God, gods and Jesus in John 10:30-39

 (last updated 2018-02-25)

Update: This blogpost should be read in conjunction with (the more important?) blogpost HERE

30 I and the Father are one."
31    The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came---and Scripture cannot be broken---36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.- John 10:33-39 ESV

This passage has always been a point of contention between Trinitarians and Unitarians. Unitarians claiming the passage clearly has Jesus denying he is fully God. While Trinitarians disagreeing among themselves as to whether the Old Testament passage Jesus quotes and alludes to (Ps. 82) refers to human judges (e.g. James White) or to divine beings or lesser "gods" in Yahweh/Jehovah's Divine Council (e.g. Michael S. Heiser).

Regarding Psalm 82, I don't see why it can't be the case that verse 1 refers to lesser "gods" (i.e. highest species in the angelic hierarchy) in Jehovah's Council, while the rest of the psalm refers to human judges. In other words, both Trinitarian groups are right (e.g. both James White and Michael Heiser). The fact that there is a divine council has (IMO) been proven by Michael Heiser in his materials. His books, articles, videos and various websites (e.g. http://www.thedivinecouncil.com, or The Naked Bible podcast #109). At the same time, it seems verses 3 and 4 refer to judgments dealing with very mundane/earthly subjects.

3    Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
        maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4    Rescue the weak and the needy;
        deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

It's difficult to believe that these are the proper duties of the highest of the angelic host. As far as I can tell, everywhere else in the Bible such duties were that of human judges. Though, that's not to deny that angels can assist the needy. That's clearly taught elsewhere in the Bible.

Also, it seems to me that Jesus interprets some or all of Psalm 82 as referring to human judges by His phrase, "to whom the word of God came." Where in the Old Testament did "the word of God" come to the angelic host or (specifically) to the divine council? Does "word of God" refer to a revelation or to the Logos who approaches the divine council? Jesus' next words seems to settle the issue. Jesus says, "and Scripture cannot be broken." So, it appears that Jesus is referring to Scriptural Revelation as opposed to Oral Revelation, or to Himself the personal Logos of John 1:1. However, it doesn't make sense for a written Revelation to be given to angels. That's not to say there are no "books" (or their spiritual equivalents) in the angelic realm. There probably are (cf. Ex. 32:32-33; Ps. 40:7; 56:8; 69:28; 139:16; Rev. 20:12; 3:5; 5:1-9; 10:2ff.; 13:8; 17:8; 21:7). But Jesus seems to be referring to the very Scripture (Psalm 82) He just alluded to and of which He said, "Is it not WRITTEN in YOUR Law." So, it makes most sense that Jesus is referring to the Scriptures given to the Jews.

Therefore, while I do believe in a divine council and that Ps. 82:1 refers to it, I think the rest (or most of) of the chapter deals with corrupt human judges. In light of Michael Heiser's understanding of the divine council, it seems to me Psalm 82 is saying that as the divine council ought to judge or rule justly over the people groups of the world generally (irrespective of whether they did/do so or not), so Israel's human judges ought to have done so over their individual peoples particularly. It takes an understanding of Heiser's views to get the full import of my interpretation. Though, I don't agree with Heiser on every particular (as is the case with Ps. 82, since I partially disagree with his interpretation).

Having said all that, how are we to interpret John 10:33-39? Unitarians interpret Jesus' statements as a denial to a claim of full divinity. That Jesus was essentially saying the following. "My claim to being the Son of God is really no different than how the "gods" of Ps. 82 are called gods. Whether you take it as referring to human judges or (a fortiori) spiritual beings below Almighty God. Unitarians like Greg Stafford interprets it in the latter sense. That Jesus was merely say he's one of the lesser gods under the authority of Almighty God. Such types of Unitarians believe that Jesus is the first, greatest and only direct creation of Almighty God; through whom Almighty God created everything else.

However, is this the only or even the best possible interpretation? I think not. The following quote sums up my interpretation of the passage which I came to independently.

