I thought I would briefly interact with some comments by “Epistle of Dude” here. He listened through podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation. I’m not sure that much of it soaked in, but it is interesting to find out why. (TL;DNR – He was offended at the unfamiliar form of the argument and just declared the whole thing “confused.”)
I had said, “If you want to see a direct, scriptural argument against reading the NT as trinitarian, listen to this. On something like this, it is wise to hear out the minority report.”
Saith Dude,
I listened to Dale’s talk:
1. This talk is hardly “a direct, scriptural argument”. For one thing, Dale explicitly states in his talk that going through “favorite passages” on the Trinity like “John 1, Colossians 1, and Philippians 2” would miss the bigger picture which he believes is that God is the Father alone i.e. unitarianism. That’s hardly the attitude of someone who sees the importance of biblical exegetical work which (among other things) is what “a direct, scriptural argument” would necessitate.
This listener expected to hear a straightforward argument from passages X, Y, and Z, to the conclusion that the one God is the Father alone. In fact, I have done this, for instance here, and here, and here. But I have found that my trinitarian friends find it too easy to shrug off, with the cheap objection that I’m “assuming unitarianism,” or simply by changing the subject to other favorite texts, “OK, but what about Q, R, S?”
This presentation has the advantage that it can’t be accused of assuming unitarianism, and it works from broad, accessible features of the NT texts, which bypasses someone who is just stuck on their over-reading of, e.g. John 1. Also, in a short time, one can only exegete a few of the many relevant texts; but a broad view is also useful.
Unfortunately, he infers that I don’t value exegetical work. That is a most unfortunate misunderstanding! Nothing could be further from the truth. My concern though, is to advance the discussion.
2. What’s more, Dale explicitly frames his talk (which argues against trinitarianism and/or for unitarianism) in terms of theory confirmation (e.g. Carnap). How to pick among competing hypotheses. As Dale notes, that’s a framework which predominates in the philosphy of science.
One could ask why we should approach the biblical texts concerning the Trinity in this manner. However, more to the point, if we begin our approach to the biblical text in terms of how to pick among competing hypotheses (e.g. unitarianism vs. trinitarianism), then, whatever else it might be we’re doing, it’s certainly not “a direct, scriptural argument”. The starting point for “a direct, scriptural argument” isn’t to impute one’s own categories onto the Bible before allowing the Bible to speak for itself. That’s not how to construct “a direct, scriptural argument”.
Why should we approach anything in this matter? Simply, because we’re interested in truth of explanations like U, T, and C.
The complainant wants, and is used to direct and deductive arguments, of the form, “Rightly read, text X implies P.” The thing is, this process so easily goes wrong. We so easily make mistaken deductions from texts, given the supposedly obvious background assumptions we bring to them. And when someone else does this, yielding an answer we don’t like, it is too easy to cry “foul,” based not on anything truly in the texts, but rather on our background assumptions, together with the texts. “Just look at what it says!” we yell – not realizing that the other person knows what it explicitly says, but differs about what it implies.
About this being high-falutin’ theory confirmation – it is, but really, this sort of reasoning is just codified common sense. It’s like the reasoning we bring to bear in explaining, e.g. crime scenes. It is absurd to insist only on direct evidence there, e.g. seeing the killer kill. It is just as absurd to insist only on direct evidence here. Inference to the best explanation is important to human truth-seeking.
3. Specifically, Dale argues if the likelihood of any observation (O) on the assumption of hypothesis 1 (H1) is greater than the likelihood of the same observation (O) on the assumption of hypothesis 2 (H2), then O confirms H1 over H2. Or roughly, if O is “not surprising” on H1, and O is “surprising” on H2, then H1 confirms O over H2.
Dale offers three competing hypotheses or theories which he terms U for unitarian (God is the father alone), T for trinitarian (God is the Trinity), and C for confused (various mixes of the two).
Dale’s own conclusion is we should accept U and reject T while C is, well, confused.
So I’m “confused.” What does this lazy dismissal even mean? Does he disagree with the principle, or with my application of it? Or does he just have the Steve Hays disease of yelling “You’re confused!” whenever he’s unable to follow the argument? He doesn’t say! Probably, he’s just asserting that the conclusion of my argument is false. This is disappointing. I was hoping for an actual objection to the argument, not some general complaining about using inference to the best explanation and a content-free dismissal.
In between, Dale mainly makes arguments for the following premise: “A central NT teaching is the identity of the one true God with the Father only”. Dale points out various Os which he believes support U (H1) and/or various Os which he believes do not support T (H2).
I’d say Dale’s lynchpin argument centers around his notion of numerical identity. That’s no surprise if anyone is even slightly familiar with Dale’s unitarianism.
“his notion.” Oy. This is like talking about Dale’s notion of implication or conjunction.
