God is Not “Triune”, But Father

It has become commonplace for Christians today to identify the God of Christianity as the “triune God”. This is perhaps even more frequent amid Christian attempts to distinguish the true God spoken of by scripture from those imagined by false religions. The description of Christianity’s God, however, as “triune” is actually one opposed to the teaching of scripture itself.

At first read, that might sound an awful lot like a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity; certainly anti-trinitarian heresies would quickly agree with a denial of God’s supposed “tri-unity”. But it is not; rather, the underlying meaning of the phrase “triune God” and the belief it implies is not trinitarian at all, but itself, when carried to the extent of its logical implications, is a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity as it is taught by scripture and was articulated by the fathers of the first three centuries of the church.

The phrase “triune God”, we may first note, is entirely unscriptural. This point is not brought up to argue that for that reason alone the phrase is problematic; but people’s excessive bias in favor of the term should be curbed by the fact that God Himself gave us a perfect revelation of the truth of Christianity in the scriptures without ever using the word. The phrase is expendable; and if it does indeed carry meaning contrary to scripture, as I endeavor to prove, then it must be roundly rejected.

Not only is the phrase absent from scripture, but the first many centuries of Christianity were also able to articulate Christian theology, including the doctrine of the Trinity, without that phrase, or an equivalent. Even through the time of the Protestant reformation, the word’s usage has been moderately scarce. “Triune God” seems to have become something of a buzzword for twenty-first century Christians, however.

Secondly then let us examine the way the phrase is ordinarily employed by those who use it: as a name for the Trinity as a whole conceived of as a single person. This can be easily observed by simply paying attention to the way the phrase is used:

“Because of this, only the Christian triune God can truly be the creator and sovereign Lord of His creation, who is absolutely personal, who bears perfectly all aspects of personality, but remains separate from His creation. Therefore, if man is to truly understand the world in which he lives, he must do so through this revelation of the triune God.” (Colin Smith, Van Til and the Trinity: Correlativism, Aseity, and the Trinity)

“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.” (Cornelius Van Til)

It is commonplace to hear people speak of the “triune God, Who has saved us by His grace”; the “triune God” Who is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the “triune God Who reveals Himself in scripture”.

In all these examples, “triune God” can be clearly seen as being used to speak, effectively, of a person who is three persons. It is noteworthy that normal convention is to use singular personal pronouns, such as “He” and “Him” for the “triune God”.

But who is this person? He is described as creating, saving, receiving worship etc. He is given the highest honors. And yet, we see, this person is not the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit individually, but all three of Them together, spoken of as a single person. The three persons of the Trinity, however, are not a single person- such language and the idea it implies, therefore, is clearly semi-modalistic. If someone objects that the triune God is not treated as a person but as a “being”, then they are convicted of simply equivocating over the word person- whichever synonym is employed, the “triune God” is clearly treated as a person, whether it be honored with the title of “person” or not.

But thirdly let us examine what is meant by the phrase “triune God”; it is usually described as indicating that the God of the Bible is “tri-personal”. What this effectively means, is that the one God is three persons. The problem with such a statement?  Firstly, in scripture the “one God” is always equated with the person of the Father alone, although the Son and Spirit are divine with the same divine nature as the Father. The one God is not three persons, then, but one person, the Father, eternally in union with the distinct persons of His Son and Holy Spirit. Secondly, The way this gets used is to say that the Bible teaches us that there is this one person who is the one and only God, and he is triune, or tri-personal, meaning he is three persons. This, however, could not more clearly be semi-modalistic.

Nowhere does scripture teach such a doctrine; by making the Trinity itself into a person, such false teaching introduces a fourth divine person into the Trinity, so as to make it no longer a Trinity at all. Thus such language is thus anti-trinitarian. Most who employ this terminology probably do so without realizing this serious implication; an acknowledgement of their ignorance in erring this way, however, does not make the error itself any less serious.

In the interest of seeing if there is any usage of the phrase in question that is legitimate, orthodox, and sensible, let us examine all the ways the phrase “triune God” could potentially be used or applied in relation to trinitarian theology:

For the divine nature/essence: if it were intended to say that the essence considered in itself is tri-personal, then why describe the subject using singular personal pronouns, and in every other way treat the “triune God” as a person? Why not simply say, as historic trinitarianism has, that the divine nature subsists in three persons, without making it itself into a fourth person?

