{"id":38645,"date":"2017-03-10T10:35:15","date_gmt":"2017-03-10T15:35:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=38645"},"modified":"2017-03-16T17:17:39","modified_gmt":"2017-03-16T21:17:39","slug":"10-practical-tips-for-becoming-a-worse-apologist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/10-practical-tips-for-becoming-a-worse-apologist\/","title":{"rendered":"10 Practical Tips for becoming a Worse Apologist"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

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.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"“Tuggy recently attacked Christian apologist Jonathan McLatchie because Jonathan affirms the Trinity”<\/p>\n

A wild misrepresentation; it didn’t happen<\/a>, though I did complain that apologists commonly ignore the meat of the various competing Trinity theories. Hays seems to confuse the issue<\/a><\/strong> 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).<\/p>\n

2. Abuse your opponent; always lead with contempt.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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<\/a>. What it is, is the poisoning the well fallacy.<\/a><\/p>\n

3. Wave your hands and change the subject when you run into a difficult point that doesn’t fit your preferred script.<\/strong><\/p>\n

“[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.”<\/p>\n

Hmmm…. what<\/em> sense would that be, exactly?<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

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.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

“This is Dale’s patented shellgame<\/strong>“\"\"<\/p>\n

The inference in question is this:<\/p>\n

1. The Trinity differs from Jesus (and vice-versa).
\n2. For any x and y, if x differs from y, then x and y are distinct (not numerically identical).
\n3. Therefore, the Trinity is distinct from Jesus and vice-versa (i.e. they are not numerically identical).<\/p>\n

Not much of a shell game, is it?<\/strong> 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<\/a>. That brings us to another no-no.<\/p>\n

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.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

“To say the Trinity is God uses “God” as a common noun.<\/strong> To say the Father is God uses “God” as a proper noun. To say the Son is God uses “God” as an abstract noun.”<\/p>\n

The common noun<\/strong> 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<\/em> implying that, but he’s also<\/em>, 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<\/strong> that the Trinity is a god; it also means that the Trinity is the<\/em> god (God, ho theos<\/em> in Greek).<\/p>\n

“To say the Father is God uses “God” as a proper noun<\/strong>.”<\/p>\n