Is It Okay to Call God “She”?

Is it okay to call God “she”? What if we refer to Him as “Her”?

These are questions I would direct to those who fail to comprehend the obvious point that pronouns carry implicit meaning based on their number, person, and gender.

Who, the normal reader may ask, would ever deny that they carry meaning? Isn’t it obvious that “he” signifies a singular masculine personal subject, while “she” signifies a singular female personal subject?

It is indeed obvious. But if we will admit that pronouns carry an implicit meaning regarding person, number, and gender etc., this poses a significant problem for those who maintain that we may call the Trinity “he” while yet denying that this constitutes treating the Trinity as a person.

Those who try to maintain such a position are faced with a dilemma: either they must say that pronouns do not carry these implicit meanings, and thus open the door to calling God “she” and “her” on the supposed basis that they do not carry any meaning, or else, if they will admit that pronouns carry these implicit meaning, then they must admit the obvious: calling the Trinity “he” and “him” constitute treating the Trinity as a person, since they are specifically personal and singular pronouns.

These are really the only two options. If they deny this on the basis that the pronoun’s grammatical significance isn’t real, saying things like “just because we are using personal pronouns doesn’t mean we’re treating him as a person”, then anyone using “she” for any person of the Trinity might use the same argument to dismiss their own language. But if they will admit that pronouns have the meaning mentioned above (gender, person, number etc) they will be forced to admit the unavoidable conclusion that using a singular personal pronoun for the Trinity constitutes treating it as a single person.

But, someone might say, God doesn’t have a body. He is incorporeal, uncreated, infinite and immaterial. God does not have a gender, as such. Therefore, why would it matter what gender of pronoun we use for God?

The simple answer to this is that scripture always uses male pronouns for God, not because it is intending to communicate a bodily gender (which God does not have), but because there is biblically an association of headship with the male gender, and submission with the female gender (see 1 Cor 11). Not because God somehow has a bodily male gender then, perish the thought, but because of the the supreme headship over all creation shared by the persons of the Trinity, They are always referred to with masculine personal pronouns.

So what’s the point? The point is that scripture acknowledges a significance to the pronouns used. Because pronouns carry implicit meaning, scripture uses only masculine pronouns for the persons of the Trinity, to indicate their headship (and in the case of Christ, because He actually took on a male body in the incarnation). We may also note the significance of personal pronouns in Genesis 1 noted by the early church (see: https://nicenefaith.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/do-pronouns-matter/ ).

The fact that pronouns carry significant meaning in their person, number, and gender is something attested to by the scriptures, church fathers, grammarians, English dictionaries, and nearly anyone with a basic understanding of the language. In light of this wealth of proof, I encourage those who have taken a contrary stance to re-examine their position, and submit themselves to the teaching of scripture, and the general rules of the English language.

Highlights from Cyril of Jerusalem

Cyril of Jerusalem is a notable fourth century theologian and church father, best known today for his Catachetical Lectures. This nicene-era archbishop of Jerusalem’s lectures provide us with a clear elucidation of classical trinitarianism, in which we also find strong apolegetics against both Arianism and modalism, both of which threatened the church of his day. Cyril also presided over the second ecumenical council at Constantinople in 381, by which the original Nicene Creed was confirmed and expanded to more explicitly defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Like the Nicene Creed, Cyril very explcitly taught that the “one God” of the Christian faith is the person of the Father in particular. We see that doctrine greatly emphaized by him in the following quotes:

“Further, do thou neither separate the Son from the Father, nor by making a confusion believe in a Son-Fatherhood; but believe that of One God there is One Only-begotten Son, who is before all ages God the Word; not the uttered word diffused into the air, nor to be likened to impersonal words; but the Word the Son, Maker of all who partake of reason, the Word who heareth the Father, and Himself speaketh.” On the Ten Points of Doctrine (Lecture IV)

“For there is One God, the Father of Christ; and One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of the Only God; and One Holy Ghost…” On the Ten Points of Doctrine (Lecture IV)