For the Father: the Father is indeed a person, thus justifying the personal language and pronouns, but is not ‘tri-personal’. Besides being utterly nonsensical to suggest that the Father is three persons, it is totally unscriptural.

For the Son: the Son is indeed also a person, thus justifying the personal language and pronouns, but is not ‘tri-personal’. Besides it being utterly nonsensical to suggest that the Son is three persons, it is totally unscriptural.

For the Holy Spirit: the Holy Spirit is indeed a single person, thus justifying the personal language and pronouns, but is not ‘tri-personal’. Besides it being utterly nonsensical to suggest that the Holy Spirit is three persons, it is totally unscriptural.

For the Trinity as a whole/all three persons together as a group: Calling the Trinity as a whole “triune” or “tri-personal” makes some sense, seeing as the Trinity is a group of three persons. However, if this what is meant by the phrase “triune God”, then why use singular personal pronouns for it, and otherwise treat it as single a person? Doing so either entirely denies that the Trinity is three persons, or, worse, as is usually actually the case, presents it as being a person who consists of three persons. Such a doctrine is as nonsensical as it is blasphemous.

It remains to be seen then that the modern popular usage of the phrase “triune God” can be found to have any justifiable usage which does not imply some serious heresy. This author can find none. Rather, the way the phrase is normally used is symptomatic or a widespread and serious problem with the church’s understanding of trinitarian theology- it has become normal for Christians to equate trinitarianism with the idea of God being a single person who is three persons. This is not trinitarianism, but semi-modalism; this problem is serious, and needs to be addressed. The way people speak about God says much about how they think about Him- therefore the fact that there is a widespread acceptance of a convention of speech which only implies semi-modalism is a deeply concerning indicator of the state of the church’s grasp on what scripture reveals about the doctrine of the Trinity.

When we refer to the God of Christianity, then, the God revealed by scripture, we ought rather to acknowledge Him as ‘Father’, rather than ‘triune’. The acknowledgement of God as Father is indeed unique to Christianity; only Christians acknowledge that the one God is to be worshipped with and through His one only-begotten Son, who took on a human nature in addition to His divine nature to become man for our salvation. The understanding of God as being the one Who is Father of His one only-begotten Son, and the one from Whom His one Holy Spirit eternally proceeds, with Whom we are sealed in Christ, is truly unique to the Christian faith.

Our faith in God as Father says much more about our trinitarianism than the false contrivance of calling God “triune”. God’s identity as Father, and all the riches of truth implied in that, including His being the fountain of divinity to the persons of the Son and Holy Spirit, is truly unique to Christianity; while others may acknowledge God as “Father” in a merely figurative sense, Christians acknowledge God as truly and ontologically Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son. Thus when we then desire to distinguish our God from the false ideas of God among the various false religions, we need not resort to a term never found in scripture, which carries a heretic implication, but rather simply acknowledge the one true God as the Lord Jesus Christ taught us to, and as scripture constantly refers to Him: as Father.

 

See also:

Modalism has evolved

Semi-modalism and the Introduction of a Four-Person Trinity

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty

Equivocation Over the Term “Person”

Semi-modalism is the false doctrine that teaches that the three real persons of the Trinity are together a single person. Most semi-modalists, however, refuse to use the term “person” for the Trinity, although conceptually they treat the Trinity as a whole as a person in every way except using that term for it.

For example, instead of saying that they believe that ‘God is a person who is three persons’, they will say that ‘God is a being who is three persons’. This sounds closer to orthodoxy; yet there is no substantial difference in meaning.

Such is the skillful deceptiveness of this soul-poisoning error. By minutely altering that ancient saying “one essence in three persons” to “one being in three persons”, no apparent error is introduced, since “being” is a term vague enough to denote either person or essence. Yet this vagueness is used to alter the meaning entirely from the original.

