Analyzing trinity PT. 4.3. Ireneus

Assalamualaikum everyone!
For any brothers or sisters in deen reading this, I make dua that Allah the almighty allows these last 10 nights of ramadan to be the best 10 nights, allows you to catch the night of decree and accepts all of your fasting, prairres, quran readings, and any and all worship done, forgives your sins and grants you the highest levels of paradise! Ameen!
Now, let’s pick up right where we left off, in analyzing whether any early church fathers before the council of Nicaea, 325 CE, believed in the Christian doctrine of the trinity. We’ve got a new church father!
What is trinity?
In each and every one of my analyzing trinity articles, I make it a habit to define the trinity clearly for our Christian friends, as well for some muslim siblings who might be reading. This is important because it establishes that there is no strawman fallacy being committed when we analyze the works of the fathers.
Regardless, Christian theology posits the following four statements as true.
1. There is one God.
2. Which or who in some sense exists in three distinct persons, being the father, son and holy spirit.
3. They are equally divine.
4. Statements 1-3 are eternally the case.
With that out of the way, let’s analyze our next church father. Put time on the clock, its, its, Ireneus!
Who is ireneus?
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 CE) was a Christian bishop of Lyons and theologian. He is best known for his work Against Heresies, in which he defended early Christian beliefs against Gnosticism. Irenaeus emphasized apostolic succession and the authority of the Church, playing a key role in shaping early Christian doctrine.
Much like Ignatious, Ireneus is venerated as a saint across many churches, such as the catholic and eastern orthodox church.
In addition to this, there is another commonality that is worth highlighting. Remember when we said that Ignatious is a disciple of John, and hence him not teaching the trinity would be majorly theologically problematic? Well, this same statement rings true for Ireneus as well.
According to Christian tradition, Ireneus was a disciple of Polycarp, examined in 4.1. And, as stated in 4.1, Polycarp is said to be a disciple of John. So, if Ireneus learned from the student of the student of the apostle, which learned from Christ himself, we should expect him to have perfect, unblemished theology. And as we will soon prove, this is nowhere near true.
Ireneus’s works:
We’ve discussed commonalities between Ignatious and Ireneus thus far, but here’s a bit of a difference. Unlike the works of Ignatious, the textual criticism of Ireneus is not too messy. he has very little in terms of different recensions and attestations that must be reconstructed. We know that he wrote two works, being against heresies, and demonstration of the apostolic preaching.
Finally, it is important to briefly tackle this one point that might come up. One christian could potentially argue that Ireneus clearly says that Jesus was God, and distinct from the father, which would be true. However, what we must avoid doing is falling into what is known as the word concept falacy, in which the word and its concept are viewed as synonymous. We should not insert later theological meanings into the texts of the fathers, but rather we should read the fathers to see what they really meant by God, or trinity.
With that being said, time for the deep dive into the mind of one of the most important, respected, and venerated figures of Christian theology. Let’s go!
Note: all sitations will come from against heresies unless stated otherwise.
1. Book 2, chapter 20, sect 2.
And to the person who said to Him, “Good Master,” Mark 10:17 He confessed that God who is truly good, saying, “Why do you call Me good: there is One who is good, the Father in the heavens, Luke 18:18.
Perhaps you might remember the argument propagated by the likes of Shaykh Ahmad deedat, raheemullah,stating that jesus denied his divinity in Mark and Luke, specifically pertaining to this passage, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:18? Well, unfortunately, turns out Ireneus agreed with us the whole time!
A few things to note. Firstly, Ireneus doesn’t quote it the way we read in it our bibles today. The verse reads, none is Good but God alone. However, Ireneus quotes it as stating that none is Good but the father in the heavens. There are two possibilities for what this means, both of them undermine the legitimacy of the trinity.
1. Ireneus believed that this is how this verse is to be interpretted, despite the manuscripts rendering the reading, none is good but God, as true.
2. The manuscripts at the time of Ireneus actually read how Ireneus quotes them, leading to a corruption or alteration down the line.
Second, Ireneus is establishing an ontological difference between the father and the son, as the father is described as having the attribute of true divine goodness, while the son does not.
2. Book 2, chapter 28, sect 6.
But, beyond reason inflated [with your own wisdom], you presumptuously maintain that you are acquainted with the unspeakable mysteries of God; while even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment, when He plainly declares, “But of that day and that hour knows no man, neither the Son, but the Father only.” If, then, the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only, but declared what was true regarding the matter, neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those greater questions which may occur to us, For no man is superior to his master.