“Of God as the sole Principle we have said enough to you yesterday:  by “enough” I mean, not what is worthy of the subject, (for to reach that is utterly impossible to mortal nature), but as much as was granted to our infirmity.  I traversed also the bye-paths of the manifold error of the godless heretics:  but now let us shake off their foul and soul-poisoning doctrine, and remembering what relates to them, not to our own hurt, but to our greater detestation of them, let us come back to ourselves, and receive the saving doctrines of the true Faith, connecting the dignity of Fatherhood with that of the Unity, and believing In One God the Father:  for we must not only believe in one God; but this also let us devoutly receive, that He is the Father of the Only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ.” The Father (Lecture VII)

“But let us adopt the godly doctrine of our Faith, worshipping one God the Father of the Christ…” The Father (Lecture VII)

“There is One God, the Father, Lord of the Old and of the New Testament:  and One Lord, Jesus Christ, who was prophesied of in the Old Testament, and came in the New; and One Holy Ghost, who through the Prophets preached of Christ, and when Christ was come, descended, and manifested Him.” On the Article, And In One Holy Ghost, the Comforter, Which Spake In the Prophets (Lecture XVI)
“The Father through the Son, with the Holy Ghost, is the giver of all grace; the gifts of the Father are none other than those of the Son, and those of the Holy Ghost; for there is one Salvation, one Power, one Faith; One God, the Father; One Lord, His only-begotten Son; One Holy Ghost, the Comforter. ” On the Article, And In One Holy Ghost, the Comforter, Which Spake In the Prophets (Lecture XVI)

There is much we could say about these quotes. It is firstly noteworthy that these all come from lectures given to new believers preparing to be baptised; they were intended to be doctrinal milk for spiritual children. The inclusion of this doctrine in these lectures then shows us the elementary nature of this doctrine in the eyes of Cyril. For Cyril, the truth that the one God of the Christian faith is the Father of Christ was not something esoteric, only to be discussed by theologians in ivory towers. Rather, it was regarded by him as among the most fundamental teachings of the Christian faith, a truth to be understood by every believer, from the advanced scholar to the illiterate farmer.

Secondly, it is noteworthy that Cyril is among the last church fathers to teach this doctrine in his writings. Prior to him we can observe a long line of theologians all teaching this going back to the apostles and scripture itself (see here: https://nicenefaith.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/i-believe-in-one-god-the-father-almighty/ ). In his lectures, we can observe the influence of earlier church fathers like Irenaeus on his theology. Yet after Cyril, this author knows of no other church father who clearly elucidates this doctrine.

A year after Cyril presided over an ecumenical council confirming the Nicene decision in the East, another council was held at Rome, wherein we see the first signs of semi-modalism already having taken root in the Latin church. Within less than twenty years, Augustine would write his volumes on the Trinity popularizing semi-modalism, a view antithetical to that of Cyril and the earlier fathers he followed. In the generation following Cyril we see a spectrum of views as the church gradually abandoned a classical articulation of the Trinity.

Contrasting Irenaeus and Augustine on the Identity of the One God

There is a great deal of doctrinal continuity between second century church father Irenaeus of Lyons and fifth century church father Augustine of Hippo. Both, for instance, articulated the divinity of the Son. But despite areas of doctrinal agreement, there is also some major doctrinal discontinuity between these two notable theologians, especially concerning the identity of the “one God” of the Christian faith.

As has been previously noted on this blog, Augustine was a strong early proponent of the idea that the one God of the Christian faith is the Trinity. We see this idea thus expressed by his own pen:

“That one God, therefore, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who will not appear, except for joy which cannot be taken away from the just…” (On the Trinity, Book 1, Ch. 13)

“…neither here does it appear plainly whether it was any person of the Trinity that appeared to Abraham, or God Himself the Trinity, of which one God it is said, You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.” (Book 2, Ch. 10)

“O Lord the one God, God the Trinity, whatever I have said in these books that is of Yours, may they acknowledge who are Yours; if anything of my own, may it be pardoned both by You and by those who are Yours. Amen.” (Book 15, Ch. 28)

In contrast, Irenaeus of Lyons, on the other hand, can be noted to be equally emphatic in proclaiming that the one God of the Christian faith is the person of the Father in particular:

“And others of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a stedfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Against Heresies, Book I. Chapter III. 6.)

