How does it appear that something has existed from eternity?

We observe all around us causes and effects. A cue hits a ball and moves the ball. Rain falls and therefore the grass gets wet. These are observable causes and if we begin to ask, what caused the cause, we could theoretically make a list of regressive causes. Some would say we could have an infinite list of causes leading up to the current moment. But if we had an infinite number of causes, we would never get to our current point, because those causes would just go back and back forever. So if there are causes (we know there are because there are effects/every effect has a cause) and it’s impossible to have an infinite number of them, it reasons that there must be a first cause of some sort. This first cause could not have a cause of itself or it wouldn’t be a first cause. Therefore, this first cause must have existed eternally (had no cause) in order to produce the first effect.


What is a star?

A star is a luminous ball of gas, mostly hydrogen and helium, held together by its own gravity. Nuclear fusion reactions in its core support the star against gravity and produce photons and heat, as well as small amounts of heavier elements. The Sun is the closest star to Earth. This is a simple definition of a star. But it’s wrong.

In The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C.S. Lewis, Eustace Scrubb makes a faulty statement about stars.

“In our world,” said Eustace, “a star is a huge ball of flaming gas.”

[Ramandu replies,]

“Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what it is made of.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

What does that mean? I think Lewis is trying to show us, that in the modern age we live in, we have resorted to only speaking about things empirically, because that’s all we can say about them, lest we invoke God. To be fair, that’s all science can do, but the question asked is not a scientific one, it’a a philosophical one, or better yet, a theological one.

We need to remember to speak theologically about things. A star is made of gas, but that gas is a beautiful display of God’s power, immensity, and creativity.


Theologian Trading Cards-Irenaeus

The first theologian I will talk about from my Theologian Trading Card set is Irenaeus.

Persecution, Gnosticism, and Marcionism are the enemies that Irenaeus would have to wage war against when he took up the bishopric in 177.  Fortunately for him, he was an inheritor of a great spiritual legacy. He was the son of Christian parents who placed him under the discipleship of Polycarp. This is the same Polycarp who was the disciple of John, the disciple of Christ. This is also the same Polycarp who was martyred in Smyrna in 166, uttering at his death the well known line, “I have served him eighty and six years, and he never did me any harm, but much good, and how can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?”

Irenaeus primarily spent his life doing two things: taking care of his people at Lyons, France, and refuting Gnosticism and Marcionism. Irenaeus’ two major works, On the Apostolic Preaching and Against Heresies, reflect this defense. They both use Scripture to sustain his arguments. Irenaeus

quoted or referred to about nine hundred texts [of Scripture], and his work thus forms an important link in the chain of evidence for the authenticity and integrity of the canonical books.

Irenaeus is the first person to fully articulate the extent of God’s Word. He classified Scripture as the entire Old Testament and most of the New Testament. He recognized 21 of the 27 New Testament books, save Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude. He did not include the Gnostic books that were circulating in the 2nd century.



Gnosticism had reared its head in the churches during the second century. Gnosticism is difficult to define in any satisfactory way. Gnosticism receives its name in that humans are freed by gnosis, which is the Greek word for knowledge. For Gnostics who used Christian writings and thought, this knowledge is esoteric and you need it in addition to the Bible to be freed. The reason is thus: The Supreme God is too great to know.  A sub-god, the Demiurge created the world, and everything he created is evil. The Demiurge is also known as Yahweh, the same from the Old Testament. However, the Supreme God had placed good spirits on evil Earth known as Aeons. Aeons would reside inside evil bodies and could be turned on to allow people to escape the evil world. These “seeds of light” could be turned on through the Son. Christ is another sub-god sent to enlighten the elect Aeons. Christ temporally joined with the man Jesus in order to give people the esoteric knowledge they would need to be freed. No one could come to the Supreme unknowable God unless they came through Christ.

It was primarily this form of Gnosticism that Irenaeus would be writing against, although he would apply it to all of the heresy of Gnosticism, no matter the form it took. His reasoning was:

It is not necessary to drink up the ocean in order to learn that its water is salty.

