As I have spent more time engaging with people on the prolific social media platform known as X, I have found more and more anti-Trinitarian claims being made. By far the most prominent claim I have seen making its way around the ballpark is the claim that the Catholic Church created the Trinity. But this couldn’t be more incorrect. In this article, we will explore the origins of Trinitarian theology.
Table of Contents
The Claim
One of the most frequent objections that I see to Trinitarianism is the assertion that it represents a Catholic invention. Critics often point to ecclesiastical councils, notably the Council of Nicaea, as pivotal moments where they believe the doctrine was formalized or even invented to serve the interests of the early Christian Church, particularly under the influence of Roman Emperor Constantine.
Key Points of the Argument:
- Historical Development: Critics argue that early Christian texts and teachings did not explicitly outline the Trinitarian doctrine as it is understood today. They suggest that the concept of the Trinity evolved over time, possibly to reconcile various scriptural interpretations or to consolidate power within the Church.
- Council of Nicaea (325 AD): This council is often highlighted because it resulted in the Nicene Creed, which articulates the relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit in a way that supports Trinitarian views. Critics might argue that this creed was more about political unification of the empire under Christianity rather than a divine revelation.
Response to Critics
While yes I will respond to each of the 2 points listed above, I will additionally make the case for what I believe is the greatest rebuttal to this and many other anti-Trinitarian claims. That said let’s start by evaluating and responding to each of the 2 claims.
Historical Development
Critics often argue that early Christian texts and teachings did not explicitly outline the Trinitarian doctrine as it is understood today. This is only partly true, and it’s true for the funniest of reasons. The early Church was fragmented on a lot and I mean a lot of Christian doctrines, with early Church Fathers actively working out their faith.
Despite this, we do have writings from figures like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus that show early Christians believed or at least leaned towards what would later be formalized as Trinitarian doctrine. Ignatius, for instance, refers to Jesus as “our God,” suggesting a divine nature that would become central to Trinitarian theology. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians) Justin Martyr discusses the Logos in ways that hint at the Son’s co-eternality with the Father, (First Apology by Justin Martyr) while Irenaeus defends Christ’s divinity against Gnostic heresies, laying the groundwork for orthodox Trinitarian views. (Against Heresies, Book IV)
This would suggest that Trinitarianism wasn’t a sudden invention but a gradually clarified understanding. The early Church’s lack of explicit Trinitarian doctrine wasn’t due to an absence of belief but rather the opposite: a profound engagement with revelation from God. We see this throughout Christianity. For example the Canon of Scripture. Various church fathers held to different canons. For example one of the earliest lists of canonical books we have is the Muratorian Fragment. If you take a look at the list you’ll notice that it had fewer books than both the Protestant and Catholic New Testament canons.
Council of Nicaea
Critics often point to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD as the moment when Trinitarian theology was effectively “invented.” They argue this was more about political unification under Emperor Constantine than about divine revelation. The narrative goes like this: before the council, there were numerous competing views of Christ’s nature, each with its own followers and interpretations.
According to critics, Constantine, seeking to consolidate his empire, convened the bishops to decide on one unified view of Christ. During the council, these various theological perspectives were debated intensely. Eventually, the Trinitarian view, which holds that Jesus is co-eternal and of the same substance as God the Father, was declared orthodox.
The story continues that this new orthodox view, now backed by imperial power, began to persecute and suppress all other competing views. Critics assert that what was presented as a divine revelation was, in fact, a political decision aimed at stabilizing the empire. They argue that the Council did not just clarify doctrine but created it, using the might of the state to enforce this new theological consensus, thereby marginalizing and violently suppressing alternative interpretations of Christianity.
Before Nicaea
However, holding to this view is to ignore or misconstrue the greater context of what actually happened before, during, and after the Council of Nicaea. Let’s start by looking at what was happening before the council. In 303 AD, one of the worst Christian persecutions took place under Emperor Diocletian. This persecution lasted until 311 AD when Emperor Galerius issued a general Edict of Tolerance, granting Christians permission to practice their religion without persecution. Christianity still wasn’t fully legalized until 313 when Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, permanently establishing religious tolerance for Christianity within the Roman Empire. This edict marked a significant shift in Roman policy, ending the persecution of Christians and allowing them to practice their faith freely.
For those unfamiliar with history, here’s an analogy using American history: Slavery was officially abolished in the United States with the 13th Amendment in 1865. However, this did not mean African Americans were immediately treated as equals; they faced discrimination through Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, literacy tests, poll taxes, and voter suppression tactics. It wasn’t until further legislation that African Americans achieved true equality.
