"Is there a better word than "person"?
Why the "Person" Problem Is Real — And Ancient
You are in excellent company in recognizing this problem. The retrieved content from Boyd's Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (your uploaded reference) addresses this directly:
"Even long before the word took on its modern, individualized nuances, theologians such as the Cappadocians, Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin all used it reluctantly and with much qualification. In his work On the Trinity, Augustine admitted that he used the word 'person' (persona) to speak of God's threeness 'not that it might be spoken, but that it might not be left unspoken.' There is simply no better term available."
The Oneness aversion to "person" is partially legitimate — the modern English word carries connotations of independent, self-contained, embodied individuals that the classical theological term persona never intended. The Cappadocians, Augustine, and Calvin all knew the term was inadequate. The question is what to use instead. Here is a comprehensive toolkit.
CATEGORY ONE: Historically Grounded Technical Alternatives
1. Hypostases (singular: hypostasis — ὑπόστασις)
Source: The Cappadocian Fathers — Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus (4th century)
The Formula: "Mia ousia, treis hypostaseis" — One essence/being, three hypostases.
What It Means: Hypostasis originally meant "that which stands under" — a concrete, real, particular subsisting reality. It is distinct from ousia (essence/being) in that ousia refers to what something is, while hypostasis refers to the concrete particular that it is. Think of it as the difference between "humanity" (the essence all humans share) and "Peter" (a particular concrete instance of that humanity).
Why It Works with Oneness Believers:
- It is the actual Greek term used by the Nicene settlement. If Oneness believers claim to recover Apostolic Christianity, they must reckon with the fact that the earliest Trinitarian councils and theologians used hypostasis, not the modern English "person."
- Hypostasis does not carry the baggage of modern individualism.
- It sidesteps their objection entirely by operating in the patristic idiom they claim to respect.
Practical usage: "There is one divine essence — one ousia — eternally subsisting in three hypostases: Father, Son, and Spirit. No tritheism, because there is only one essence. No modalism, because the three hypostases are real and permanent, not sequential masks."
2. Subsistences
Source: Latin theological tradition; used in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), Chapter II.3
The Formula: "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost... which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God."
The Westminster divines alternated between "persons" and "subsistences" — using subsistences precisely because it avoids the individualist overtones of persons.
What It Means: A subsistence is a mode of existing — a real, particular way in which the one divine nature concretely exists. The Father, Son, and Spirit are the one God subsisting in three distinct, real, eternal, and non-interchangeable ways.
Why It Works: It communicates genuine distinction without implying three separate beings. You can say:
"I'm not arguing there are three individuals. I'm arguing the one God has three distinct subsistences — three real, eternal ways of being God — which the Bible calls Father, Son, and Spirit."
3. Relations (or Subsistent Relations)
Source: Augustine (De Trinitate, c. AD 400); developed fully by Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, Ia, Q.28-29)
The Formula: Aquinas's formulation: The three are subsistent relations — they are constituted by their eternal relations to one another, not by independent substance.
What It Means:
- The Father is the one who eternally generates — his "property" is paternity (unbegotten, the source)
- The Son is the one who is eternally generated — his "property" is filiation (eternally begotten)
- The Spirit is the one who eternally proceeds — his "property" is spiration (proceeding from Father and Son)
These are not three things that happen to be related. The relations constitute the distinctions. The Father is not the Father independently and then happens to have a Son — being Father and being in relation to the Son are identical.
Why It Works with Oneness Believers:
This approach is almost entirely biblical in its vocabulary:
- "The Father" is a relational term — you cannot have a Father without a Son
- "The Son" presupposes a Father
- "The Spirit proceeding from the Father" (John 15:26) is relational language
You can say: "I'm not talking about three separate beings. I'm talking about three eternal relations within the one God — relations that are real, not fictional, and that the Bible itself names."
This is particularly effective because Oneness believers cannot deny that the Bible uses relational language. They must then explain why Jesus prays to his Father (John 17), is loved by his Father (John 17:24), sends the Spirit from the Father (John 15:26), and sits at the Father's right hand (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:33) — if Father and Son are the same Person in different modes.