For when the semi-modalist speak of one “being” who is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, is it not obvious from their employment of the personal pronoun “who” that they regard this being as a person, just as when we speak of a “human being”, we usually do not refer to the human nature considered in abstract, but to an individual human person? So these deceivers equivocate with the terminology of “being” to teach their counterfeit doctrine of the Trinity, which in truth is no doctrine of the Trinity at all, since by making the Trinity itself as a whole out to be a person they introduce a fourth person, and destroy the doctrine of the Trinity and instead teach a quadrinity.

Yet these false teachers act as though if only they can avoid pronouncing the word “person” they will not be convicted of error by the Lord, as though the word used in expressing oneself is the thing of primary importance, and not the meaning and idea behind it.

Others will say that the Trinity as a whole, that is, the Father, Son, and Spirit together are not one person, (for they deny this word), but rather say that it is a single subsistent “thing” or “reality”. Again we see what vague language they must introduce in order to keep up the subterfuge that they are trinitarians. What then, is this “thing” which is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit together, when we closely enquire as to their meaning?

We find that this “thing” meets the very definition they will admit for “person”; though they pretend they are not the same. For a person, they will say, is an individual subsistence of a rational nature. Thus angels, for example, as being both individual existences and possessing a rational nature, are persons. So too they will admit individual men are persons under this definition, and also the real persons of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But what then is this thing? For they identify this “thing”, this “reality” which is the Trinity as truly existing, or subsisting, and define it as being individual and singular, and also regard it as being of a rational nature, namely, the divine nature. In what area then, does it fall short of the definition of “person”? In truth, it does not.

And the same false teachers treat this “thing” which meets the definition of a ‘person’, yet is robbed of the title by them, as being a person in every way. They pray to “God the Trinity”, the “triune God”; they speak of this “thing” using singular personal pronouns; they attribute to it consciousness, will, and action, and speech, and in short, everything pertaining to a person, excepting that they deny it the word “person”. Their deception then is obvious, although perhaps it is as much a self-deception as it is a deception of those who hear them.

Let those then who equivocate over the terminology of “person” give up their subterfuge, and like Van Til, come out and openly admit what they think in language that does not hide it. For by hiding their true belief behind ambiguous language, and equivocating as they do, do they not acknowledge the shamefulness of their own belief? For if it is true, it is noble, for truth is excellent; let them then come out and openly make it known. Or else why do they so dishonor the god of their imaginations by denying him personhood? What insult to the “triune God”, that he may receive men’s worship and prayers, and be called by personal pronouns, and have names and titles belonging to the real persons of the Trinity applied to him, and yet he is denied the honor of being called a person!

Or if those who are merely confused and ill taught speak in these ways, and treat the Trinity as a person in the way they speak, and yet acknowledge that it is in truth an error to regard the Trinity as a whole as a person, and for this reason deny it the term “person”, they do well; but let them then abandon their misunderstanding wholeheartedly, and not waver between truth and error any longer. But let them acknowledge the one true God as a person; the person of the Father. And let them acknowledge a second divine person also, one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the one true God, and together with Him and His Father, Who is the one true God, let them acknowledge a third divine person, the Holy Spirit. And these three persons together are the Trinity; not a singular person, but a group of three and only three persons, all three of Whom possess exactly the same divine nature, or essence. And so we may return to that ancient formula “one essence in three persons” as it was intended, to denote how the one God, and His only-begotten Son, and His Holy Spirit all share the same divine nature, and not giving in to any system of false doctrine that would confound this formula to teach a person who is three persons.

 

Semi-Modalism In the Dutch Reformed Confessions

Cornelius Van Til is known for coming out and openly admitting his belief that the Trinity itself, that group of three divine persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is itself a single person. While many prior to him clearly treated the Trinity as a person, they eschewed the terminology, as it is obviously nonsensical. Yet the concept that there is a single consciousness, a single person, who is the entire Trinity, and exists as all three real persons of the Trinity, can be seen going back to Augustine.

Cornelius Van Til, coming from a Dutch Reformed heritage, had been strongly indoctrinated with this semi-modalistic version of the doctrine of the Trinity, and it is therefore not surprising that he conceptually held to it. Van Til deserves accolade for actually coming out and clearly stating his true belief that the Trinity is a person (see: https://contramodalism.com/tag/cornelius-van-til/ ), yet he cannot by any means be considered the source of the idea itself.