“The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God” (Against Heresies, Book I. Chapter X. 1.)

“These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.” (Against Heresies, Book III. Chapter I. 2.)

“And therefore it is right first of all to believe that there is One God, the Father, who made and fashioned all things, and made what was not that it should be, and who, containing all things, alone is uncontained.” (The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching)

While both theologians appeal to scripture in support of their position, it is clear which of these viewpoints actually represents the biblical position:

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” Ephesians 4:4-5 NAS

“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” John 17:3 NAS

“…yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” 1 Corinthians 8:6 NAS

It is also noteworthy, that although Augustine lived after the Nicene Council and knew of its Creed, it is Irenaeus, who lived prior to the Council, who is doctrinally in agreement with its decision, not Augustine:

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty…” (First words of the Nicene Creed)

Another point of contrast, already noticeable above, is that Irenaeus is in agreement with and appeals to the church’s tradition as further testifying to the truth of what he says. He speaks not of his own novel opinions, but declares that the whole church believes what he is saying pertaining to the one God of the Christian faith being the person of the Father in particular. Irenaeus not only goes to great lengths to show what he is saying from the scriptures, but also includes the historical testimony of prior church fathers, and the contemporary church of his day.

Augustine, on the other hand, appeals to scripture to as supportive of what he says (although ultimately failing to provide any proof on this particular point of doctrine), but does not rely heavily on historical testimony or the church’s tradition on this point of doctrine. This is of course because most prior theologians did not hold his view, but rather that of Irenaeus.

Augustine makes some general appeals to those who came before him, but does not even seem to be aware that he is disregarding the doctrine of most orthodox theologians prior to him. It may be conjectured that this was due to his receiving his doctrine from his immediate predecessor, Ambrose, and other early semi-modalists in Rome and the west. If this is so, then we cannot fairly view Augustine as an innovator on this point, but as faithfully following a new school of thought that can be traced back to a few years before his conversion, which he received from his teachers. Thus he can appeal to those who came before him, while ultimately disagreeing with most of the ancient church.

Historically western theology since the time of Augustine has generally taken his position as fact without question, largely ignoring the testimony of the Irenaeus, and of scripture. Perhaps as Irenaeus’s position is better understood by western scholars we will see a return to the classical trinitarianism taught not only by him, but by many orthodox church fathers in the nicene and ante-nicene eras. Such a revival of interest in classical trinitarianism and Irenaeus’s articulations of that can be seen in the contemporary Eastern Orthodox church, a fact which may appear a bit ironic when we consider that he was a western church father (Lyons being in modern day France).

For more quotes from Irenaeus on the subject, as well as from other fathers, see here: https://nicenefaith.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/i-believe-in-one-god-the-father-almighty/.

Contrasting Augustine and Cyril of Jerusalem on the Identity of the One God

Between Augustine and earlier church fathers like Cyril of Jerusalem there exists a great deal of theological continuity. Both church fathers, for instance, worked to defend the divinity of the Son against the attacks of Arianism. But there are also some crucial areas of discontinuity between these two notable theologians.

As has been previously noted on this blog, Augustine was a strong early proponent of the idea that the one God of the Christian faith is the Trinity. We see this idea expressed in his own writings in the following:

“That one God, therefore, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who will not appear, except for joy which cannot be taken away from the just…” (On the Trinity, Book 1, Ch. 13)

“…neither here does it appear plainly whether it was any person of the Trinity that appeared to Abraham, or God Himself the Trinity, of which one God it is said, You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.” (Book 2, Ch. 10)

“O Lord the one God, God the Trinity, whatever I have said in these books that is of Yours, may they acknowledge who are Yours; if anything of my own, may it be pardoned both by You and by those who are Yours. Amen.” (Book 15, Ch. 28)

In contrast, Cyril of Jerusalem, on the other hand, can be noted to be equally emphatic in proclaiming that the one God of the Christian faith is the person of the Father in particular:

