Catholics and unitarians together

Here's something many Catholics and unitarians share in common: the NT doesn't teach the Trinity. The NT doesn't teach the deity of Christ. 

Catholic apologists typically use a wedge tactic. Ever since the Counter-Reformation, Catholic apologists have deployed Pyrrhonian skepticism. Unless we have a living oracle (the Roman Magisterium), we have no reason to prefer one interpretation of Scripture over another. We have no reason to prefer the Gospel of John over the Gospel of Thomas. NT Christology is so embryonic and indefinite that it's consistent with Arianism. We need church councils to be a makeweight. We need the pope to be the referee.  

So the standard Catholic apologetic takes the form of a dilemma: either be Catholic or cease to be Christian. There is no middle ground. No fallback option.

If you find that convincing, then you can relieve the dilemma by embracing either horn of the dilemma. If it's a package deal, if it's all contingent on the authority of Mother Church, and you lose faith in Mother Church, then the next stop is unitarianism or deism or atheism. 

Many unitarians agree with Catholic apologists. "You're right. The only reason to be Trinitarian is if you believe your church has the authority to promulgate that dogma, but since I don't believe your church has that authority, I'm unitarian."

Likewise, if you agree with a Catholic apologist that the NT canon is an arbitrary selection of books created by Mother Church, you can reverse the logic. "Since I don't believe in your church, I don't believe in the Bible. I can't even begin to believe in the Bible unless I first know which Bible I'm supposed to believe in."

By the same token, if you think sola Scriptura spawns hopeless interpretive pluralism, with no principled basis to prefer one interpretation over another, one reaction is to give up on Christianity altogether.

So the standard Catholic apologetic is a high-risk gambit. A game of chicken. There are people who find the Catholic dilemma persuasive, and they dare to call the bluff. 

They find the dilemma persuasive, but they don't find Catholicism persuasive, so they embrace the other horn of the dilemma. They simply reverse the argument.

Under the Francis pontificate, we've seen many Catholic apologists impaled on the horns of their own dilemma. As their denomination moves increasingly to the left, they are trapped in the logic of their apologetic. If they have no alternative to Rome, then they must follow the lead of the pope even if the Catholic Church becomes indistinguishable from secularized, progressive denominations in a death spiral. Like having lead weights on their feet that drag them under water. 

I'm not saying all-or-nothing arguments are always wrong. I keep pressing the nihilistic consequences of atheism. That's something I live by, and something I will die by. But a dilemma cuts both ways. That's what makes it a dilemma. There are people who will accept the dilemma, but opt for the other horn of the dilemma. 

Conversely, I recently read a good book on the historical Jesus by Brand Pitre. And he has two good chapters defending the deity of Christ straight from the Bible. Not coincidentally, he makes extensive use of the best Protestant scholarship in the course of his book. He's also coauthored a conservative OT introduction.

But ironically, his methodology, his direct approach to the evidence, circumvents and thereby subverts the necessity of the Magisterium.