Reading through Daniel Waterland's book A Vindication of Christ's Divinity [page 54] I came across the following passage that confirmed my interpretation.

From hence you [Waterland's theological opponent] endeavor to prove, that Christ is God in the subordinate Sense only; that is, as I have said, not properly or truly God. But I can see no manner of ground for this Inference from the Words before us. Our Blessed Lord had insinuated that He was really and truly God; but had not asserted it in plain and express Terms: Upon this bare innuendo, the Jews charge Him with direct Blasphemy: He to evade their Malice and to keep to the Truth, neither affirms, nor denies that He meant it in the Sense which they apprehended. However, his Discourse being in general Terms, and not explicite enough to found a charge of Blasphemy upon, He appeals to their Law, in order to show, that it is not always Blasphemy, to make one's Self God, or to apply the Title of God, even to mortal Men, and Men inferior to Himself, considered only as Man. This was answer sufficient to Them; who could not from his own Expressions clearly convict Him of meaning more, than that He was God in the improper Sense of the Word, as it had been used, Psal. 82.6. Nevertheless, He leaves the point of his Divinity undecided; or rather, still goes on to insinuate, in Words which they could not directly lay hold on, the very Thing which they charged Him with. This enraged them so much the more: and therefore they again sought to take Him, v. 39. But He escaped out of their Hand. This Interpretation may suffice to take of the force of your Argument. Yet, the Words may admit of other, and perhaps better Interpretations, consistent with the Principles which I here maintain.

Jesus was prevaricating. I think Jesus was hinting at His being YHVH along with the Father, but He didn't given a direct statement to that effect. What He said was true enough, even though it wasn't the full truth. While they did attempt to arrest Him (v. 39), they would have been more aggressive and probably successful [sans Divine intervention] if Jesus had been more explicit about His claims. He said what He said to prevent Himself from being persecuted to death (by stoning) too early in the timetable of God's Redemptive Plan. A reason why John 10:33-39 shouldn't be interpreted in a Unitarian way is because this is the third time in the Gospel of John where it records the details of WHY the Jews wanted to kill Jesus. It makes sense and fits together with each other and the rest of the Gospel of John that in all three instances it was because the Jews interpreted Jesus' statements as a claim to full deity.

The three passages are John 5:17-18; John 8:56-59; and here in John 10:33-39.

1. Some assert that John 5:17-18 cannot be interpreted to mean that Jesus really is equal to God. Since by parity of argument, it would also mean that Jesus was a Sabbath breaker even though the New Testament clearly teaches Jesus never sinned. I've addressed this objection and showed why the objection actually strengthens the case for the full deity of Jesus Christ. 

See the following blogposts for proof.

Jesus' "Breaking" the Sabbath as Evidence of His Equality with the Father

and

Jesus the True and Proper SON of God

2. Regarding John 8:56-59, most Unitarians and Trinitarians/Modalists know the significance of John 8:58. Trinitarians (and others like Modalists/Sabellians who affirm the full deity of Jesus) interpret Jesus statement, "Before Abraham was I am," as a claim to full deity. That Jesus was alluding to Ex. 3:14.

See James White's article for a classic exposition.

Purpose and Meaning of "Ego Eimi"in the Gospel of JohnIn Reference to the Deity of Christ by James White

3. Regarding John 10:30-39, the key verse is verse 30.

Jesus' statement, "I and the Father are one" was interpreted by the Jews to mean Jesus was making himself God.

The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."- John 10:33

 This was the same reason in John 5:18.

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.- John 5:18

Regarding John 8:58, it hardly make sense for the Jews to want to stone Jesus (presumably killing him for blasphemy) if Jesus was merely saying "I am [the one, viz. the messiah]" (as many Unitarians interpret "I am"). I'm not going to address the proper translation of John 8:58 since I'm not a Greek scholar. As far as I know, Greg Stafford is the best Unitarian defender of a translation other than the traditional, "before Abraham was, I am." [See all three editions of his book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended] Nevertheless, If Jesus was merely saying he preexisted Abraham, why would the Jews want to throw stones at Jesus for that? How was that blasphemy since he was not claiming to be God? From the context it makes sense to me that Jesus was identifying Himself with the I AM of Exodus 3:14 and therefore claiming full deity (i.e. Jehovah/Yahweh).

 Is it a coincidence that the author of John records these three detailed reasons why the Jews wanted to kill Jesus on account of His claiming to be God? If Jesus weren't claiming to be fully God in these passages why doesn't the author specifically state Jesus isn't God in these passages? Or that the Jews were wrong in their interpretation of Jesus' statements? Or that they were misunderstanding Him? On the contrary, not only does the author not do so, but elsewhere refers to Jesus as "God" in John 1:1 and even "the God" (ho theos) in John 10:28. From these and other evidences, it seems to me that the preponderance of the evidence is that the author's intention was to teach Jesus' full deity/divinity and equality with the Father in the Gospel of John. Also, if it's true that the book of Revelation was written by the same person (as most conservative scholars do), then that conclusion that John's author intended to teach the full deity of Christ is even more solidified on account of various passages in Revelation that also imply Christ is fully God.

For more on this see my blogpost:

Revelation 22:12-13 and the Deity of Christ

For evidence for the full deity/divinity of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John see the following blogposts:

The Holy Spirit Contradicts the Accidence of Personality

The Full Deity of the Holy Spirit

The Witness of the Holy Spirit

 Praying to and Worshipping the Holy Spirit

"Why Do You Call Me Good?" — Did Jesus Deny Being God in Mark 10:17-18?

originally posted 6/6/2015

The following is an excerpt of the blogpost: Makan Christology

Regarding Mark 10:17-18.

17    And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.- Mark 10:17-18

This passage has universally and perennially been used by skeptics, and Unitarians like Arians, Socinians, Muslims (et al.) to prove that Jesus claimed not to be God since Jesus says only God is good. However, in the same book demons are recorded to have referred to Jesus as the "Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24 cf. Isa. 49:7; 54:5 and 55:5) with the author's apparent endorsement. So, clearly Jesus was good. In light of that, here's a relevant quote from Richard N. Davies' book The Doctrine of the Trinity page 18-19

QUOTE: Christ said to a certain ruler: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark x, 17, 18.) Christ did not deny that he himself was "good," nor did he deny that he himself was God; but the ruler had not acknowledged him to be God, and our Lord's question to the ruler was based upon that fact. It was as much as to say, As you do not confess me to be God, why call me good? Our Lord said: "There is none good but one, that is, God." It would follow from this that whoever is perfectly good must be God; but our Lord is perfectly, infinitely good, hence must be God........The dilemma, as regards the Socinians, has been well put (see Stier II, 283, note), either, 'There is none good but God; Christ is good; therefore Christ is God;' or, 'There is none good but God; Christ is not God; therefore Christ is not good.' " (Alford, in loco) END QUOTE [bold and underline by me]

Unitarians must pick one of the horns of the dilemma. Either affirm that Jesus is Almighty God, or affirm that Jesus is not truly good and holy (and so contradict Mark 1:24 which has demons calling Jesus the Holy One of God, with Mark's apparent approval).

See also my blogpost:

The Meaning of the Term "Son of Man"

The Most Plausible Anti-Trinitarian Complaint

(last updated 6/23/14)

Probably the most common comment, complaint, charge and challenge (yay for alliteration!) that anti-Trinitarians make and which also has (IMHO) the greatest plausibility to it is, "If the doctrine of the Trinity is true why doesn't the Bible directly teach it?" There are variations to the comment.

For example:

"Why doesn't Jesus teach it in the Gospels?"

"Where does the Bible state that God is one in being and three in person (or is one in essence/substance and three in subsistence)?"

"Nowhere in the Bible is the doctrine of the Trinity described in full."

"Jesus, as a 1st century Jew, assumes the standard strict monotheistic conception of God and never corrects it. For example, in Mark 10:17-18; Mark 12:28-31; John 17:3."

 "Unitarianism should be the default position until you can prove Trinitarianism since the Bible explicitly teaches God is one and we are in agreement that every other personal being we can think of or discuss is always one in being and one in person."

Jesus affirmed the Jewish Shema in Mark 12:29 and would have naturally interpreted it in the strict monotheistic way the Jews did at the time. Why should we interpret it any other way?.



How should or how can Trinitarians respond to such statements if given or asked in sincerity?

In this blog post I want to answer the above complaint as it would be given by someone who believes in the inspiration of both the Old and New Testaments but nevertheless rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. That is, to Unitarians like Anthony Buzzard et al. Such people affirm the authority of the New Testament, but nevertheless reject the doctrine of the Trinity because they can't seem to find it there. This blog therefore assumes the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture and won't attempt to argue for it.


Three things must be distinguished and a fourth thing recognized.

1. Non-Inspired Doctrinal Development. [NDD]
2. The concept of inspired Progressive Revelation [PR]
3. Inspired Doctrinal Development [IDD]
4. Jesus Veiled Mission and Identity [JVMI]

1. Non-Inspired Doctrinal Development. [NDD]

 
 1. Non-Inspired Doctrinal Development is the development of doctrine among the people of God in an uninspired non-revelatory way during times when full infallible inspiration has/had ceased (e.g. during the intertestamental period, then later after the closing of the Canon of Scripture).

[As a side note, I'm a continuationist. Specifically a Charismatic. However, I don't think continuationism negates Sola Scriptura (or what I prefer to term Summa Scriptura and which seems to be somewhat similar to what some people call Prima Scriptura).]

As a matter of fact, since the closing of the Old Testament Canon (both during the intertestamental period [as Christians would refer to it] and since the closing of the New Testament) Jews have developed doctrines that have similarities to the doctrine of the Trinity in various ways. Often by affirming a kind of plurality in God. Or by positing an intermediary that was God-like and, analogously, Christ-like. For evidence of this see the resources on this blog along with the link to another blog post of mine HERE. This fact itself would suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity is not so completely alien to Old Testament theology that it must be rejected outright and without further consideration. Otherwise Jews would not have come to such conclusions. Conclusions which they often prooftext by quoting the Old Testament.

Non-inspired doctrinal development has also occurred in Christian history and theology as it did in Jewish history and theology. Such non-inspired development rightly cannot, should not and understandably does not bind the conscience of believers in the New Testament Scriptures. Anti-Trinitarians are therefore right in not accepting the doctrine of the Trinity merely on the basis of tradition or Tradition (with a capital "T").

2. The concept of inspired Progressive Revelation [PR]

The concept of Progressive Revelation is acknowledged by New Testament believing Unitarians like Anthony Buzzard. Otherwise they wouldn't accept Jesus' messiahship, mediatorship, atonement and a host of other New Testament teachings not explicitly found in the Old Testament. However, in my opinion, strict/simple Unitarians don't take the concept of progressive revelation seriously enough in all its implications. Naively appealing to Jesus' monotheism, as Unitarians like Anthony Buzzard do, doesn't do justice to the principle of Progressive Revelation. Revelation didn't stop with Jesus. As Jesus Himself instructed and prophesied. When taken seriously, progressive revelation would lead to the 3rd distinction. Namely......

3. Inspired Doctrinal Development [IDD]

Inspired Doctrinal Development happened during times when inspired Revelation was still being given either verbally or in written form. Or when verbal revelation was being recorded in written form.

This type of development occurs during a time when people could still receive inspired revelation from God, but sometimes made doctrinal inferences and decisions based on their limited understanding of the implications of already given revelation. During such times there's a kind of imprecision and growth in understanding while doctrine is still developing and being refined.

It should go without saying that not all inspired revelations were recorded in Scripture. Also, that because of the historical nature of the Bible, it's also the case that some inspired doctrinal developments have been recorded in Scripture itself (even if not all).

Here are some examples recorded in the New Testament Church:

• The Gospel was ultimately also intended for the Gentiles

• Circumcision is no longer necessary for full obedience to God

• The Biblical kosher laws are no longer necessary for full obedience to God

• Eating meat sacrificed to idols is permissible with proper understanding and practice contrary to the decree and teaching of the Apostles at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Contrast the seemingly contradictory teaching of Paul in 1 Cor. 8 and Acts 15.

• There is some sense in which the Old Testament Law no longer applies or is binding. I'll leave the details of this aside and keep this point ambiguous because explaining it will take us away from the topic of this blog post. I mention this as a matter of fact based on Heb. 7:12, 18-19; 8:8, 13; Gal. 2:16, 19, 21: 3:10-13, 21, 23-24; Rom. 3:21; 7:4; 10:4; Acts 13:39 et cetera

• For Evangelicals, another example is the doctrine of justification by faith alone

It took time for the apostolic Church to come to such conclusions. There were minor disagreements, disputes and doubts. The Church as a whole grew into these conclusions. Such inspired development was sometimes the result of a direct and explicit revelation AND/OR due to a logical inference drawn from the implications and ramifications of the Gospel and other sound teaching or revelation  previously given.

Let's look at the specific example of eating meat sacrificed to idols. At first the Apostles in Acts 15 forbade the eating of such meat because it would violate their understanding of the Gospel at that time. However, Paul's further developed understanding of the implications of the Gospel allowed him to clarify in what sense it was permissible to eat such meat. This shows doctrinal development in the apostolic Church even though one would think that since apostles existed who could receive revelation from God, that therefore the Church would come to perfect and unified doctrinal truth immediately from the very start. But we don't see that in the history of the apostolic Church as recorded in inspired Scripture. Doctrines had to develop EVEN in the apostolic Church when (and while) the apostles were still living.

From these examples it's clearly evident that the apostolic Church was growing in it's understanding of truth and the Gospel during the lives of the Apostles. IT WAS NOT the case that AFTER Jesus died and rose again that the Apostles always and only preached what Jesus taught and preached. Jesus Himself said,

"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.- John 16:12-13

Then He said to them, "Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old."- Matt. 13:52

 Paul wrote:

15    Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.16 Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind.- Phil. 3:15-16

12    For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.- Heb. 5:12-14

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.- 1 Cor. 13:9-10

12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.- 1 Cor. 13:12

Peter even acknowledged that angels were still learning things about the Gospel as the Church progressed in understanding.

12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven --- things which angels desire to look into.- 1 Pet. 1:12

This is just a sampling of the evidence that the Apostolic Church grew in it's understanding of the Gospel.

I belabored the point above to argue that the same thing is true of the nature and work of Jesus (i.e. of Christology). And the reason this is especially true is because of the this next point.

4. Jesus Veiled Mission and Identity [JVMI]

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus occasionally, and in private, made it clear that He was the Messiah. However, for most of His ministry He veiled His mission and identity. Sometimes to the point of veiling His healings and exorcisms. See THIS LINK for examples. It was not until the Triumphal Entry that Jesus publicly announced His Messiahship. Even then, it wasn't absolutely explicit.

Here's a sampling of the evidence Jesus veiled His mission and identity.

Jesus didn't specifically and explicitly tell John the Baptist He was the Messiah when asked. See. Matt. 11:4-6

The fact that Jesus had to ask His disciples, "...Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" (Matt. 16:13c) proves that Jesus didn't go about publicly claiming He was the Messiah. Otherwise, Peter's declaration three verses latter that Jesus was the Messiah wouldn't make any sense (Matt. 16:16). Peter wouldn't have had to present his opinion of who Jesus was since he would have already heard Jesus say, "I am the Messiah", or words to that effect. The text goes on to say,

Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.- Matt. 16:20

Then He strictly warned them that they should tell no one about Him.- Mark 8:30

Compare Matt. 16:13-20 to it's parallel in Mark 8:27-30.


After Christ's transfiguration Scripture says,

9    Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead."- Matt. 17:9 compare Mark 9:9

Much more evidence could be marshaled to prove that Jesus veiled His messianic identity. There are various reasons for why Jesus did so, but it must be realized that if Jesus veiled his Messiahship, how much more would He veil his Divinity IF He were Divine and God? Non-Trinitarians have got to think about that seriously as a hypothetical thought experiment. One of the reasons why Jesus veiled His Messiah was in order not to get stoned to death or crucified too early. It would have ruined God's planned timing of Jesus' crucifixion which was to be after Jesus gave all the teaching that He did give. God probably also timed Christ's crucifixion to fulfill the timing of the prophecy of the coming of the Messiah in Dan. 9:24-26.

Now if the premature unveiling of Jesus messiahship would ruin God's plan and timing, how much more would the Jews have prematurely crucified or (more likely) stoned Jesus for publicly claiming to be God? Such a claim by a human being would be completely outrageous in the eyes and ears of Jews. Yet that's precisely what almost happened in (presumably) private conversations in John 5:18 and John 10:31. In these two passage Jesus didn't explicitly claim to be God, even though the Jews rightly inferred Jesus implicit claim to deity and so were ready to stone Him.

Let's review all Four Points and put it all together:

1. Non-Inspired Doctrinal Development. [NDD]
2. The concept of inspired Progressive Revelation [PR]
3. Inspired Doctrinal Development [IDD]
4. Jesus Veiled Mission and Identity [JVMI]

When one takes into consideration all four points, it can be better understood, that if the doctrine of the Trinity were true, why Jesus never taught the doctrine of the Trinity. Along with why the New Testament doesn't explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity in the sense formulated by modern Trinitarians. Since the apostolic Church itself was still growing in its understanding of the person, nature and work of Christ and the implications of the Gospel. Inspired Doctrinal Development was necessary because 1. Christ veiled His identity and 2. intentionally didn't give the final/last word regarding who He was, regarding the fulness of the Gospel and regarding the person and work of the Holy Spirit.


Having said that, there is a plethora of statements and teachings in both the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament which support the Trinitarian position (which I'll call a "theory" or "hypothesis" for the sake of building a bridge for Unitarians to use to incrementally come to Trinitarian conclusions). The links I provided 1. above, 2. on this blog site, and 3. the articles in this blog site itself demonstrate that assertion that there are many passages in the Bible that supports a Trinitarian position. I've even written a rough and ready case for the Deity of Christ based solely on the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark of course is considered by most people to have been the earliest written and therefore the most primitive and pure (accurate) record of Christ's life and teachings. Here's the link:

Markan Christology

Returning to the topic of Non-Inspired Doctrinal Development, I would grant that Modern formulations of the Trinity are examples of Non-Inspired Doctrinal Development. However, I'm of the opinion that their various formulations are closer to the truth than the most (if not all) versions of Unitarianism out there because it does the best job of accounting for all the Biblical data using Abductive reasoning. Abduction, also called Inference to the Best Explanation, is reasoning/inferring to that theory or hypothesis that has 1. the greatest explanatory power and 2. the greatest explanatory scope. Different non-Trinitarian Christologies, Theologies and Pneumatologies can explain some aspects of the Biblical data well, but to the neglect of other data which the doctrine of the Trinity can account for and make sense of.
 
This is how I myself have come to Trinitarian conclusions even though I still have some questions and doubts. For example, I find some plausibility in the position of Nicene Monarchism held by the brilliant former Trinitarian David Waltz and the eccentric Drake Shelton.