“For there is One God, the Father of Christ; and One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of the Only God; and One Holy Ghost…” On the Ten Points of Doctrine (Lecture IV)

“Of God as the sole Principle we have said enough to you yesterday:  by “enough” I mean, not what is worthy of the subject, (for to reach that is utterly impossible to mortal nature), but as much as was granted to our infirmity.  I traversed also the bye-paths of the manifold error of the godless heretics:  but now let us shake off their foul and soul-poisoning doctrine, and remembering what relates to them, not to our own hurt, but to our greater detestation of them, let us come back to ourselves, and receive the saving doctrines of the true Faith, connecting the dignity of Fatherhood with that of the Unity, and believing In One God the Father:  for we must not only believe in one God; but this also let us devoutly receive, that He is the Father of the Only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ.” The Father (Lecture VII)

“But worship thou One God the Almighty, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Almighty (Lecture VIII)

Although Augustine would allege the support of scripture for his position, in light of the language of scripture, it is clear which of these viewpoints actually represents the biblical position:

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” Ephesians 4:4-5 NAS

“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” John 17:3 NAS

“…yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” 1 Corinthians 8:6 NAS

The Trinity: One Thing or Three Things?

Is the Trinity one thing, or three things? Answer either way, and you will find yourself in trouble.

This is because an answer to such a question is bound to result in misunderstanding because articulating the doctrine of the Trinity in terms of “things” simply is not helpful. We must distinguish further.

For instance, we can say that the Trinity is three things, in that there are three persons. On the other hand, one may point to the single divine nature shared by the persons or that the three persons considered together as a Trinity constitute a single group and therefore respond that the Trinity is one thing. The fact of the matter is, further distinction is needed- “thing” is too broad of a category. When such distinctions are provided and the discussion is narrowed to become more specific, we are able to intelligently articulate what God has revealed.

The classical categorical distinction by which the doctrine of the Trinity was articulated was between the philosophical categories of ‘person’ and ‘essence’. By ‘person’, we refer to the individual. Any individual of a rational nature is a person, such as a man, an angel, or God. On the other hand by essence we mean the nature that exists in persons in abstract, such as human nature, or the divine nature. Thus when we speak of essence we are not speaking of an individual existence, but a common set of characteristics that are the common to many individuals.

We see this understanding of essence vs person articulated by Basil the Great:

“The distinction between οὐσία [essence] and ὑπόστασις [person] is the same as that between the general and the particular ; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man.” (Letter 236)

These distinctions have allowed classical trinitarianism to be summed up as “one essence, three persons”. Without such distinctions, we will be left either denying the unity of nature shared by the persons, or else deny the distinction of their persons.

It is in part, I believe, because of a lack of proper distinction between these categories that many conceive of the Trinity as being a single person. For when ‘one essence in three persons’ gets confounded with, or traded for ‘one person in three persons’, drastic conceptual differences result.

Augustine’s Trinitarian Heresy

Today Augustine is one of the most well-known theologians in church history. His influence on Christian thought, especially in Western Christianity, is enormous. After the Protestant Reformation, both Protestants and Roman Catholics alike continue to appeal to his teachings as a basis for their own.

Augustine’s influence extends to many areas of theology, including soteriology and trinitarian dogma. It is this latter part of Augustine’s corpus of teaching I want to examine in this article.

Augustine wrote at great length on the Trinity, a total of 15 volumes. These works are of monumental historical significance, not because they rightly elucidate the doctrine of the Trinity, but because they provide the first major systematic treatment of semi-modalism, and unfortunately, helped to popularize it.

That he teaches semi-modalism instead of the classical trinitarianism taught by theologians such as Irenaeus and Athanasius and confessed in the Nicene Creed, can be seen from the following passages, wherin he very obviously treats the Trinity itself as a person:

“That one God, therefore, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who will not appear, except for joy which cannot be taken away from the just; for which future joy he sighs, who says, One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord: that one God, therefore, Himself, I say, is alone good, for this reason, that no one sees Him for sorrow and wailing, but only for salvation and true joy.” (Book 1, Ch. 13)

Notice he defines the “one God” as three persons, yet afterwards refers to him using the singular personal pronoun “Himself”.