Irenaeus would attack this school of thought, which was propagated by Valentinus and his followers. It was no easy task, for Valentinians maintained that they accepted the Christian creeds of God and Christ, and they protested against being labeled heretics. This indicates that Valentinians were probably not clearly separated from other Christians, but were part of the same community. Valentinus even rose to prominence in Rome between 135 and 160 A.D. and Tertullian writes that Valentinus himself almost became the bishop of Rome. In later centuries Valentinus was identified as one of three arch heretics in the early church.

A key issue of debate between Irenaeus and Valentinian Gnostics is that of apostolic tradition. Valentinians claimed that their secret tradition was passed from the Apostle Paul, to Theodas, and from Theodas to Valentinus. Irenaeus would argue against this line of reasoning. He said that the apostolic tradition the Gnostics were arguing for could not be empirically verifiable. Who was this unknown Theodas? Irenaeus said an unknown person could pass down any kind of information, especially fictional information.

Furthermore, Irenaeus could point to a list of bishops that were empirically verifiable. He could point to Smyrna, to Rome, and to Antioch. He could cite earlier writers such as Clement, Polycarp, Justin, and Ignatius. Any tradition that was passed down through this line of writers could be publicly checked, unlike the Gnostic’s esoteric claims. Furthermore, none of the previous writers Irenaeus cited, recognized or even acknowledged the Gnostic’s claims. This is because, as Irenaeus correctly understood, no one can change the Word of God.

For Irenaeus, the Bible was not a collection of proof-texts, but it is a continuous record of God disclosing Himself to man. This disclosure reaches its climax in the person and work of Christ. Thus, the incarnation and resurrection of Christ was also a key refutation, since Gnostics believed all things material were evil, and that Christ’s work did not require incarnation. Irenaeus viewed the entirety of Scripture as a testament to the incarnational Son of God. This is why he was so adamant to defend against claims of rejections and distortions of Scripture. To do so threatened the incarnation, and therefore threatened salvation.


Irenaeus For Today

Finally, Irenaeus has special relevance today for a few main reasons.

  1. His recognition of most of the books of the New Testament in the second century refutes the argument that the church “created” the New Testament in the 4th century. This an implicit attack on the legitimacy and reliability of the New Testament.
  2. He argues against the idea in many Christian circles that the God of the Old Testament is wrath,  but Jesus is love. This idea tries to downplay and give license to sin, since Jesus will forgive everyone anyways.
  3. He provides arguments against Gnosticism, which yes is still around. See the movie Noah (2014).
  4. He shows that Christianity is a public faith from the beginning, and those faiths that have esoteric beginnings are suspect (Islam, Mormonism), because they cannot be empirically verified.
  5. He defends the person and work of Christ as disclosed in Scripture, both of which are constantly misunderstood or under attack.



Who is God?

To answer this question, I will simply survey and quote from the various creeds and confessions.

The Apostles’ Creed

…Maker of Heaven and Earth

God made everything including you.

The Nicene Creed

…of all things visible and invisible

The Nicene Creed expands upon the Apostles’ Creed statement, making it clear that God did indeed make everything.

The Belgic Confession

We all believe in our hearts
and confess with our mouths
that there is a single
and simple
spiritual being,
whom we call God—


completely wise,
and good,
and the overflowing source
of all good.

The Belgic Confession gets even more detailed, describing God as simple (having no parts or dependencies) and spiritual. The next attributes described are self explanatory, but they describe God by what He is not (via negativa). He is not visible, thus He is invisible.

The Westminster Confession of Faith has three paragraphs describing who God is (WCF II:1-3). I will not repeat them here, instead I will repeat the Westminster Larger Catechism.

The Larger Catechism

Q. 7. What is God?

A. God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being,glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal,unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.

The answer to Question 7 is similar to the Belgic Confession, although it expands upon it, and describes God (mostly) by what He is. 

Now notice I framed the title of this letter in contrast to Question 7. Question 7 asks what, I ask who. I don’t know why the Westminster divines used what instead of who. That’s some history I’ll have to look in to. But offhand without any research, I would say they were mistaken to use that phrasing. You wouldn’t go up to someone and ask them, “What is your father?” you would ask them “Who is your father?” because a father is a person. And this leads me to my final point: all of the confessions and creeds imply that God is a person, (three persons in one essence really) but they don’t come outright and say it. Remember, we can use adjectives to describe what God is, and what He is not, but we must remember that He is a living being, the living God, a person(s), not just a thing to study. We must do this with fear and trembling.