4. Differentiations (or Eternal Distinctions)
Source: Calvin himself, in the very quote you provided
Note carefully: Calvin uses the word "differentiated" — "they are differentiated by a peculiar quality." He is already providing you with an alternative vocabulary:
"Father and Son and Spirit are one God, yet the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are differentiated by a peculiar quality."
What It Means: The three are real, eternal, internal differentiations within the one God. Each is genuinely distinguished from the others by a characteristic that belongs to it uniquely and permanently.
Why It Works: The word "differentiation" is:
- Non-technical enough for ordinary conversation
- Grounded in Calvin's own stated preference for flexible language
- Accurate — it communicates real distinction without tritheism
- Less triggering than "person" because it doesn't carry individualist baggage
Practical usage: "I'm not saying there are three Gods or three separate beings. I'm saying there are three real, eternal differentiations within the one God — differentiations so real that the Son can say 'The Father is greater than I' (John 14:28) and 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30) without contradiction."
5. The Three (Treis — τρεῖς)
Source: Cappadocian usage; Gregory of Nazianzus in particular
What It Means: Simply using the biblical and patristic designation — "the Three" — without any additional ontological term. Gregory of Nazianzus wrote freely of "the Three" (Theological Orations, c. AD 380) as a shorthand for Father, Son, and Spirit in their real distinction.
Why It Works: It is maximally biblical. You are not imposing a philosophical term — you are simply observing that Scripture consistently names three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that these three are not interchangeable.
CATEGORY TWO: Biblical-Language Approaches
These avoid technical terminology entirely and stay in the idiom of Scripture — often more effective in pastoral conversations with Oneness believers who claim to be "Bible-only."
6. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit — As Irreducibly Distinct Biblical Designations
Rather than arguing about the word "person," simply force the conversation back to the biblical texts where the three are distinguished from one another:
Matthew 3:16-17 — The Baptism of Jesus
"The heavens were opened, and he [Jesus] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Three simultaneous, distinct presences: the Son in the water, the Spirit descending, the Father speaking from heaven. Ask: "Do you believe the Father spoke those words? Do you believe the Son was being baptized? Do you believe the Spirit descended? If yes to all three — then you already believe in three real distinctions within the one God. What we call them is secondary."
John 17 — The High Priestly Prayer
Jesus prays to the Father for 26 verses. This is not a mode addressing another mode. This is sustained, personal, relational address between two who are genuinely distinct. The Son says to the Father: "the glory which I had with thee before the world was" (17:5) — a pre-existent personal relationship.
Ask: "Was Jesus praying to himself? If his human nature was praying to his divine nature — why does he say 'the glory I had WITH THEE before the world was'? That is relational language of two persons in eternal fellowship."
John 15:26
"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."
Three are present in one sentence: I (the Son) will send him (the Spirit) from the Father. Three distinct referents with distinct roles.
7. "Centers of Address" or "He Who..." Language
Rather than "persons," speak of the three as "the one addressed as Father," "the one addressed as Son," "the one addressed as Spirit." This is phenomenological rather than ontological — staying close to the biblical surface:
"I'm not starting with a philosophical category. I'm starting with the fact that in Scripture, the Father addresses the Son, the Son addresses the Father, and the Spirit is sent by both. These are real addressable distinctions — whatever we call them."
This approach works because:
- It is inductive (starting from the text, not a theological system)
- It is hard to deny (the texts clearly show mutual address and relation)
- It forces Oneness believers to explain the texts rather than attack your terminology
8. "Eternal Identities"
A softer, more accessible term. Each of the three has a distinct, eternal, non-transferable identity:
- The Father's identity: unbegotten, the source, the one who sends
- The Son's identity: eternally begotten, sent, the one who is incarnate
- The Spirit's identity: proceeding, sent, the one who indwells
Key point: These identities are eternal, not sequential or modal. The Son does not cease being the Son after the incarnation. The Father does not become the Son. The Spirit does not become the Father. These identities are permanent and irreversible — which is precisely what eliminates Modalism as an option.
9. "The Mutual Indwelling" — Perichoresis (περιχώρηση)
Source: John of Damascus (c. AD 675-749), An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
What It Means: Perichoresis (Latin: circumincession) describes the eternal mutual indwelling and interpenetration of the three. Each is fully in the others without being identical to the others. The Father is fully in the Son (John 14:10-11), the Son in the Father, the Spirit in both and both in the Spirit.