“…neither here does it appear plainly whether it was any person of the Trinity that appeared to Abraham, or God Himself the Trinity, of which one God it is said, You shall fear the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.” (Book 2, Ch. 10)

“For the Trinity is called one God, great, good, eternal, omnipotent; and the same God Himself may be called His own deity, His own magnitude, His own goodness, His own eternity, His own omnipotence: but the Trinity cannot in the same way be called the Father, except perhaps metaphorically, in respect to the creature, on account of the adoption of sons.” (Book 5, Ch. 11)

“O Lord our God, we believe in You, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Truth would not say, Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unless You were a Trinity. Nor would you, O Lord God, bid us to be baptized in the name of Him who is not the Lord God. Nor would the divine voice have said, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God, unless You were so a Trinity as to be one Lord God…

O Lord the one God, God the Trinity, whatever I have said in these books that is of Yours, may they acknowledge who are Yours; if anything of my own, may it be pardoned both by You and by those who are Yours. Amen.” (Book 15, Ch. 28)

In teaching an explicitly semi-modalistic view of the Trinity, Augustine was treading on new ground. Yet, within his works, he does not seem aware of this, but seems to think himself to be following those who came before him. This can probably be accounted for by two things: an ignorance of classical trinitarian teaching by authors of the ante-nicene and nicene eras, who mostly wrote in Greek, and secondly, that Augustine was probably following the teaching of those who came immediately before him, such as Ambrose of Milan.

Ambrose had been present at a Council held in Rome in 382 where the first signs of semi-modalism can be seen, as the Trinity for the first time got referred to with singular personal pronouns. Ambrose being Augustine’s teacher, it is possible to conjecture that Augustine may have simply been being faithful to what Ambrose his mentor had taught him.

This teaching that the Trinity as a whole may be conceived of as a person, and and implicitly regarded and spoken of as one, with the sole exception that the word “person” may not be applied to it, is false and contrary to scripture. Augustine helped influence untold numbers of people to conceive of a Trinity different than that taught in scripture and by the earlier church fathers, who taught that the one God of the Christian faith is the person of the Father, with the Son standing in relation to Him as His only-begotten Son and Word, and the Holy Spirit regarded as His Spirit.

It is also noteworthy that Augustine broke new ground in giving us perhaps the earliest record of anyone praying to the Trinity, directing his prayer to “God the Trinity”. Throughout his volumes he uses this name for the Trinity as a whole conceived of as a single person, the person who is the three real persons of the Trinity.

By directing prayer to “God the Trinity” Augustine very clearly treats the Trinity itself as a person. He uses singular personal pronouns for it.

He also explicitly and repeatedly states that in his thinking, the one God of the Christian faith is the Trinity (again we must note this stands in contrast to the teaching of earlier fathers like Irenaeus who regarded the one God as the person of the Father). His language on this matter clearly shows that for him, saying that the Father and Son are “one God” does not simply mean that they share one and the same divine nature (such as we see the Nicene fathers such as Athanasius speak), but rather that they are ultimately, even while remaining distinct persons, one person (“God the Trinity”).

The conceptual difference between Augustine’s semi-modalistic view of the Trinity and the classical trinitarianism of the earlier church fathers would be difficult to overstate. Instead of viewing the Trinity as a group of three distinct, inseparable, co-essential, co-eternal persons as earlier church fathers had articulated it, Augustine consistently treats the Trinity as a single rational person who exists as the three real persons of the Trinity. The one he regards as the ‘one God’ is a different person than the one the earlier fathers and scripture regard as the ‘one God’.

Due to these enormous conceptual differences, it is fair to speculate that had Augustine lived a couple hundred years earlier, his teachings would have been unequivocally condemned as heresy by those earlier fathers. But by the time Augustine wrote, the west was receptive to his teaching, semi-modalism already having made significant inroads in the Latin church. Sadly, many other teachers have blindly followed Augustine in these errors, a pattern that must change if the church is to return to the classical trinitarianism taught by the Nicene Creed and scripture.

