Salam alaikum everyone!
In this article, we will continue our Analyzing the Trinity series, examining whether the early Church Fathers before the Council of Nicaea were, in fact, Trinitarians. Let’s get right into it, in shaa Allah!
What is the Trinity?
Before we discuss the next Church Father, it is important to clarify a few things. The first, of course, is to establish a clear definition of the Trinity.
Trinitarianism, the theology that upholds the doctrine of the Trinity, states that there is one God who, in some way, exists as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These persons are co-equal, co-eternal, independent, and consubstantial.
Now that we have established the definition of the Trinity, another point must be clarified. For the early Church Fathers to be considered Trinitarians, they must clearly articulate all of the doctrines mentioned above. Additionally, we must avoid committing the word-concept fallacy, which occurs when we assume that simply using certain terms equates to their later theological meanings.
For instance, many Church Fathers use the formula of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," but this alone does not indicate that they adhered to Trinitarianism. If it did, many individuals later condemned as heretics—who also affirmed the existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—would be considered Trinitarians, which is simply not the case.
With that said, let’s move on to the next Church Father. Ten points for Gryffindor, who is, Ignatius of Antioch!
Who is Ignatius of Antioch?
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–110 CE) was an early Christian bishop and one of the Apostolic Fathers. According to Christian tradition, he was also a disciple of the Apostle John.
It is important to note that the Gospel of John contains the highest Christology among the four Gospels. If Ignatius truly received his teachings from the Apostle John, he should clearly articulate the Trinity. If Ignatius does not teach the Trinity, this would have major implications for the theological views of the Apostles and Christ, as well as for the interpretation of Christian Scripture.
The Recensions of Ignatius’ Letters
Before we analyze Ignatius’ writings, we must first address an important issue: the textual reconstruction of his letters. Much like the New Testament, Ignatius’ writings require textual criticism to determine their most authentic form.
There are three different recensions (versions) of Ignatius’ letters:
1. Short Recension – Contains three letters.
2. Middle Recension – Contains seven letters.
3. Long Recension – Contains fourteen letters.
Scholars have examined these recensions and concluded that the Middle Recension is the most authentic.
Jack Bull, a leading authority on Ignatius’ letters, stated in an interview on Beyond Doubt Theology that the Middle Recension is the most reliable and provided a strong case for this conclusion.
Because of this, we will use the Middle Recension to evaluate Ignatius’ beliefs.
Letters of Ignatius
What letters will we be analyzing?
The Middle Recension of Ignatius contains the following letters:
1. Epistle to the Ephesians
2. Epistle to the Magnesians
3. Epistle to the Trallians
4. Epistle to the Romans
5. Epistle to the Philadelphians
6. Epistle to the Smyrnaeans
7. Epistle to Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna, examined in a previous article)
Now that we know which letters will be analyzed, let’s dissect them to see what Ignatius believed!
1. Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 7
"There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passable, and then impassable, even Jesus Christ our Lord."
Ignatius states that Christ was first passable and later became impassable. But what does this mean?
In Christian theology, passability refers to being subject to essential change. Humans—such as you and I—are passable because we undergo change. However, God is considered impassable, meaning He is not subject to any change.
Based on this definition, Ignatius appears to be saying that Christ was initially subject to change but later became unchangeable—which entails a change in Christ’s being.
This would constitute a heresy, as it implies a change in God, contradicting the doctrine of divine immutability.
Paul Foster, a well-known scholar, states in The Epistles of Ignatius (Part 2), pg. 6:
"The resurrection, however, does represent a stative change as Jesus is transformed from a passible to an impassible being (I.Eph. 7.2).”
Note: All of the scholar’s credentials will be added at the end of the article.
2. Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter 7
"As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters."
This passage suggests subordinationism, as Ignatius states that Jesus did nothing without the Father. Furthermore, he instructs believers to follow this example in their obedience to bishops.
3. Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter 13
"Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh…”
Some argue that "according to the flesh" limits Christ’s subordination to His human nature. However, some scholars believe this phrase was added later to soften the implications of subordinationism.