We can clearly see that the Dutch Reformed tradition’s confessional documents, which sum up their doctrinal beliefs, are semi-modalistic. This can be seen by critically examining both the Second Helvetic Confession and Belgic Confession’s chapters on the doctrine of the Trinity:

“GOD IS ONE. We believe and teach that God is one in essence or nature, subsisting in himself, all sufficient in himself, invisible, incorporeal, immense, eternal, Creator of all things both visible and invisible, the greatest good, living, quickening and preserving all things, omnipotent and supremely wise, kind and merciful, just and true. Truly we detest many gods because it is expressly written: “The Lord your God is one Lord” (Deut.6:4). “I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:2-3). “I am the Lord, and there is no other god besides me. Am I not the Lord, and there is no other God beside me? A righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me” ((Isa. 45:5, 21). “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Ex. 34:6).

GOD IS THREE. Notwithstanding we believe and teach that the same immense, one and indivisible God is in person inseparably and without confusion distinguished as Father, Son and Holy Spirit so, as the Father has begotten the Son from eternity, the Son is begotten by an ineffable generation, and the holy Spirit truly proceeds from them both, and the same from eternity and is to be worshipped with both.” (Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter 3)

“In keeping with this truth and Word of God we believe in one God, who is one single essence, in whom there are three persons, really, truly, and eternally distinct according to their incommunicable properties— namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Father is the cause, origin, and source of all things, visible as well as invisible. The Son is the Word, the Wisdom, and the image of the Father. The Holy Spirit is the eternal power and might, proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Nevertheless, this distinction does not divide God into three, since Scripture teaches us that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each has a distinct subsistence distinguished by characteristics— yet in such a way that these three persons are only one God. It is evident then that the Father is not the Son and that the Son is not the Father, and that likewise the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. Nevertheless, these persons, thus distinct, are neither divided nor fused or mixed together. For the Father did not take on flesh, nor did the Spirit, but only the Son. The Father was never without the Son, nor without the Holy Spirit, since all these are equal from eternity, in one and the same essence. There is neither a first nor a last, for all three are one in truth and power, in goodness and mercy.” (Belgic Confession, Article 8)

First lets examine the quote from the Second Helvetic Confession. Towards the beginning it says “God is one in essence or nature, subsisting in himself, all sufficient in himself, invisible, incorporeal, immense, eternal, Creator of all”. This is in itself somewhat ambiguous- a classical trinitarian could also speak of the one God Who is one in essence or nature -the Father, as per the Nicene Creed- while acknowledging that the Son and Spirit also share that same divine nature. In fact, if this whole paragraph were speaking of the Father, there is nothing objectionable about it at all. Many orthodox church fathers speak in very similar ways.

The key difference however between the Second Helvetic Confession and the orthodox church fathers is that the fathers would have identified the subject of that paragraph as the person of the Father (see: https://contramodalism.com/2017/03/08/i-believe-in-one-god-the-father-almighty/ ). This fits with the singular personal pronouns used, as well. But unfortunately, the Second Helvetic didn’t intend it this way. Rather the next paragraph begins by saying: “Notwithstanding we believe and teach that the same immense, one and indivisible God is in person inseparably and without confusion distinguished as Father, Son and Holy Spirit…”.

Here we see that the Confession directly equates the singular person spoken of in the first paragraph with the real three persons of the Trinity together; that is, it teaches that there is one person who is three persons. The Confession has in the first paragraph spoken of a singular person: not just by using explicitly singular personal pronouns, but by saying “subsisting in himself” they very clearly regard the subject as a person (in historic philosophical language, subsistence=person, while substance=essence). Yet when we come to the second paragraph, this singular subsistence/person is identified as being three subsistences/persons. Thus, it clearly teaches semi-modalism, only barely coming short of Van Til’s later articulation of it by not expressly using the word “person” for the Trinity as a whole.

Next, we come to the quote from the Belgic Confession. It begins saying “In keeping with this truth and Word of God we believe in one God, who is one single essence, in whom there are three persons, really, truly, and eternally distinct according to their incommunicable properties— namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” This is mainly where we see semi-modalism. The second paragraph does not seem to contain anything expressly semi-modalistic, and the third paragraph is only ambiguous when it says that the three persons are one God, since this could be taken in a classical sense to mean that they all share one divine nature, or in a semi-modalistic sense to say that the three are one person. So much for the second and third paragraphs, then.

Returning to the first paragraph of the Belgic Confession, we must note firstly that it fails to correctly identify the one God as the Father. Instead, it equates the one God with the essence/divine nature, which exists in the three real persons of the Trinity. But it does more than this; it confesses the one God to be a person who is the essence, which in turn has the three persons of the Trinity in it.

That it treats the “one God” here as a person is obvious from the singular personal pronoun used- “one God, who is one single essence”. If this is slightly baffling to the reader, they should not be surprised; essence and person are distinct philosophical categories. Confounding them cannot but result in doctrinal error (see: https://contramodalism.com/tag/essence-vs-person/ ).

Yet this is precisely what appears to be done here, as the one God, regarded as a person, is equated with the essence which exists in the three real persons of the Trinity. This twisting of the patristic formulation of the Trinity “one essence in three persons” to “one person in three persons” is semi-modalism.

So there you have it; the Helvetic Confession and Belgic Confession, upon close examination, are shown to teach semi-modalism. This doesn’t mean that the Confessions as a whole are not useful and valuable for their articulations of other areas of doctrine, but it is important that their teaching on the Trinity be recognized as problematic, or else more Christians will fall into these same errors.

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.

The Trinity: Three Persons or Four?

If you ask anyone how many persons there are in the Trinity, they will likely tell you there are three. This is obvious- the very word “Trinity” comes from ‘Tri’=three, combined with ‘unity’, meaning three in unity. Three persons, of one essence, as the classical formulation goes.

Sadly though, if we actually take the time to examine how many persons many so-called trinitarians believe in, we will quickly see that there is an extra person afoot. This is because many theologians who have succumbed to the lies of semi-modalism have accepted the Trinity itself as a fourth person. These people take the one essence, or divine nature common to the three real persons of the Trinity and imagine it to be a person itself. Another variation of this is to simply imagine that the group of three persons is a single person. By personifying either the group of persons or the divine nature, these false teachers have craftily introduced a fourth person into the Trinity.

Most of the patrons of this error hold their belief in semi-secret. They clearly think of the Trinity as a person in itself. They call it the ‘one God’ (who is actually the person of the Father, see: https://nicenefaith.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/i-believe-in-one-god-the-father-almighty/), the “triune god”, and “god the Trinity”. They worship this person, pray to this person, and constantly expose their belief that this person is a person by using explicitly personal pronouns. When they speak of the “triune god” or “god the Trinity” they always call him “he” and “you”, not “it”, or they”, as we would use to speak of the divine nature or the group of persons together, respectively.

A few of these false teachers, like Cornelius Van Til, have even come out and admitted their belief in a fourth person openly, such as when he wrote:

“… 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.”

While we must loath Van Til’s heresy, his honesty is praiseworthy. Most such semi-modalists will vehemently deny that they believe the Trinity is a person if asked. Of course, the only difference between their view and Van Til’s conceptually is that they deny the term “person” to the Trinity while clearly treating it as such, while Van Til was honest enough to come out and say what he really thought.

We must recognise this problem. Many people have fallen into thinking in these ways by mistake, not realising that they had traded in their belief in the true Trinity of scripture for a false Trinity of man’s imagination, with four persons instead of three. There is a world of difference between having accidentally having fallen into thinking about these things in a way that is mistaken and having consciously rejected the true doctrine of the Trinity in favor of a false one. Many genuine Christians have temporarily fallen into mistakenly thinking of the Trinity wrongly. Each person must take heed, lest he be deceived, and whoever has been deceived must repent and embrace the truth. It is not the part of true Christians to never err, for all do; rather it is the part of true Christians to repent when they do. Therefore let those who have erred in this respect repent, and embrace the truth.