Maybe you’ve had a Jehovah’s Witness show up at your door and, during the course of conversation, they’ve informed you that the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible. Hopefully this revelation, while technically true, did not shake the foundations of your faith. Of course, their ultimate goal is to convince you that the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t a biblical concept at all. The word Trinity, after all, does not appear in the pages of Scripture. But Christians throughout the centuries, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, have affirmed the doctrine.
The reason that Christians have taught this doctrine, even though Trinity does not appear in the Bible, is because it is not founded upon the mere appearance of the word. Instead, it is based upon the cumulative teachings of Scripture concerning the three persons of the Godhead. What Christians throughout the centuries have understood is that the Bible clearly teaches that God is triune, and Trinity accurately expresses the triunity of God. The Church has historically confessed one divine essence and three persons—Father, Son, and Spirit—who are coeternal and coequal.
The doctrine of the Trinity is what we might call a “consequence” of Scripture rather than something for which we simply cite a chapter and verse. Some want a chapter and verse for every doctrine, and they want that verse to state a doctrinal position explicitly. I’m somewhat sympathetic to this desire. However, it is a relatively naïve understanding of Scripture and biblical doctrine. It’s the sort of approach that leads some to claim “no creed but the Bible” with the belief that the bare words of Scripture are sufficient for Christian theology and that we should do away with our confessions and creeds. While possibly well intended, such an idea is foreign to historic Christianity and even Paul’s teachings on “the form of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13, KJV).
This essay will briefly explore the concept of “Scripture consequences” and why they are essential to Christian theology, including the doctrine of the Trinity. We’ll also briefly reflect on the significance of Scripture consequences for confessional Christianity.
John Cumming and Scripture Consequences
On of the most helpful works that I’ve ever read on the concept of Scripture consequences was published by a Scottish Presbyterian, John Cumming, in 1720.[1] Cumming was writing in the wake of the Salters’ Hall Controversy (1719) in London. Some ministers were opposed to, or at least hesitant of, requiring that ministers subscribe their names to a confession of faith that used words and phrases not found in the text of Scripture to describe the doctrine of the Trinity. For example, the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England and the Westminster Shorter Catechism both use the words persons and substance in reference to the three persons of the Godhead and the singular divine essence.
Cumming responded to the concerns of these ministers by arguing that, even though such words did not appear in Scripture, the concepts that they conveyed are biblical ideas. They were “consequences” of the Bible’s teachings on the Father, Son, and Spirit. In Cumming’s own day, as well as ours, we are actually quite used to trafficking in the realm of Scripture consequences whether we realize it or not.
In many ways, preaching and teaching is the exploration and application of Scripture consequences. Ministers do not (typically) just read the biblical text and sit down. Instead, they read a biblical text, comment on it, and even draw in other texts that might clarify the meaning of the text. In many ways, they are exploring the consequences of Scripture, which requires considering the implications of the passage on a given theological doctrine and harmonizing various theological truths. Scripture consequences move beyond the mere words of the Scripture to the sense of the text, often with the intent of giving greater clarity to its meaning in our own words.
For Cumming, the consubstantial Trinity (that the Father, Son, and Spirit are of the same divine essence, coeternal, and coequal) was an undeniable consequence of Scripture. That is, the consubstantial Trinity is an undeniable implication of many biblical passages, as well as the Bible as a whole. He maintained that the Bible may not contain the words of the early church creeds or the Reformed confessions on the doctrine of the Trinity verbatim but that the doctrines contained in those creeds and confessions were clearly taught there.
Cumming characterized those who would appeal to the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura to oppose such Scripture consequences as an “Arian Plea.” What Cumming meant was that, even if they did not affirm Arianism, which denies that the Son is equal with the Father in His deity, the plea is the same: “The Arians demanded a Text in which the Son is in so many Words said to be of the same Substance or Essence with the Father. The Macedonians ask’d Where is it written that the Holy Ghost is GOD? and the Eutychians, In what Scripture are the two Natures of Christ to be read?”[2] Those who opposed the classical doctrine of the Trinity as a clear consequence of Scripture, Cumming believed, followed a similar line of argumentation.