William Schoedel, in A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, pg. 131, states:
"The phrase ‘according to the flesh’ looks suspiciously like an addition made by an interpolator bent on eliminating any suggestion of subordinationism in the text."
4. Letter to the Philadelphians, Chapter 7
"But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I got no intelligence from any man. But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father."
Again, Ignatius does not reference Christ’s human nature. He states that even now, Jesus Christ follows the Father.
5. Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 1
"He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh and the Son of God according to the will and power of God…"
Saying that Jesus is the Son of God according to the will and power of God implies that the Son was begotten by an act of will—another heretical position.
J.N.D. Kelly, in Early Christian Doctrines, pgs. 92-93, states:
"His divine Sonship dates from the incarnation… In tracing His divine Sonship to His conception in Mary’s womb, he was simply reproducing a commonplace of pre-Origenist theology."
6. Letter to the Smyrneans, Chapter 8.
“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.”
Again, Ignatious uses the same language, saying that no one should do anything without the bishop, just as Jesus Christ does nothing without the father.
Scholars:
Many learned scholars have written commentaries on the letters of Ignatious, and many of them seem to agree that ignatious’s beliefs were not alined with orthodox trinitarianism. Here are a few examples.
1. William Schoedel in his book, A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch in pg 20, says:
“Ignatius occasionally uses Trinitarian formula, but he makes little of them theologically.”
2. Cyril Richardson in his book, Christianity of Ignatius, pg 44, says:
"Commenting on the relationship between God and Jesus, Jesus “always stands in a place secondary and inferior”.
3. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pg 95.
“The evidence to be collected from the Apostolic Fathers is meagre, and tantalizingly inconclusive…Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign.”
We can see that certain scholars agree that Ignatious penned subordinationism.
There are other scholarly views, however, another prominant one being that Ignatious was a modalist. The following scholars hold this view.
1. John McGuckin, The Path of Christianity pg 261), says:
“it is possible that [Ignatius] envisaged the divinity [of Christ], until the time of the incarnation, as ‘indistinguishable’" from the Father, so that only at the incarnation was "the ‘Sonship’ historically manifested.”
2. Gilliam in his work on Ignatius states that the author of the “long version” of Ignatius’ letters began with the “middle version”, but altered it due to its apparent Modalism, “Where the figures of Father and Son were merged together close enough to cause discomfort…introduced Christological demarcation into his version of the Ignatian letters…” (Gilliam, Ignatius, 96).
Summary of Ignatius’ Theology:
1. No mention of a Trinitarian God.
2. The Son never clearly ascribed divinity on par with the Father.
3. Ignatius seems to subordinate the Son’s divinity compared to the Father (Phil, Ch 7, Mag, Ch 13, etc).
4. The Son is not essentially impassible. He goes from being passible to impassible only after the resurrection (Eph, Ch 7).
5. No theological significance utilized by Ignatius from “Trinitarian formulas”.
We see that Ignatious could not have taught the trinity as posed by Nicaea.
Answering objections:
if you’ve read any of my previous articles, you know what this section is all about. Let’s go!
Answering Objections
Objection: When Ignatius says that Jesus is subject to the Father, he means that he is subject in authority and not ontologically. This does not conflict with Trinitarianism.
Answer: This objection has two major issues.
First, it misunderstands what Ignatius is actually saying. To grasp his meaning, we should examine his statement, “Do nothing without the bishops.” What does this imply? Ignatius instructs Christians, as members of the Church, to seek approval from their superiors before taking action. In the same way, if someone says, “I do nothing without my mother,” it means they require permission from their mother before acting. This language reflects a difference in will—one party must seek approval from a higher authority before proceeding. Likewise, when Jesus is said to do nothing without the Father, this implies he requires the Father’s permission, demonstrating a distinction in will between them.