Yep, remember Mark 13:32? I wrote an article pertaining to this passage, showing that it proves Christ is not omniscient. Turns out Ireneus agrees with me as well!
Ireneus says that the father alone knows the hour, which would exclude the son, and of course, by extention, the holy spirit.
3. Same place as previous quote.
If any one, therefore, says to us, “How then was the Son produced by the Father?” we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or by whatever name one may describe His generation, which is in fact altogether indescribable. Neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor Basilides, nor angels, nor archangels, nor principalities, nor powers [possess this knowledge], but the Father only who begot, and the Son who was begotten.
At first glance, one might not see a problem with this quote. One might go back up and read it a few times and still feel lost, as they try to think how this conflicts with the trinity. the answer is quite simple. In stating that only the father and the son know the misteries pertaining his generation, this would exclude the holy spirit from knowing. And, of course, the holy spirit is said to be equal in knowledge with the father and the son, a view that is not held by ireneus.
4. Book 2, chapter 28, sect 8.
For if any one should inquire the reason why the Father, who has fellowship with the Son in all things, has been declared by the Lord alone to know the hour and the day [of judgment], he will find at present no more suitable, or becoming, or safe reason than this (since, indeed, the Lord is the only true Master), that we may learn through Him that the Father is above all things. For “the Father,” says He, “is greater than I.” John 14:28 The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge; for this reason, that we, too, as long as we are connected with the scheme of things in this world, should leave perfect knowledge, and such questions, as have been mentioned, to God.
Within these quotes, ireneus couldn’t be clearer. No trinitarian can say, in any respect, that the father excels in knowledge to the son. This would result in a heresy.
Also notice that Ireneus quotes John 14:28, using it to prove his case that the father is ontologically greater than the son.
5. Book 4, chapter 1, sect 2.
Now to whom is it not clear, that if the Lord had known many fathers and gods, He would not have taught His disciples to know [only] one God, John 17:3 and to call Him alone Father? But He did the rather distinguish those who by word merely (verbo tenus) are termed gods, from Him who is truly God, that they should not err as to His doctrine, nor understand one [in mistake] for another. And if He did indeed teach us to call one Being Father and God, while He does from time to time Himself confess other fathers and gods in the same sense, then He will appear to enjoin a different course upon His disciples from what He follows Himself. Such conduct, however, does not bespeak the good teacher, but a misleading and invidious one. The apostles, too, according to these men’s showing, are proved to be transgressors of the commandment, since they confess the Creator as God, and Lord, and Father, as I have shown — if He is not alone God and Father. Jesus, therefore, will be to them the author and teacher of such transgression, inasmuch as He commanded that one Being should be called Father, Matthew 23:9 thus imposing upon them the necessity of confessing the Creator as their Father, as has been pointed out.
Again, Ireneus is categorically clear. In his exogeeting of John 17:3, another argument used by the likes of DR. Zakir naik, he says that even Christ taught that the father alone is the true God. Moreover, he states that if he hadn’t taught such a thing, he would be a teacher of transgression and impiasness.
6. Book 4, chapter 6, sect 1.
For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, “No man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal Him.”
Ireneus uses the same language as he does in quote 3, in which he excludes the spirit from knowing such things.
7. Book 4, chapter 20, sect 3.
I have also largely demonstrated, that the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation, He declares by Solomon: “God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by understanding has He established the heaven. By His knowledge the depths burst forth, and the clouds dropped down the dew.” Proverbs 3:19-20 And again: “The Lord created me the beginning of His ways in His work: He set me up from everlasting, in the beginning, before He made the earth, before He established the depths, and before the fountains of waters gushed forth; before the mountains were made strong, and before all the hills, He brought me forth.” And again: “When He prepared the heaven, I was with Him, and when He established the fountains of the deep; when He made the foundations of the earth strong, I was with Him preparing [them]. I was He in whom He rejoiced, and throughout all time I was daily glad before His face, when He rejoiced at the completion of the world, and was delighted in the sons of men.” Proverbs 8:27-31.
Ireneus applies proverbs 8 to the holy spirit, and interprets it as stating that the spirit was created. This would entail a heresy, as to say that one of the three persons was created would violate statements one and four of our trinity chart.
Summary of Ireneus’s theology.
Based on what we’ve read, let’s summarize the theology of Ireneus clearly.
1. No mention of God as a trinity.
2. The father alone is truely good, excludes the son and spirit.
3. The father has more knowledge than the son.
4. Only the father and son know the misteries of the generation of the son.
5. The father alone is the only true God.
6. The spirit, IE God’s wisdom is created.
All of these statements conflict with the doctrine of the trinity. Hence, Ireneus was not a trinitarian.
