 The "Trinity Defense" A Red Herring John G. Reisinger
First of all, we do not reject a 'covenant of works' with Adam only because the phrase is not in Genesis 1-3. Actually, that fact should be enough to make any serious student of Scripture pause and examine the evidence to support his idea. We do feel justified in asking why the Holy Spirit would not mention a term that is one the essential foundational building blocks of one's whole system of theology. However, our reason for rejecting a covenant of works with Adam is far more than the admitted fact that the Holy Spirit never mentioned the word covenant or phrase covenant of works in Genesis 1-3. The Holy Spirit also, (1) never mentioned such a covenant any other place in Scripture; (2) such a concept will not fit into God's dealing with Adam in Genesis; and (3) such a concept contradicts other clear passages of Scripture. The same can be said about the phrase the unchanging moral law of God. My purpose in this article is not to prove or disprove any of the non-biblical terms in question. What I do want to do is show how radically different the term Trinity is from terms like moral law and covenant of works with Adam. The word Trinity sets forth a clear biblical doctrine derived from specific texts of Scripture. The terms moral law and covenant of works with Adam set forth a theological doctrine (a necessary theological doctrine for Covenant Theologians) derived by logic alone. Let me show you the difference. Every single ingredient in the doctrine of the Trinity is established be using a specific text of Scripture. There is not one single aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity that is contingent on logic or theology. The exact opposite is true with terms like moral law etc. Notice these biblical facts, drawn from specific texts, upon which the doctrine of the Trinity rests: One: God is one God—textual proof—Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD. (Deut 6:4) Two: 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) Three: 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) Four: 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 ) Five: 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) When these clear biblical texts setting forth clear biblical doctrine are put together they spell Trinity. All that we have supplied is the word Trinity and we just as easily could have said "Tri-unity." Try this same thing with a 'Covenant of Works with Adam' or an 'unchanging moral code.' Where does either the Old or New Testament Scriptures ever speak of a 'moral' law code as opposed to some kind of law code? How long was the 'probationary period' in Eden? What specific thing could Adam 'earn' by obeying the supposed covenant? The basic and essential terms used by Covenant Theology are not in the same league as the doctrine of Trinity. It is not the specific word or term, it is whether there is clear textual evidence for each essential component of any given non-biblical term used to establish doctrine. The next time someone tries to justify using a non-biblical term as a foundation stone for a particular theological doctrine by saying, "This is the same as using the word Trinity," we must blow the whistle and say, "Foul! You are mixing oranges and apples. You are conning me. Let me give you the textual evidence for the Trinity and then you give me the textual evidence for your non-biblical term." Putting together a string of Bible verses in order to establish a Bible doctrine and then giving that doctrine a name is a far cry from putting together a string of theological axioms that are the logical conclusions to creedal statements with no textual basis in Scripture and then using as if they were a Bible verse. |