Cumming insisted that such an approach could never make sense of Scripture because it could not “reconcile those Places that seem contradictory.”[3] Following the early church theologian Theodoret, Cumming recommended the analogy of faith (the idea that Scripture is a harmonious whole with no doctrinal contradictions) as the solution to dealing with such passages. The analogy of faith would help the reader resolve these seeming contradictions by moving beyond the plain words on the page to considering the sense of the words within the context of the whole Bible.
Again referencing Theodoret, who applied this principle to the person of the Son, Cumming wrote: “He observes that if we take these Words, My Father is greater than I, simply, and not consider that they are to be understood Oeconomically [economically], we shall presumptuously conclude that the Son is in all Respects Inferior to the Father.”[4] But Jesus’ statement must be reconciled with other statements where He claims equality with the Father, which requires a reading of Scripture that goes beyond the mere words on the page. It requires Scripture consequences.
The Binding Nature of Scripture Consequences
Cumming went a step further in his argument by contending that legitimate Scripture consequences were actually binding upon Christians to believe just as much as Scripture itself is binding upon Christians to believe. In other words, the consequences of Scripture, particularly the consubstantial Trinity, are so tied to the biblical text itself that they bear the authority of Scripture. Cumming went so far as to call Scripture consequences “Scripture-revelations.” Cumming realized that such a line of argumentation could be abused, which he believed the Roman Catholic Church to have done. Nonetheless, Cumming insisted that the doctrine of the consubstantial Trinity was a clear consequence of Scripture, and therefore binding upon Christians to believe.
The practical application of this principle, if Cumming is correct, is that a person cannot refuse to affirm the consubstantial Trinity or say that Scripture is silent on the matter, simply because no single chapter and verse uses those exact words. A host of passages lead us to affirm that the Father, Son, and Spirit are coeternal and coequal. One may express this biblical doctrine in their own words (i.e., give their own sense of Scripture), but they cannot deny the doctrine or pretend that Scripture is altogether silent on the matter. For Cumming, a final application of this principle is that a minister’s orthodoxy on the doctrine of the Trinity could be judged on the basis of Scripture consequences.
Scripture Consequences and Confessional Christianity
Our understanding of Scripture consequences is directly related to confessional Christianity. Through confessions we affirm that the reality of Scripture consequences, and we give our sense of Scripture on a given doctrine, such as the Trinity. Some confessions have tended to use more biblical language rather than what some might deem philosophical terms such as “substance” or “essence.”[5] The reason for this approach is typically a concern to stay as close to the biblical language as possible. Again, I can sympathize with such a position.
However, if we believe that Scripture does indeed teach that the Father, Son, and Spirit are coequal and coeternal, if this is indeed a legitimate consequence of Scripture, if this is what we teach and preach, then we should have no problem with crystallizing this language in our confessions of faith. After all, we are simply using words that are not found in the Bible to convey what we believe is found in the Bible. We are giving our sense of Scripture with the aim of being expressly clear about what we believe Scripture teaches on a given doctrine such as the Trinity.
Conclusion
The concept of Scripture consequences could be abused by saying that a host of things are clear consequences of Scripture and then attempting to make those consequences into binding beliefs for others. This approach would be unhelpful and even dangerous. However, the great value of this concept is that it affirms that Scripture has a definite sense and meaning that extends beyond the mere words on the page. Furthermore, we can give that sense in our own words and even harmonize various passages that might seem to contradict one another. This practice helps us achieve greater clarity on the Bible’s teachings and, when applied to confessions of faith, enables us to declare publicly our sense of the biblical text on key doctrines, which is essential for the maintenance of theological orthodoxy.
[1]John Cumming, The Grounds of the Present Differences, Among the London Ministers. In Two Parts (London: John Clark, 1720).
[2]Ibid., 5. All citations from Cumming retain his original spelling, italics, and capitalization.
[3]Ibid., 8.
[4]Ibid.
[5]This tension can be seen in some of the General Baptist confessions of faith. The Brief Confession (1660) tended to use more biblical language on the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Whereas A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland (1611) and An Orthodox Creed (1679) used the words “Trinity” and “subsistence.”
April 5, 2021
Brother Owens I extremely love reading your material. It reveals a lot of research and your methodology brings much clarity to the subject at hand. I’ve known you since you were just a small lad but I’m so appreciative at how you’ve grown to manhood with such an academic ability.
April 5, 2021
Thank you so much, Bro. Loveless. I greatly appreciate your work and your encouragement. We hope that the HSF continues to be a helpful resource for our readers. Thanks again!