Shortly after Christianity was made legal, a pastor named Arius from Alexandria began teaching that Jesus was not God but a created being. Arius gained a following and started disputing with the Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. In 321 AD, a local council declared Arius a heretic. Arius then moved to Palestine, where his following grew. Over the next few years, the debate became so heated that it caught the attention of Emperor Constantine, who had just unified the empire and didn’t want any division.
Before I continue I would like to explain why I went over the persecution of Christians from 303-313 AD. The reason is to show that the Bishops that would connive during the council were the same people who were previously persecuted for their beliefs. Though they were persecuted, they held fast and firmly to what they believed to be true. I say this to emphasize that these men were not the type of men who would compromise their beliefs. Just a few years earlier they were willing to die for them. These bishops assembled in Nicaea not to compromise their beliefs but to confirm what they already believed and to deal with Arius’s teachings.
During Nicaea
Present at the council were three different parties. The smallest was Arius and a handful of bishops agreed with him (Arians). The second, much larger, was the Orthodox party led by Hosius of Corduba and Alexander of Alexandria (Trinitarians). The last, about the same size as the Orthodox party, was led by Eusebius of Caesarea, known as the Eusebian party (also Trinitarians). Both the Orthodox and Eusebian parties were Trinitarian but differed in terminology.
This shows that when critics claim Constantine pushed Trinitarian views on the church, they are incorrect. The vast majority of the church was already Trinitarian. During the council, these groups debated Trinitarianism versus Arianism. Trinitarianism won outright, ending with the Nicene Creed, which condemned Arius’s teachings while confirming the orthodox view. Of the attendees, 297 signed the creed, leaving only Arius and two other bishops who did not, emphasizing the lack of major division on Trinitarian theology.
After Nicaea
The results of the council did not please Constantine. He was actually angry at the outcome, wanting unity and compromise, not one side denouncing the other. After the council, Arius was exiled and fled to Illyricum, where his heresy began to spread. He even gained political power when Constantia, Constantine’s sister, asked Constantine to support Arius on her deathbed. Arius reinterpreted the Nicene Creed in his favor, and Constantine invited him back to force the church to readmit him, but Arius died before this could happen.
Looking at the context of the Council of Nicaea, we see a solid Trinitarian view, not an invented one.
The True Origins of Trinitarianism
Now that I have demonstrated that Trinitarianism was not invented by the Catholic Church, let’s take a look into its real origins, which are deeply rooted in the Jewish scriptures. This might come as a surprise, but the Old Testament itself provides the foundation for what would later be recognized as Trinitarian theology.
The Old Testament is abundant with instances that suggest a complexity in the nature of God, far beyond simple monotheism. For example, the term אֱֱלֹהִים (Elohim) used for God is plural, which, while traditionally explained as a plural of majesty, hints at the true plurality within the divine unity. This is not a modern interpretation but was noted by Jewish scholars long before Christian theology formalized the Trinity.
Consider the narrative where God says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” in Genesis. The use of “us” and “our” implies a plurality within the Godhead, a concept that aligns with Trinitarian theology.
Moreover, the “Angel of the Lord” in various Old Testament stories is often indistinguishable from God Himself, acting with divine authority and sometimes even receiving worship, which would be blasphemous if not divine. This figure is often seen as a pre-incarnate manifestation of who Christians would later call the Son, the second person of the Trinity. You can read a good narrative including the Angel of the Lord in my article titled “The Lamb of God! From Genesis to Jesus.“
The presence of the “Spirit of God” moving over the waters in Genesis 1:2 introduces another aspect of the divine nature, one that is distinct yet integral to God’s creative act, paralleling the Christian understanding of the Holy Spirit.
These examples from the Jewish scriptures illustrate that the concept of a triune God, while not explicitly named as such, was already present in the religious and theological framework of Judaism. Early Christian writers, many of whom were Jewish, naturally built upon these scriptural foundations when articulating their understanding of God, which would eventually be formalized into what we now know as Trinitarian doctrine.
This perspective challenges the common narrative that Trinitarianism is a purely Christian invention, revealing instead a deep continuity with Jewish theological traditions, grounded firmly in the Old Testament.
Deeper Look Into the Old Testament
In my article titled “Understanding the Trinity: Biblical Evidence and Its Importance for Christianity,” I cited some Old Testament passages, but I could have done much more. In this section, I want to provide additional Old Testament passages that support Trinitarian Theology.
