10 Practical Tips for becoming a Worse Apologist

Over at Triablogue Reformed apologist Steve Hays provides a stellar example of how not to do apologetics. He illustrates so many helpful tips, it’s like a how-not-to guide. For your edification:

1. Miss the point, and replace it with some scenario which you would prefer to be dealing with, preferably something you think is patently outrageous.

“Tuggy recently attacked Christian apologist Jonathan McLatchie because Jonathan affirms the Trinity”

A wild misrepresentation; it didn’t happen, though I did complain that apologists commonly ignore the meat of the various competing Trinity theories. Hays seems to confuse the issue of the tripersonal God with that of Jesus having a divine nature. But these are two different (though obviously related) topics – the first becoming an issue more than two centuries after the first (first half of the 100s vs. last quarter of the 300s).

2. Abuse your opponent; always lead with contempt.

The very first word of his post is a slander, and the post is larded with sputtering abuse. This is not the way of Jesus. What it is, is the poisoning the well fallacy.

3. Wave your hands and change the subject when you run into a difficult point that doesn’t fit your preferred script.

“[Dale:] Williams makes the reasonable point that for a (consistent) trinitarian, Jesus is not the Trinity, while God just is the Trinity. [Steve:] In a sense, that’s correct.”

4. If you don’t quite follow your opponent’s reasoning, accuse him of being a tricky-trickster, a word-magician, a sophist. Above all, do not stoop to ask for clarification; that’s for wimps.

“This is Dale’s patented shellgame“

The inference in question is this:

1. The Trinity differs from Jesus (and vice-versa).
2. For any x and y, if x differs from y, then x and y are distinct (not numerically identical).
3. Therefore, the Trinity is distinct from Jesus and vice-versa (i.e. they are not numerically identical).

Not much of a shell game, is it? Just a premise any trinitarian (and any Christian) is committed to (1), together with a self-evident truth (2), and then a conclusion that logically follows (3). Some apologists struggle with admitting (2); not sure why, but probably just because they’re hung up on theological examples, and have not considered that we assume things like (2) in all fields of reasoning. Maybe this discussion will help. That brings us to another no-no.

5. If presented with something self-evident that you worry could help the other side, mock your opponent and claim it’s just a theory.

It’s a risky move. But if the choir you’re preaching too isn’t too thoughtful, it’ll seem brave rather than stupid.

6. Lecture your opponent on logic or philosophy. This will suggest to some readers that you’ve done your homework, whereas your opponent is just making sophomoric errors in his reasoning.

Here I pause the how-not-to guide to reply to his attempt at instruction. I think a lot of it is not to the point, so I’ll pass over it. But he concludes,

“To say the Trinity is God uses “God” as a common noun. To say the Father is God uses “God” as a proper noun. To say the Son is God uses “God” as an abstract noun.”

The common noun would be “god.” He’s saying that “The Trinity is God” means that the Trinity is a god. That’s not quite right; the trinitarian is implying that, but he’s also, as trinitarian, identifying the one God (Yahweh) with the Trinity. Since God is by definition a god, that does imply what he says. But “The Trinity is God” means more than that the Trinity is a god; it also means that the Trinity is the god (God, ho theos in Greek).

“To say the Father is God uses “God” as a proper noun.”

• Yes. By convention in English, the way we signal something as a proper noun is by capitalizing the first letter.
• Notice also that “Father” is a proper noun – so the assertion here is that one individual “is” another individual. This can be a way of describing (“Little Stevie is Steve” – i.e. the son resembles his dad), but this is often how we make claims of numerical identity, e.g. “Turd-Blossom is Carl Rove.“
• When the unitarian Christian says “the Father is God” this is what she means, that the Father just is Yahweh himself.
• Just so, evangelical apologists, when they say “Jesus is God” are usually asserting the numerical sameness of Jesus and the one God. This is often made clear by their form of argument. (Only God ___. Jesus ___. Therefore, Jesus is God. – The “only” asserts that whatever ___ just is (is numerically the same as) God. See this if you don’t get it.)
• Finally, the overwhelming usage of the NT is that “God” (ho theos) refers to the Father. The habitually interchange such terms for reasons of style. This is because the writers assume the numerical identity of “them.” Consistent with this, they will rarely use theos or ho theos more flexibly, OT style. (e.g. Hebrews 1:8; John 10:35) Relevantly, never once in the Bible does a singular God-term refer to any more than one “divine Person.” Easy to explain with the NT authors assume that the one God is the Father, but hard to explain if they’re assuming that the one God is the Trinity.
•  He seems to not understand my point about the fulfillment fallacy. It works like this: (1) OT passage has to do with to a. (2) NT asserts that passage to have another fulfillment in b. (3) Ergo, NT is asserting a = b. (3) does not follow from (1) and (2). And I can’t recall any ancient writer making this mistake, e.g. thinking that Mark 1:3 is meant to imply that Jesus is Yahweh himself. You could “prove” a lot of silly things if this were a valid argument. Hayes senses this, I think. So instead of doubling down on the identity inference, he pulls his punch by stating his conclusion as “That puts Jesus on the divine side of the categorical divide.” This sounds like the conclusion is just: Jesus is divine. But that’s not what the writers I was discussing are doing. If Steve wants make a sort of cumulative case, that given all the God-descriptions which the NT applies to Jesus, this can only mean that Jesus is divine – that’s another discussion. What I’m talking about is deducing that Jesus is supposed to be God himself from the application of Yahweh-texts to him as a fulfiller of them.

7. Never miss an opportunity to hit a favorite punching bag for your crowd; e.g. evangelicals with Bart Ehrman.

Hayes’s punches are irrelevant; even if Ehrman’s theories about the development of Christian theology are just wrongheaded, he’s still quite correct to avoid the fulfillment fallacy.

8. Deal only superficially with substance; rely on the preferred authorities of your crowd.

He gestures at Bauckham and Fee as having shown that Paul “includes Jesus in the Shema” in 1 Corinthians 8. Not clear how that relates to the issue of apologists asserting the numerical identity of Jesus and God. Does “being included in the Shema” imply being God himself? Or only being in some sense divine? Or being a part of God, or what? Bauckham’s thesis, unfortunately, is so unclear as to be unhelpful in understanding NT theology. I think it’s only popular within the evangelical bubble of apologists and theologians and their readers. See this for an exposition of how the NT authors use “Lord” based on Psalm 110:1 in a middle sense, as meaning neither “Sir” nor “Yahweh.”

9. Stonewall against any biblical or historical facts which are inconvenient for your theory.

“The Son doesn’t have a God.”

On this, Steve unapologetically opposes the NT authors. Sorry, I have to go with them.

“[Dale, explaining Eusebius:] This “supreme source” is God, aka the Father…”

[Steve:] “The source of what? God is the source of creation. That doesn’t mean God is the source of the Son. And that doesn’t mean the Father is the source of the Son (or the Spirit).”

For countless trinitarians and unitarians, the Father’s “eternal generation” of the Son means that the Son exists and has his perfections because of the Father. After 325, they typically will contrast this with creating, but in any cause, the Father is supposed to be (by this eternal generation theory) the cause, and so the source of the Son’s existence. Of course, a Christian may deny eternal generation and procession; their textual basis is very dubious, in my view. But the point was that Eusebius calls out confusing together Jesus and God as a serious mistake. One obvious difference, he and many other mainstream Christians think, is that only the Father is the ultimate source of all else.

10. Ignore thoughtful advice from accomplished apologists.

Apologetics should not a game of one-up-manship, but should be a serious, rigorous, yet loving and helpful service to the Christian community. Dr. William Lane Craig’s advice to young apologists is important, especially point #1.