I find it very strange, bothersome and artificial that argumentation, especially theological claims, seem to require three points. I am reading the Westminister Confession and keep coming across lists of threes:
1) “The most wise, righteous and gracious God…” (V.5)
3) “those things [in Scripture] are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation.” (I.7)
2) “Such as [those] truly believe in the Lord Jesus, love him in sincerity, and endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him…” (XX.1)
This is represenational of the academia requirement that for a point to be strong it should have three proof claims. Suggesting that a singular claim is unsupported, that two claims are wobbly, and that four points show an undeveloped/refined thesis. It is only a three-claim argument that a point stands strong like a tripod.
This can be seen practically in the teaching of three point sermons. If a forth point appears than the congregation will be bored or confused, while only two points show a lack of full exegesis.
It is almost as though our Trinitarian belief has inappropriately influenced our theological argumentation.
Why is God only the most wise, righteous and gracious? Why is God not also beautiful, creative, glorious, powerful, sovereign, etc?
Why can’t the things of scripture be “lived” rather than “known, believed and observed?”
Doesn’t a follower of Christ need to do more than believe, love and endeavor to follow Jesus?
As the Confession says well, eloquently and [insert a third adverb of your choosing], the Word and Spirit offer us an “understanding of the things of God.” (XII.1) Therefore, our attempts to squeeze God into three theological claims suggest an understanding of God, rather than a partial understanding of the things of God.”