a heretic. In book II of Against Heresies, chapter XIV, we read:

Again, their opinion as to the indifference of [eating of] meats
and other actions, and as to their thinking that, from the
nobility of their nature, they can in no degree at all contract
pollution, whatever they eat or perform, they have derived it from
the Cynics, since they do in fact belong to the same society as do
these [philosophers]. They also strive to transfer to [the
treatment of matters of] faith that hairsplitting and subtle mode
of handling questions which is, in fact, a copying of Aristotle.

Irenaeus precisely condemned the hair-splitting quibbling with God's commands that Paul utilized himself. Paul troubles us with questions such as 'do you think an idol is really something?' Can't you eat it 'if you don't believe in idols'? No one back in the Patristic era showed any appreciation for Paul's teaching or methodology in how to interpret God's commands. You did not try to find hair-splitting ways to devise exceptions to commands. You simply obeyed God's word.