Van Til’s Views on the Trinity

Twentieth century theologian Cornelius Van Til is a noteworthy figure in the history of theology. Many of his ideas were and continue to be highly controversial, especially in the area of apologetics.

But Cornelius Van Til is lesser known for something perhaps even more remarkable than his apologetic methodology- his views regarding the Trinity. They have, to be sure, garnered some attention- but probably not the amount they deserve. This is because Cornelius Van Til boldly went where other theologians who he is essentially in agreement with never went before- he came out and called the Trinity a “person”.

This significant step can be seen from the following quotations from Van Til:

“… It is sometimes asserted that we can prove to men that we are not asserting anything that they ought to consider irrational, inasmuch as we say that God is one in essence and three in person. We therefore claim that we have not asserted unity and trinity of exactly the same thing.

Yet this is not the whole truth of the matter. We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person…. In other words, we are bound to maintain the identity of the attributes of God with the being of God in order to avoid the specter of brute fact.”

“…Over against all other beings, that is over against created beings, we must therefore hold that God’s being presents an absolute numerical identity. And even within the the ontological Trinity we must maintain that God is numerically one. He is one person. We we say that we believe in a personal God we do not merely mean that we believe in a God to whom the adjective “personality” may be attached. God is not an essence that has personality; He is absolute personality. Yet, within the being of the one person we are permitted and compelled by Scripture to make the distinction between a specific or generic type of being, and three personal subsistences.”

“God exists in himself as a triune self-consciously active being. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each a personality and together constitute the exhaustively personal God… Each is as much God as are the other two.”

We see from these three quotations that Van Til did not mince words in declaring that he believed the three real persons of the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be together a single person. This is blatant semi-modalism, the false doctrine that has received much attention on this blog for denying the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by scripture and believed and confessed by the Christians of the ante-nicene and nicene eras.

Classical trinitarianism distinguishes between the persons of the one God, His Son, and His Spirit, and the single divine nature that all three persons share. This divine nature in classical trinitarianism is not a person, but divinity considered in abstract- the usefulness of speaking this way is to defend the full divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit against Arianism by affirming that the divine nature of the Son and Spirit are no different than that of the one true God Whose Son and Spirit They are.

Semi-modalism, which gained popularity in the fifth century and has since deceived many, twists this articulation of the Trinity to confess one person who is three persons, instead of one divine nature that exists in the three persons. Conceptually, semi-modalism and classical trinitarianism are worlds apart. But most semi-modalists have equivocated on the terminology of “person” and denied in name that they believe that the Trinity is a person who is the three real persons of the Trinity. But while they deny that we can call the Trinity as a whole a person, they treat the Trinity as a person in every other way, denying it only the name “person”. For instance, they always use singular personal pronouns such as “he” and “you” for the Trinity- terms which grammatically clearly regard the Trinity as a person. They will also pray to “God the Trinity”, ascribe actions to him, and otherwise entirely conceive of him as a person ‘who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’.

But Cornelius Van Til came out and admitted that in his view the Trinity was a person. This is a significant development, one that at once deserves our condemnation and our praise- condemnation of the heretical views he expressed, yet praise for his bold honesty in actually coming out and saying what he believed, especially where so many others have tried to hide their belief by avoiding this frank language. But Van Til came out and admitted that in his mind the Trinity is a person. Those who like Van Til insist on holding to a four-person view of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit + God the Trinity = four persons) ought to take heed of his example and likewise come out and admit what they believe plainly, rather than hiding it.

For everyone else, however, who is unwilling to see what scripture teaches on the Trinity traded for falsehood that denies the faith handed down once for all, we must be diligent in opposing Van Til’s heretical teachings here. This does not mean we must dismiss everything Van Til taught in all areas of theology, but his teaching on the Trinity must be roundly condemned as the heresy it is. Let us instead cling to what scripture teaches, believing in, as the Nicene Creed says “one God, the Father Almighty”, “one Lord, Jesus Christ” His only-begotten Son, and one Holy Spirit; three distinct persons of the same divine nature.