Hermeneutics and the Trinity

One of the major theses in this book is the necessity of using texts of Scripture to lay the foundation blocks of any specific doctrine. We reject the notion that we can, by use of logic, establish a doctrinal point without specific textual evidence. The ‘good and necessary consequences deduced’ from actual texts of Scripture and the ‘good and necessary consequence deduced’ from the maximums of a theological system are two different things.

Our insistence on the principle of texts of Scripture as the only valid material for the foundation stones of a specific Bible doctrine has led some to accuse us of being like the Jehovah’s Witnesses. One of the reasons that Jehovah’s Witnesses offer for their rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity is that the word ‘Trinity’ is not a biblical term. There is no text of Scripture that uses that term. Within Evangelicalism, those who oppose our thesis ask, “What about the doctrine of the Trinity? Show us one verse that mentions the word Trinity. Shall we throw out the Trinity because there is no specific text that teaches that doctrine?”

This is a red herring, used by Covenant Theologians to justify theological terms like ‘covenant of works with Adam’ and ‘the moral law’ that have no textual basis in Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith presents these terms in this manner, “…the Lord was pleased to make a second [covenant], commonly called…” (Chapter 7), “…besides the law, commonly called moral…” (Chapter 19, Section 3). When the WCF uses the phrase ‘commonly called,’ it means, “We believe this is a biblical fact or Bible doctrine; it is essential to our system of theology, but we do not have any actual texts of Scripture to prove it.” The phrase ‘commonly called’ means the term is used by theologians all the time.

Let me demonstrate how this comparison to the Jehovah’s Witnesses is the result of fallacious reasoning. We do not reject a so-called covenant of works with Adam only because the word covenant is not found in Genesis 1-3, nor do we reject the idea that the Ten Commandments are the ‘moral law of God’ only because those commandments are never called that in Scripture. We reject these phrases simply because they do not represent biblical truth. Nowhere in Scripture do we find such a concept as a covenant of works with Adam whereby he could earn a kind of life that he did not already have, or the idea of ‘the moral law’ as covenant theologians use that term. The question is not, “Does the Bible ever use the term ‘moral law?’” The question is, “Does the Bible divide the Mosaic law into three specific lists: moral, ceremonial, and civil?” Likewise the question is not, “Does the Bible use the word ‘Trinity,’ but rather, “Does the Word of God, with specific texts, teach the doctrine of the Trinity?” There is a great difference between the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of a three-fold division of the law. 

Exactly what is the doctrine of the Trinity? Let me list the individual components that comprise the doctrine of the Trinity and see if each point is derived from a specific text of Scripture. 

1. God is one God: textual proof—Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD. (Deut. 6:4)
2. God the Father is God: textual proof—Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. (John 6:27)
3. God the Son is God: textual proof—In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
4. God the Holy Spirit is God: textual proof—But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?  Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (Acts 5:3,4 )
5. God is a triune God existing in three equal persons: textual proof—Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matt 28:19)

These texts of Scripture, when considered together, present all the foundational elements in the doctrine of the Trinity. If God is not both one God existing in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then the Bible contradicts itself. We do not need logic or ‘good and necessary consequences’ to arrive at our belief in the Trinity. Each point is proven from a text of Scripture. The only thing we supply is a name. 

We challenge anyone to take the ‘commonly called’ tenets in the WCF and prove each necessary feature from Scripture. Where does Scripture teach: Adam was under a ‘probationary period’ [He may well have been, but without proof, this is mere conjecture.], the length of the period, or what kind of life Adam could ‘earn’ by obeying this so-called covenant of works? Scripture specifically gives death as the penalty for disobedience to the one and only commandment recorded, but it is silent about any ‘earned reward’ of another kind of life. 

Where in Scripture is a three-fold division of the law mentioned? Where is the concept of “THE moral law” mentioned in even one text? To compare the doctrine of the Trinity, which can be unquestionably established from specific texts of Scripture, to the ‘commonly called’ precepts in the WCF, which have no specific texts of Scripture, is to be disingenuous. It clouds the issue of hermeneutical integrity and discourages discussion of the actual terms the Holy Spirit used in Scripture.