Refuting Mohammed Hijab

I recently watched the debate between David Wood and Mohammed Hijab about Trinity vs. Tawheed.  A lot of arguments were raised by both sides but I want to deal with an argument that Mohammed Hijab presented.  He presented a good argument and I believe it was a valid argument.  Wood answered this but I don’t think his answer quite did the argument justice.

First of all, I’m impressed with Mohammed Hijab.  The man is an extremely talented speaker.  I honestly think that he could be a motivational speaker.  If I were him I would certainly go down that path as one could make a lot of money with speaking skills such as his.  He did get a bit carried away and brought up a bunch of red herrings.  At one point the Muslim moderator had to tell him to stay on topic.  See 1:16:19 of the above video for that little episode.

Now to his argument.  Hijab says that for the first three centuries, no Church Father believed in Nicene Trinitarianism.  Hijab demands that early Church fathers before the Ecumenical councils of Nicaea and Constantinople say that the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-equal, co-eternal and independent with respect to their relationship with the Father.  This is repeated multiple times in the opening statement.

This is a valid question.  What Mohammed Hijab doesn’t know is that the question refutes itself.  Why? Because nowhere in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed does it refer to the second and third person of the Trinity as co-equal, co-eternal and independent.  It uses very simple language.  The Nicene Creed doesn’t say co-equal, co-eternal, and independent.  Does the Nicene Creed not teach Nicene Trinitarianism?  Of course it does.  The words that Hijab is looking for are words that come from Creeds in the sixth century.  Even Hijab will admit that Christians were Nicene Trinitarians long before the sixth century.

Now, while not using this exact language, the Nicene-Constantinople Creed teaches this.  Words aren’t important.  What is important are the concepts.  The concepts that are taught by the fourth century creeds are found in the Church Fathers of the first three centuries.  They may be described in different words but the concepts are clear.  The concepts taught by these Church Fathers are taught in the pages of the New Testament.  Sometimes the wording is similar, sometimes it’s different, but the concepts are the same.

Mohammed Hijab probably isn’t interested in the Eucharistic doctrine of Transubstantiation.  He should be at least interested in the Eucharist since his messiah ushered it in as a sign of the new covenant but like most Muslims he’ll pick and choose what he wants to believe from our Scriptures.  The word Transubstantiation, and it’s two accompanying words are accidents and substances.  These words come from over a thousand years after Christ, yet the concept of Transubstantiation is clearly taught by about 95% of the Church Fathers.  For example, in 107 AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

They refrain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness raised up.

Now, there is no mention of accidents or substance or the big fancy T-word of Transubstantiation(all of these words are from the second millennium of the faith) but obviously that is what is being communicated.  The Eucharist is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Language and words are absolutely irrelevant.  What is important are concepts.  The concepts of the sixth century are communicated in different words in the Creeds of the fourth century, and in different words than that in the words of the earliest Church Fathers.  There is no mystery.  Just because a Church Father like St. Ignatius of Antioch doesn’t use sixth century language that doesn’t mean his view of God isn’t orthodox.  Otherwise we’d regard him as a heretic and not a Saint.