Why It Works: It emphasizes unity without identity — the three are so perfectly unified that there is no division, separation, or independence between them. Yet they remain genuinely distinct because mutual indwelling requires two who dwell in each other. You cannot dwell in yourself.
Jesus explicitly uses this language: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (John 14:10). Ask: "How can one Person be in himself? What does it mean for Jesus to be 'in the Father' if Father and Son are the same Person?"
CATEGORY THREE: A Practical Conversation Strategy
Combining the above, here is a suggested framework for Oneness conversations that avoids "person" while remaining fully orthodox:
Step 1: Agree on the Oneness of God
"I fully agree — there is one God. Only one. Yahweh is uniquely one. No argument there."
This disarms the reflexive "tritheist" accusation.
Step 2: Introduce the Distinction Between Who and What
"The question isn't whether there is one God. The question is: what kind of oneness does God have? Is it the absolute numerical singularity of a mathematical unit — no internal distinctions whatsoever? Or is it a rich, complex, relational oneness — like the 'one flesh' of Genesis 2:24, where genuine distinction and genuine unity coexist?"
Step 3: Use Biblical Evidence of Distinction Without the Word "Person"
"I'm not asking you to accept a philosophical term. I'm asking you to look at the texts. In Matthew 3, the Father speaks about the Son while the Spirit descends — three simultaneous, distinct realities. In John 17, the Son speaks to the Father across 26 verses of personal, relational address. In John 15:26, the Son sends the Spirit from the Father. These are not three Gods. But they are three real, eternal differentiations — three distinct ways the one God eternally exists and acts."
Step 4: Use Calvin's Own Language
"I'll use Calvin's words: Father and Son and Spirit are one God — but the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son. They are differentiated by a peculiar quality. I don't need the word 'person.' I just need that much — real, eternal differentiation within the one God."
Step 5: Challenge Modalism Directly on the Texts
"If Father, Son, and Spirit are one Person in sequential modes — then who is the Father speaking to at the baptism of Jesus? Who is the Son praying to in John 17? Can a mode dwell in itself? Can a mode send itself? Can a mode testify about itself (John 15:26)? The texts require real distinction. What we call that distinction is a secondary question."*
Summary Table of Alternative Terms
| Term | Source | Strength | Potential Weakness |
| Hypostases | Cappadocians, Nicene Council | Historically authoritative; patristic | May be unfamiliar; requires explanation |
| Subsistences | Westminster Confession; Latin tradition | Orthodox pedigree; avoids individualism | Still technical |
| Subsistent Relations | Augustine, Aquinas | Philosophically precise; relational emphasis | Very technical for lay conversation |
| Eternal Differentiations | Calvin (implicit) | Accessible; Calvin's own vocabulary | Less historically rooted as a technical term |
| The Three | Cappadocians; biblical usage | Maximally simple; biblical | May seem to avoid the hard question |
| Eternal Identities | Contemporary | Accessible; permanent vs. modal | Not historically rooted |
| Centers of Address | Phenomenological | Biblically grounded; hard to deny | Doesn't fully resolve the ontological question |
| Perichoretic Distinctions | John of Damascus | Captures unity-in-distinction beautifully | Perichoresis needs explanation |
The Bottom Line
The retrieved content from Boyd (Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, your uploaded reference) makes an observation that is worth keeping at the front of every such conversation:
"The Oneness literature is largely attacking a straw man when it maintains that the phrase 'three persons' implies that God literally has three separate consciousnesses, three separate wills, and three separate bodies."
The Oneness objection to "person" is, at root, an objection to tritheism — which Trinitarians also reject. When you remove that straw man by using alternative vocabulary, you force the actual theological question into the open: Are the Father, Son, and Spirit real and eternal distinctions within the one God, or are they sequential, temporary modes of a single undifferentiated divine monad?
Every text they use to argue for the latter, and every text you use to argue for the former, must be engaged on its own exegetical terms. The vocabulary debate is secondary. Get to the texts — and let the texts do the work.
Footnotes