James Thomas: Is the so called “Irenaean” Theodicy Fictitious?

This paper sets out to answer the question as to whether Irenaeus, in any of his writings which have come down to us, puts forward what Prof John Hick has baptized as “Irenaean Theodicy” in his books on “Philosophy of Religion” and “Evil and the God of Love”, among others. This paper contends that John Hick’s claim that the version of a Theodicy which Hick produces is logically incompatible with the concept of Theodicy in “Against the Heresies” if the meaning of Book IV chaps 37 and 38 are taken in the context of the whole work.The texts “Against the Heresies” and of “The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching” indicate:1. Irenaeus emphasizes the importance of “Recapitulation” this would be unnecessary if human beings are children learning to grow into adult life.2.Irenaeus is not Pelagian: he believes that the incarnation is necessary to man’s salvation, and therefore man cannot save himself by his own free choices. Hick’s “Irenaean Theodicy” will not work without Pelagian presuppositions.3. Irenaeus is not universalist: within his Theodicy some human beings may freely choose to reject God’s offer of salvation. Hick’s version of Irenaean Theodicy appears to require Universalist assumptions.It is unfortunate that John Hick’s over simplistic categorization of Theodicy into two types a) Augustinian and b) Irenean has been uncritically copied. I contend it is a fictitious representation in both cases, and should respectfully be put to rest.