Answering objections:
If you read my articles, you should know what time it is. Let’s go!
Objection: Ireneus doesn’t mean that the father knows more than the son, rather he means declare, per the Greek word, oidan, which can carry this meaning.
Answer: if you’ve read the article concerning Christ not knowing the day and hour, you would find this objection familiar. The answer is composed of the following prongs.
Firstly, just because a word can have more than one meaning, does not make the latter meaning more applicable than the former. We derive what the word can mean based on the context it is used in. Assuming the latter meaning to be true rather than the former because it doesn’t aline with your position is begging the question and is presupposing that this is what Ireneus means.
Secondly, I will now demonstrate that this is not, in fact, what Ireneus meant. Throughout this particular chapter of against herecies, Ireneus continuously says that just as the son had no problem in saying that the father knows more than him, we should in like manner say that we do not know everything about the misteries of god. This is found across several different sections of this chapter, including section 1, and even within the quote above. Based on the context, we know that the former meaning of to know, is more applicable than the latter meaning, and Ireneus meant that the father knows more than the son.
Objection: When Ireneus says that the father knows more than the son, or is greater than the son, this is only with respect to his human nature.
Answer: Throughout my discussion with Christians on this topic, this objection is quite frequent. However, rest assured, that it will be completely, and thoroughly, refuted below.
Firstly, any person who ascribes to catholic Christianity is in no position to level this objection. Why, you might wonder? Well, the answer is quite simple. To understand, we have to go back in time to some church history.
Pope Vigilius was the head of the Catholic Church from 537 to 555 CE. During his papacy, the Second Council of Constantinople was convened in 553 by Emperor Justinian the first, to address theological disputes.
The main issue at the council was the condemnation of the "Three Chapters," which were writings by three bishops accused of Nestorian teachings. Nestorianism was a heretical doctrine that emphasized the distinction between Christ’s human and divine natures.
Vigilius initially refused to participate in the council and took sanctuary in a church for several months. However, he eventually decided to step in, and wrote a document called the first constituoum, in May 14 of 553 CE.
In this document, addressed to Justinian the first, he says the following:
“If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ who is both true Son of God and true Son of man did not know the future or the day of the Last Judgment and that he could know only as much as the divinity, dwelling in him as in another, revealed to him, anathema sit.
He clearly says that anyone who says that the son only knows with respect to his humanity, or what the father revealed to him, is a heretic. hence, this objection is untennable for the catholics.
Now let us answer the objection not considering the catholic condemnation.
The idea that Ireneus is saying the son lacks knowledge or greatness with respect to his humanity makes no sense for two reasons.
The first is that Ireneus says even the son of God, making a distinction between no man, nor angels, nor the son of God. If he meant that with respect to a man’s knowledge, there would be no point in establishing a higherarchy between man and the son of God.
Second, Ireneus saying that the father is greater or knows more than Christ with respect to his human knowledge or greatness completely loses its significance. What point is there to saying that the father is greater than a human? This is obviously speaking of the father being ontologically greater than the son as a whole.
Gregory of Nazianzus, a church father after the council of Nicea, agrees with this understanding.
Oration 30, section 7, For to say that he is greater than the Son considered as man, is true indeed, but is no great thing. For what marvel is it if God is greater than man?
We can see that Ireneus means that as a whole, the father is greater than the son.
hence, this objection doesn’t stand.
Objection: In what you quoted, Ireneus says that the spirit was with the father before the universe was made. Clearly he doesn’t believe it was created.
Answer: This is quite easy to reconcile. Logos theology, posits that God, the one god, is a transcendant being who used his agents, his word, or his spirit, to interact with the universe. So, there is no contradiction between the spirit being created, but also being there with God before you and I, and the universe, was formed.
Conclusion:
Based on the evidence from the mouth of Ireneus himself, we know for certain that Ireneus was not a trinitarian.
I would like to remind the reader that this individual is said to be a disciple, of a disciple, of the apostle John. So, what does that have to say about what the apostles believed, and what Jesus, peace be upon him, actually taught them.
In Islam, we have no such issue, as the companions, sahabat, may Allah be pleased with them, of the prophet, peace be upon him were united in their theology that Allah almighty is one and absolutely so, and of his divine names and attributes.
Quran 17:81, And say, “The truth has come, and falsehood has withered away; for falsehood is by nature bound to wither away.”