At this point, I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with Dale’s arguments based on the philosophical concept of numerical identity, Leibniz’s law, the principle of identity of indiscernibles, or whatever else you want to call it. Rather, the sole point I’m making here is that all this is not “a direct, scriptural argument” against trinitarianism. Rather, there’s plenty of philosophy involved. More than that, the philosophical argumentation is still quite central to Dale’s talk.
Translation: “This is philosophy! I don’t like philosophy!”
Actually, there’s no substantial philosophical theory involved. It is just, if T or C were true, you’d expect to find certain things in the texts, which you don’t. And the things you’d expect to find if U were true – well, we do find those things. So it looks like these several observations favor U over T and over C. Whatever other evidence may be, as concerns the observations at hand, they fit better with U than with either T or C. It’s unfortunate that Epistle of Dude is captive to this prejudice against “philosophy”; it made him simply refuse to engage.
4. Dale does reference the NT in a general or at best coarsely grained manner here and there throughout his talk. Like the NT talking about Jesus being God, the Son of God, the Lord, etc. Like sprinkling in several verse citations (e.g. what Martha says about Jesus, what Peter says about Jesus). However, again, there’s zero attempt made at exegeting these verses or passages. Basically, the verses or passages are just cited in light of Dale’s initial framework, not cited and exegeted on their own terms.
Translation: “Should be more exegesis!” But it wasn’t “general” reference to the NT, but rather a focus on certain observable facts about the texts which confirm U over both C and T.
5. At times Dale contends with what trinitarians have said about the Trinity (such as in church councils and creeds) rather than taking the more direct approach by wrestling with the biblical texts that these creeds are based on. I guess that’s because he wanted to find some common ground between the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox scholars present in the audience. But still it’s a roundabout way to address the issues.
6. It’s notable Dale doesn’t cite modern biblical scholars (e.g. a NT commentator like Don Carson). That’s a significant omission because, even if Dale disagrees with the biblical scholar’s studied interpretation of a particular verse or passage about the Trinity (and remember Dale is just a layperson like most people when it comes to interpreting the Bible, not a scholar or expert), at least it’d give Dale a foil by which to work against in explaining the verse or passage better than the biblical scholar has done, if Dale thinks he has the better interpretation.
Translation: “Should cite more scholars!” I think the commenter is just expressing what he expected going in, and what he’d prefer. But the arguments given can be judged by any sensible person, not only scholars. The facts are what they are, and are now accessible to all literate people. In that sense, the arguments deliberately bypass scholarship, though the whole argument strategy is highly relevant to history and biblical and systematic theologies.
There is nothing wrong with using, even relying on expert testimony (though it is perilous when the experts disagree). But still, we must be willing to think for ourselves too, to use the sense God gave us.
7. At any rate, despite all he’s said in his talk, Dale admits near the end that what he’s said in his talk is not “logically inconsistent” with trinitarianism.
The author seems to think this is a damning admission. But it’s not. It’s just the logical point that even if the observed facts I focus on favor U over C and over T, still, over all there might be more evidence for T, or for C, than for U.
TL;DR: In this talk, Dale makes zero attempts at exegeting even a single verse or passage relevant to the debate over the Trinity – and exegeting the biblical text should be the first step or at the very least one significant step in “a direct, scriptural argument”.
Translation: “I refuse to listen to what you say unless it’s direct exegesis.”
Well, that’s not reasonable, is it? Facts are facts, and the facts I focus on, and what is the best explanation of them – these are just as relevant to someone who considers the NT authoritative as is any exercise of trying to deduce conclusions from the texts.
I think that probably our complainant has not been burned often enough by intractable theological disputes in which both sides claim that direct exegesis decisively supports there side, and yet obviously, both sides can’t be correct in thinking that.
There are lessons for me here.
- Lesson 1: apologetics aficionados have no earthly idea how to counter arguments of this form. (I’m not sure to what extent this is because they can’t perceive the force of the argument. Epistle doesn’t really say enough to tell me that he does or doesn’t “get” the argument being made.)
- Lesson 2: some Christians are allergic to anything that could be construed as “Philosophy.” They take pride in the idea that they’ve avoided corruption by “Philosophy,” and are eager to point out others who are perceived to have a theology in any way dependent on “Philosophy.” There is also a hatred of expertise out there, so any complex argument that may initially befuddle the layman, if it’s put forward by the other side, is likely to be dismissed. (Note: this applies to unitarian Christians as well as to trinitarian.)
- Lesson 3: if you don’t include some direct exegesis in making the case for unitarian Christian theology, some people will jump to the conclusions that your theology is not based on exegesis, and that you don’t properly value exegesis.
“Epistle of Dude,” thanks for the feedback. It’s been helpful. I do hope that you reflect on the evidential significance of the facts presented in the podcast. Appreciating that is fully compatible with doing the best possible exegesis.
