[...] The introduction post – Laying out how things will take place over the next six weeks. [...]

It seems you opened comments on the two debate posts. I left a comment last night around 5:00 p.m. and it shows that it is in moderation. Are these comments not going to be coming through like comments on the other topics?

Oh Boy!…Here we go!

Actually, wouldn’t your answer be “F. God should raise up a man who didn’t sin against Him in order that that man might apologize for others who did sin against Him.”

BTW, Christ doesn’t apologize to God. He takes upon the sins of others and is punished by God for those sins. Hence, He provides a means to be forgiven. We apologize to God, who has now given us a way to be forgiven when we do. I don’t think your analogy is all that logical, nor do I think your position does not hold the same amount of problems (Person A who has not sinned dies for Person B who has). Whether it is the God-man or just another man seems irrelevant.

Phil,
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but the person and work of Christ is not about a bare apology to the Father. The Son is not holding back an angry Father from ripping humanity to shreds. The Son is sent by a loving Father on a rescue mission for Man because man won’t/can’t listen anymore. Something needed to happen to man in his very nature. Adam forfeited his intended purpose–to share in, and partake of the glory of God. The eternal Son of God will do something for man he cannot do for himself–he will take the very nature of man and heal it by joining it to His own divine person. Then he will conquer and overcome our death by dying himself. Man could not rise to life of his own nature, but when man’s nature is united to the divine Son of God, it sees no corruption and is glorified and renewed and restored. Those that are IN CHRIST by faith, freely partake in the benefits wrought by Christ. God is not in heaven waiting for an apology from Adam, he sent his Son to become Adam. Which is the greater love?

[...] week, a post at Parchment and Pen announced that “The Great Trinity Debate” was coming. I was particularly pleased to see that this would be an exchange between men [...]

Multiple Choice.

If I came up to you in the street, you being an innocent person doing your own thing, and I hit you – should I apologise to you, or should you apologise to me?

A. You should apologise to me.

B. I should apologise to you.

C. You should apologise to yourself.

D. I should apologise to myself on your behalf.

E. You should apologise to yourself on my behalf.

In the begining Man sinned against God, God is innocent, should man apologise to God, or should God apologise to man?

A. God should apologise to man.

B. Man should apologise to God.

C. God should apologise to Himself.

D. Man should apologise to himself on Gods behalf.

E. God should apologise to himself on mans behalf.

If you are of sound mind, logical and rational, your answer will be ‘B’ to both questions.

If you are Trintarian, your answer will be ‘E’ to both questions.*

This highlights the need to know who God is and who Christ is, because we are saved through what Christ did for us, so to fully appreciate what he has done for us we need to understand the processes of what he did to truly honor him as God the Father asks us too.

*The Trinitarian faith requires different processes from the Unitarian, a Devine sacrifice (on what scripture they base this requirment on I’m not sure)
To faithfully model your life on the trintarian God you will need to become irrational, illogical and unsound, as that is the example of the characteristic that the trinity gives.

The Christadelphian Unitarian belief has no issues, it answers ‘B’ to both questions. It only requires a man , on mans behalf to be sacrificed. Logical, sound, rational. Characteristics of a God that is an honour to model ones faith upon.

Sam:

Wow, Dave Burke!!!! You mentioned my article in your opening statements! I guess should be flattered but I never thought that any of my stuff would be viewed as representating anything. Dave, does this mean that you think that I am some kind of an authority or that I somehow represent and speak for Trinitarians in general? Anyway, thanks for the plug since parts 4-5 and the appendices should be published soon, Lord willing.

No Sam, it doesn’t mean that I regard you as an authority or representative of any kind. I was simply looking for an example of the classic “echad” fallacy and your article was one of the first which turned up in my search engine. So you were just plain lucky (or unlucky, depending on your perspective) and you can thank Google for that. PageRank stats looking good these days?

Wow, Dave Burke!!!! You mentioned my article in your opening statements! I guess should be flattered but I never thought that any of my stuff would be viewed as representating anything. Dave, does this mean that you think that I am some kind of an authority or that I somehow represent and speak for Trinitarians in general? