The Trinity occupied a large part of the recent debate between James White and Adnan Rashid. At about the four minute mark of the above video, Rashid is talking about the Trinity. He mentions that it took 400 years to clearly define the doctrine. He’s correct, it did. He then says that this is a huge problem. It’s actually not a problem at all. I’m going to give Adnan Rashid a lesson in Church history on how doctrines are defined using other examples.
There is a doctrine in the Church called transubstantiation. This is the belief that the Eucharist consumed by Catholics is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. This belief was officially defined as a doctrine in 1215 AD at the Fourth Lateran Council. Now, although the word transubstantiation was fairly new at this point, the teaching actually goes back to the very beginning.
In 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea, the Trinity was discussed. However, the council had 20 canons dealing with smaller issues. Canon 18 actually deals with the Eucharist and says the deacons are not allowed to touch the Eucharist. It actually says in this canon that the Eucharist is the body of Christ. Here’s canon 18:
It has come to the attention of this holy and great synod that in some places and cities deacons give communion to presbyters, although neither canon nor custom allows this, namely that those who have no authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer. Moreover it has become known that some of the deacons now receive the eucharist even before the bishops. All these practices must be suppressed. Deacons must remain within their own limits, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters. Let them receive the eucharist according to their order after the presbyters from the hands of the bishop or the presbyter. Nor shall permission be given for the deacons to sit among the presbyters, for such an arrangement is contrary to the canon and to rank. If anyone refuses to comply even after these decrees, he is to be suspended from the diaconate.
It is clear that this council takes as a given that the Eucharist is the actual body of Christ. This was uncontroversial at the time as over 300 bishops added their signatures to this document. Now, in the first millenium of Christianity, one can find scattered statements here or there by certain individuals who didn’t believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. However, there was no real opposition to this doctrine until the eleventh century when theologian Berengar of Tours expressed firm opposition. When he died in 1088 AD, his supporters carried on the movement and they were known as the Berengarians. This movement gathered enough steam to be the first large-scale opposition to the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Because of this opposition, the Church was forced to reaffirm the traditional teaching of transubstantiation at the Fourth Lateran Council.
Another example is the use of icons and images in worship. In the eighth century, probably due to Islamic Umayyad influence, the Byzantine Emperor Leo III forbade the use of icons in worship and forced all images to be destroyed or removed from churches in the Byzantine Empire. To this day, few pre-Iconoclast Byzantine icons survive. I hope to visit St. Catherine’s Greek Orthodox monastery in Egypt one day as they have some of the only pre-Iconoclast icons in existence. Regardless, the Second Council of Nicaea was held in 787 AD in response to this crisis and it affirmed the use of icons in worship. Now, use of icons in worship didn’t start in the eighth century. It goes back to the beginning, with the church fathers and even in the Roman catacombs. Like the Eucharist, one can find the odd theologian opposing their use, but no real firm opposition. The Second Council of Nicaea was responding to the first large-scale organized opposition to their use.
Now for the Trinity in the fourth century. Why did it take so long for the church to define this doctrine? The same reason as the previous two examples. The fourth century had the first large-scale opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity. Arius managed to get quite a large following to challenge the established though not yet defined Trinitarian view of God. Before that there wasn’t much opposition. There was a small group called the Ebionites who denied the deity of Christ but they were small and didn’t really have much influence outside of their own circles. Arius on the other hand had enormous influence and his movement kept growing.
In response to Arius, the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople defined the traditional doctrine of the Trinity as church orthodoxy. In other words, the fourth century was not the first century that there was significant belief in the Trinity. On the contrary, it was the first time that there was any significant opposition to it. This is why the Trinity was only first defined in the fourth century. It’s not a problem in the slightest.
I don’t plan on going further into issues on this debate. However, Sam Shamoun is currently doing a series responding to the arguments of Rashid. Here is the first of several:
Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.