Toulmin Model

The argument for Jesus' messiahship from Psalm 110

A reader encounters the argument: 'Jesus is the Messiah because the Scriptures predicted him.' Without the Toulmin structure, the argument is circular: the warrant ('the Scriptures accurately predict the Messiah') and the backing ('Jesus' life fulfilled those predictions') are both hidden and both contestable. The argument appears to prove itself.

Applying Toulmin: Claim — Jesus is the Davidic Messiah. Data — Psalm 110:1 speaks of 'my Lord' sitting at the right hand of YHWH; Acts 2:32-36 applies this to the risen Jesus. Warrant — Psalm 110 is a royal/messianic Psalm that ancient interpreters read as referring to a future Davidic king. Backing — the Psalm's use in Second Temple Judaism as messianic is attested in other literature. Qualifier — this interpretation is compelling within the Christological hermeneutical framework of the early church; Jewish interpreters then and now read the Psalm differently. Rebuttal — the argument depends on the warrant that Psalm 110 refers to a single future individual, which is contested. Laying this out shows where the argument's strength and weakness lie.

The argument that the Sermon on the Mount abrogates the Old Testament Law

A reader hears: 'Jesus' 'You have heard it said... but I say to you' statements show that he was replacing the Torah with a higher law.' The warrant is implicit: the intensification formula signals replacement. The rebuttal — Matthew 5:17 explicitly denies that Jesus came to abolish the Law — is never engaged.

Toulmin reveals the argument's structure. Claim: Jesus replaced the Old Testament Law. Data: The antithesis formula in Matthew 5:21-48. Warrant: The phrase 'but I say to you' implies correction or replacement of the preceding teaching. Backing: Some scholars argue Jesus was correcting scribal misinterpretation rather than the Torah itself. Qualifier: 'Partially' or 'in some respects.' Rebuttal: Matthew 5:17-19 explicitly states Jesus did not come to abolish but to fulfill; James, the Jerusalem church, and early Jewish Christianity continued Torah observance. The Toulmin structure forces engagement with the rebuttal that the simpler argument bypasses.

The argument for infant baptism from household baptisms in Acts

A paedobaptist argument runs: 'Lydia's household and the jailer's household were baptized, and households include infants, so infant baptism is apostolic practice.' The warrant — that ancient households included infants who were baptized — is presented as obvious, but it is precisely what is disputed.

Claim: The New Testament records apostolic infant baptism. Data: Acts 16:15, 16:33; 1 Corinthians 1:16 record 'household' baptisms. Warrant: Ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish households included infants who would have been included in any household ritual. Backing: Sociological and historical evidence about ancient household composition. Qualifier: 'Plausibly' or 'consistently with.' Rebuttal: The texts do not specify that infants were present; Acts 16:34 says the jailer 'rejoiced with his whole household, having believed' (the participle may imply adult belief preceded baptism); credobaptists argue the warrant is unproven. Toulmin reveals that the debate turns almost entirely on competing warrants about what 'household' means and whether the parallel to Old Testament circumcision (the common paedobaptist backing) holds.

The conclusion or assertion that the argument is designed to establish. The claim is what the arguer wants you to accept as a result of the argument.

In theological discourse, claims range from textual (this is what the Greek word means), to historical (this is when and where an event occurred), to doctrinal (this is what Christians should believe), to ethical (this is how Christians should act). Each type of claim requires different kinds of evidence and warrant. A single sermon may move among all four types without distinguishing them — and this is where arguments often break down.

• What exactly is being claimed — textual, historical, doctrinal, or ethical?
• Is the claim stated clearly, or is it embedded in other language that obscures it?
• Is this a claim about what the Bible says, what it means, or what it requires?
• Is the claim falsifiable — could evidence or argument in principle show it to be wrong?
• Is one claim being presented, or are multiple claims bundled together?

The evidence or facts that the argument uses to support the claim. Data may include biblical texts, historical records, archaeological findings, lexical definitions, or scholarly consensus.

In biblical arguments, data includes the actual words of the text in the original language, manuscript evidence, archaeological context, intertextual parallels, and the judgments of recognized scholars. Not all data is equal: a manuscript from the 1st century carries more weight than a 12th-century copy; a peer-reviewed archaeological report carries more weight than a popular-level book. Identifying the data and assessing its quality is foundational to evaluating any theological argument.

• What specific evidence is being offered for this claim?
• Is the data primary (original texts, excavation reports) or secondary (summaries of other scholars' work)?
• Is all relevant data being presented, or is some evidence being omitted that would complicate the claim?
• How reliable is the data source — what is its scholarly standing?
• Does the data actually say what the argument says it says, or is it being stretched?

The logical principle or rule that connects the data to the claim. The warrant explains why the data counts as evidence for this particular conclusion.

Warrants in biblical arguments are the most contested and the most often hidden element. 'The original audience would have understood X' is a warrant. 'Scripture's meaning is stable across time and cultures' is a warrant. 'A term's use in the Septuagint illuminates its New Testament meaning' is a warrant. Every hermeneutical tradition operates with a set of characteristic warrants, and disagreements between traditions are usually disagreements about warrants, not about data.