Sodom and Gomorrah - Genesis 19:24
A striking example of Trinitarian Theology in the Old Testament is found in Genesis 19:24, which states, “Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” Here, we encounter two distinct references to “the Lord,” both using יְהוָֹה (YHWH), the Tetragrammaton. This passage suggests that there are two entities, both identified as YHWH, acting in concert, which aligns with the Trinitarian understanding of God as one essence in three persons.
Who Delivered Israel from Egypt?
We also have intriguing examples like Deuteronomy 4:35-37, where it is stated that it was “his own presence” that freed the Israelites from Egypt. Deuteronomy 7:19 clarifies that “his own presence” refers to YHWH Himself. However, in Judges 2:1, the Angel of the Lord claims, “I brought you up from Egypt.” This raises the question: Who was it that delivered Israel? Was it YHWH’s own presence, or was it the Angel of the Lord? This ambiguity suggests a unity between the two, where the Angel of the Lord is not merely a messenger but an extension or manifestation of YHWH.
Hagar's Encounter - Genesis 16:7–14
In Genesis 16:7–14, we see the Angel of the Lord meeting Hagar. Remarkably, the Angel speaks on behalf of the Lord while also speaking as if He is the Lord. In verse 10, the Angel of the Lord says, “I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude.” Here, the Angel does not speak as a proxy for God but as God Himself, using first-person language to make a divine promise, further blurring the line between the Angel and YHWH, suggesting a divine identity.
These are just a few Old Testament examples. For those interested in exploring this topic further, I have other articles on this subject. In “Understanding the Trinity: Biblical Evidence and Its Importance for Christianity,” I provide a comprehensive look at how the Trinity is supported not only by New Testament texts but also by the foundational scriptures of the Old Testament. Additionally, in “Messiah as God: Biblical Evidence from Jewish Scriptures,” I explore how the Old Testament prophecies and narratives present the Messiah as a divine figure, aligning with Trinitarian theology. These articles offer a wealth of scriptural evidence and theological insight into the concept of the Trinity, showing its deep roots in the Jewish scriptures.
Philo of Alexandria
Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, is often cited as a precursor to Christian Trinitarian theology due to his interpretations of Jewish scripture through the lens of Greek philosophy. While Philo himself was not a Christian, his works provide a fascinating intersection of Jewish theology and philosophical concepts that later influenced early Christian thinkers.
Central to Philo’s philosophy is the concept of the Logos, which he describes as the intermediary between the transcendent God and the material world. This Logos is not merely an abstract idea but is depicted as an active force, almost personified, which Philo calls the “firstborn son of God.” This idea bears a striking resemblance to the Christian concept of the Logos (Word) as described in the Gospel of John, where Jesus is identified as the Logos who was with God and was God.
Philo speaks of God in terms that suggest a plurality within unity, similar to what we see with the Angel of the Lord. He discusses God as having powers or emanations, notably the creative power, the Logos, and the divine Spirit. These distinctions, while not explicitly Trinitarian, hint at a complexity in the nature of God that resonates with Trinitarian thought.
Philo’s method of interpreting scripture allegorically allowed for a deeper, more philosophical understanding of God, which early Christian theologians like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Justin Martyr would later adopt. This approach facilitated the integration of Jewish monotheism with Greek philosophical concepts, paving the way for Trinitarian thought. Philo’s writings explore how God can be both transcendent, beyond the world, and immanent, within the world through the Logos. This duality is crucial in Trinitarian theology, where God is both beyond creation and intimately involved through the persons of the Trinity.
In his work “On the Confusion of Tongues,” Philo writes about the Logos as “the eldest of all created things, the divine image, the mediator between God and man.” This mediator role aligns with the Christian understanding of Jesus as the mediator between God and humanity. Philo also uses the metaphor of the High Priest to describe the Logos, suggesting a figure who intercedes between God and humanity, a role later attributed to Christ in Christian theology.
While Philo’s philosophy does not explicitly outline Trinitarian doctrine, his conceptual framework provided early Christian thinkers with philosophical tools to articulate the nature of God in a way that could incorporate both Jewish monotheism and the emerging Christian understanding of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion
The exploration into Trinitarian theology’s origins reveals a doctrine deeply rooted in both Jewish scripture and early Christian thought, far from being a mere invention of the Catholic Church. From the plural nature of Elohim to the theological debates at Nicaea, the Trinity emerges as a concept that evolved organically, reflecting centuries of divine revelation and human interpretation.
This understanding not only challenges the oversimplified narratives but also enriches our faith, showing how the Trinity stands as a testament to the continuity of God’s self-revelation. For believers today, this history invites a deeper appreciation of the mystery of God, encouraging us to engage with scripture and tradition in a way that honors both the divine complexity and the human quest for understanding.