A Christian might counter this by claiming that Jesus and the Father share one will, meaning everything Jesus does is inherently approved by the Father. However, this explanation fails within Ignatius’s framework. If Jesus and the Father truly had one will in the way Trinitarians claim, then stating that Jesus does nothing without the Father would be redundant and meaningless. Moreover, Ignatius draws a direct comparison: Just as Christ does X, we are to do X. If the intended meaning were that Jesus acted with complete independence while somehow still being in agreement with the Father, it would make no sense to tell Christians to follow this example—since they clearly do not have such an intrinsic unity with their bishops.
Finally, this objection ultimately fails to resolve the issue at hand. Even if Jesus is only subject to the Father in terms of authority, this still contradicts Trinitarian doctrine. God, by definition, is the supreme authority. If the three persons of the Trinity are co-equal, then they must share the same authority. If one person is subordinate in authority to another, that implies a difference in attributes—meaning the subordinate person is not truly God in the fullest sense.
Objection: Ignatius says the Father and the Son are one (Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 5).
Answer: Let’s examine the passage in question:
“For if I, in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop—not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature—how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity.”
It is clear that Ignatius is not speaking about ontology here. He draws a comparison: just as the people are joined to the bishop, the Church is joined to Christ, and Christ is in like manner joined to the Father. The people are not ontologically one with the bishop, nor is the Church ontologically one with Christ. Ignatius is speaking of unity in purpose, not an ontological oneness. He envisions a spiritual connection where each entity is aligned in purpose and function, rather than a metaphysical blending of essence.
Objection: Is it not a fallacious appeal to authority when you quote certain scholars?
Answer: No, for two reasons.
First, I cite scholars to support my analysis of Ignatius, not as standalone proof of my argument’s validity. Their insights reinforce the points I am already making rather than serving as the sole basis for them.
Second, a fallacious appeal to authority occurs when someone cites an authority who lacks expertise in the relevant field. The scholars I reference are experts in early Christian writings—they translate, reconstruct, and comment on Ignatius’s letters. Their academic credentials make them far more qualified than either you or me to interpret his works. Therefore, referencing them is not a fallacious appeal to authority but a reasonable use of expert analysis.
Conclusion:
Based on the evidence, and the scholarly opinions, it is categorically clear that Ignatious could not have taught trinitarianism as taught by Nicaea. Rather, he affirms a somewhat subordinationism, in which the son is inferior to the father. Remember, this is a student of the disciple John. What does that say about what Christ gave his apostles?
Islam lacks such an issue, as the companions of the prophet, peace be upon him, and their students, were all united on the core principles of Islam. That Allah is one, with no partners, and his names and attributes.
Quran 6:153, This is My path, straight, so follow it. And do not follow the other paths, lest they divert you from His path. All this He has enjoined upon you, that you may refrain from wrongdoing.
References:
A list of the credentials of the scholars used.
1. Paul foster, credentials as follows:
doctorate from the University of Oxford in New Testament in 2003.
academic at the School of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh.
Dean and Head of School from 2013-2018.
On staff at St Mary’s Scottish Episcopal Cathedral in Edinburgh since 2003.
2. William Schoedel, credentials as follows.
doctorate from University of Chicago.
contributed to Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, the Encyclopedia Britannica, Religion in Life, Interpretation, Dialog and other journals.
3. J.N.D. Kelly, credentials
graduated with a first-class honours Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree at Oxford in 1934.
trained for Holy Orders at St Stephen’s House, Oxford.
ordained in the Church of England as a deacon in 1934, and served a year of a curacy at the Church of St Lawrence, Northampton in the Diocese of Peterborough.
Returned to Oxford as chaplain and tutor in theology and philosophy at St Edmund Hall by the then principal, A.B. Emden, beginning a sixty-two-year association with the Hall.
ordained priest in 1935.
4. Cyril Richardson, credentials as follows:
Attended the University of Saskatchewan, Emmanuel College in Saskatoon and the Union Theological Seminary.
Professor at the Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York.
Joined the Union Theological Seminary faculty in 1934 and stayed there for 40 years.
president of the American Society of Church History in 1948.
Leave a Reply