• What principle is being used to connect the evidence to the conclusion?
• Is the warrant stated explicitly, or does the argument assume you will supply it?
• Is the warrant generally accepted, tradition-specific, or simply assumed without examination?
• Would people from different theological traditions accept the same warrant?
• Is the warrant strong enough to support the strength of the claim being made?

The support for the warrant itself — the reasons why the connecting principle should be accepted. Backing is often a body of theory, tradition, or established practice.

Theological backings are frequently entire doctrinal traditions. Reformed exegesis is backed by a particular doctrine of Scripture and a covenant hermeneutic. Catholic interpretation is backed by the authority of Tradition and the Magisterium alongside Scripture. Historical-critical scholarship is backed by the methodological principles of academic historiography. When two interpreters use the same data and reach opposite conclusions, they are usually operating with different backings for their warrants.

• What tradition, theory, or established practice supports the warrant?
• Is the backing explicit, or must it be inferred from the argument's context?
• Is the backing widely accepted, or is it distinctive to a particular tradition?
• Does the backing itself rest on assumptions that could be questioned?
• Would the argument succeed if the backing were replaced by a different tradition's backing?

The degree of certainty or confidence with which the claim is asserted. Qualifiers include words like 'necessarily,' 'probably,' 'plausibly,' 'in most cases,' or 'under these conditions.'

Missing qualifiers are one of the most common problems in popular biblical and theological writing. Claims that should be stated as 'probable,' 'consistent with,' or 'one reading suggests' are frequently stated as 'the Bible clearly teaches,' 'scholars agree,' or 'it is undeniable.' Restoring appropriate qualifiers is not a sign of weak faith — it is a sign of intellectual honesty about the limits of the evidence.

• How confident does the argument present itself — certain, probable, possible?
• Is that level of confidence appropriate to the strength of the evidence and warrant?
• Where should a qualifier appear that is currently missing?
• Does the argument acknowledge any uncertainty, or does it present all conclusions as equally certain?
• Would the argument be more or less persuasive if stated with the appropriate qualifier?

The conditions under which the claim would not hold, or the counter-arguments the arguer acknowledges. A strong argument names its own vulnerabilities.

The absence of rebuttal is a diagnostic sign of apologetics rather than scholarship. A scholarly argument about Pauline authorship of Hebrews acknowledges the strongest evidence against its position. A careful treatment of a difficult passage acknowledges the readings that complicate its preferred interpretation. Engaging the rebuttal — rather than ignoring it — is what distinguishes honest inquiry from motivated reasoning.

• What counter-arguments or counter-evidence does the argument acknowledge?
• Under what conditions would the claim need to be modified or abandoned?
• Are the strongest objections to the argument engaged, or only the weakest?
• Does the absence of rebuttal suggest the argument is filtering evidence to reach a predetermined conclusion?
• How does the argument's conclusion change if the rebuttal conditions are taken seriously?

The claim as typically stated is: 'Paul is not the author of Hebrews.' This is a historical-critical claim about authorship, not a doctrinal claim about the letter's authority or inspiration. It is important to separate these: one can hold that Hebrews is authoritative Scripture while also holding that Paul did not write it — as the majority of modern scholars do.

The data supporting the non-Pauline conclusion: (1) The Greek of Hebrews is the most polished and rhetorically sophisticated in the New Testament, markedly different from Paul's letters. (2) Hebrews 2:3 says the author received the gospel from 'those who heard' Jesus — whereas Paul explicitly claims direct revelation (Galatians 1:12). (3) The letter lacks Paul's characteristic opening (name, apostleship, grace/peace). (4) The theology of priesthood, the Levitical system, and the typology of Melchizedek are developed differently from Paul's undisputed letters. (5) No early manuscript bears Paul's name in the text itself.

The warrant is: stylistic, theological, and structural consistency within an author's corpus is a reliable indicator of shared authorship. When Hebrews diverges markedly from Paul's style, theology, and self-presentation, this divergence is evidence against Pauline authorship. This warrant is widely accepted in modern literary and historical-critical scholarship, though it is contested by those who argue Paul adapted his style to audience and purpose.

The backing for the warrant is the academic discipline of stylometrics and authorship analysis, which has successfully identified and distinguished authors in classical literature. This backing is well-established in literary studies generally, though its application to ancient texts is more uncertain than to modern ones, given differences in compositional practice (including the use of secretaries/amanuenses) and the limited size of any single author's surviving corpus.

The appropriate qualifier is 'very probably' or 'with high confidence.' The majority of modern New Testament scholars — including many evangelical scholars — hold that Paul did not write Hebrews, and that this conclusion is not a threat to the letter's authority. The early church was divided: Origen famously said 'only God truly knows' who wrote it. A small minority of modern scholars still defend Pauline authorship. The honest statement is: 'Paul almost certainly did not write Hebrews,' not 'It is impossible that Paul wrote Hebrews.'

The rebuttals to consider: (1) Paul may have used a skilled amanuensis (such as Luke or Priscilla) who shaped the Greek while Paul provided the theological content. (2) Paul may have written differently when addressing a different audience with different rhetorical conventions. (3) The absence of Paul's name may reflect intentional anonymity for rhetorical purposes. (4) The theology is not as incompatible with Paul's as sometimes claimed. These rebuttals are serious enough that the qualifier 'probably' rather than 'certainly' is appropriate — and they explain why the question remained open in the early church.