# The Southern Presbyterian Journal/Volume 13/Number 25/The Trinity

For other articles in this series, see Articles on the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Articles on the Westminster Confession by Gordon H. Clark The Word of God (WCF 1) Creeds Knowledge and Ignorance The Trinity (WCF 2) A Hard Saying (WCF 3) Providence (WCF 5) Creation (WCF 4) Healthy, Sick, or Dead? (WCF 6) The Covenant (WCF 7) Christ the Mediator (WCF 8) Justification (WCF 11) Sanctification (WCF 13) Free Will (WCF 9) Effectual Calling (WCF 10) Adoption (WCF 12) The Law of God (WCF 19) Assurance (WCF 18) Saving Faith (WCF 14) Repentance (WCF 15) Good Works (WCF 16) Christian Liberty (WCF 20) Perseverance (WCF 17) Worship and Vows (WCF 21, 22) The Sacraments (WCF 27) Baptism (WCF 28) The Church (WCF 25) The Civil Magistrate (WCF 23) The Lord's Supper (WCF 29) Censures and Councils (WCF 30, 31) Resurrection and Judgment (WCF 32, 33)
​In the ecclesiastical controversies of this decade little reference is ever made to Chapter II of the Westminster Confession. Is this because the Trinity is a dead letter? Or does it indicate unanimous acceptance? Or does the controversy merely seem to leave the matter untouched, while in reality the doctrine of the Trinity is very much involved?
To some people in some churches the Trinity is a dead letter. The hymn book of one denomination has rewritten "Holy, Holy, Holy," so as to exclude all reference to "God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity." A defense that is offered for such disconcerting editing is that the doctrine of the Trinity is based more on pagan Greek philosophy than on the Scriptures. But such a defense can be credited only by those who are ignorant of the extensive Scriptural arguments in the writings of Athanasius. Some ignorance of Greek philosophy also helps.
Can it be said then that in the Presbyterian church, whatever may be the case with other denominations, the second chapter of the Confession is unanimously accepted? Before this question can be answered in the hoped-for affirmative, a distinction should be made between the first two sections of the chapter and the third. Only in this last are the trinitarian distinctions mentioned. The first two sections describe a basic monotheism, which, with many proof-texts from the Old Testament, could be largely and perhaps altogether accepted by a devout Jew. As a summary of the Biblical teaching concerning God's attributes, His righteousness, His glory, His ​knowledge, His sovereignty, these two sections form an excellent guide for Bible study. Though their wording was framed in the seventeenth century they will never become a dead letter for believers in the one true and living God.
The trinitarian third section is very short. In fact, those who wish to rewrite the creeds would do better to consider expanding here rather than contracting anywhere. The doctrine of the Trinity centers in the deity of Christ. The personality of the Spirit and the relations among the Persons are included, but surely it is not incorrect to say that the deity of Christ forms the center.
Can it be said now that present controversies in Presbyterian churches do not call the deity of Christ into question. Presbyterian ministers have denied the inerrancy of Scripture; some of them refuse to affirm the Virgin Birth; some deny that Christ "arose from the dead with the same body in which He suffered" (Conf. VIII iv); but do not all Presbyterian ministers believe in the deity of Christ?
The paragraph above asks two questions, which may appear to be the same, but which are not. The second question is, Do all Presbyterian ministers accept the deity of Christ? In answer it may be said that there is little evidence to prove even a few cases of unbelief at this important point. In view of the doctrinal laxity of our age it would not be surprising if some Presbyterian ministers repudiated Christ. Some might even be atheists or communists. Of course they would have been hypocrites and perjurers at their ordination, but this is quite possible, for the Presbyterian ministry would be a very valuable vantage point for a communist. But there is little evidence of any widespread rejection of Chirst's deity.
However, it would be wrong to infer, in answer to the first question, that the present doctrinal laxity, the controversies over union, the ecumenical obsession, and all the ferment of our age, leave the deity of Christ untouched and do not call it into question.
An attack against a citadel is not always frontal. Sometimes the outer defenses are first put out of commission, one by one; sometimes the foundations are undermined; sometimes the supplies are cut off. This is not to suggest that any of those who differ with us on matters of union intend to weaken their testimony to the deity of Christ. It does not even imply that all those who deny the Virgin Birth are conscious enemies of trinitarianism. The ecclesiastical situation is similar to the political, where many Americans have advocated this or that part of communistic propaganda without knowing its source and aims.
But put the question this way: if the Virgin Birth is not an historical event, and if the body of Christ did not come out of the tomb, and if the Scriptures are often in error, and if, in comparison with the organization of a super-church, all of these doctrinal matters are insignificant, what hope is there of long maintaining the deity of Christ? Let those answer who have been trying to satisfy themselves with a minimum of Christian doctrine. The rest of us will nourish our souls with the help of the complete Confession, all thirty-three chapters of it.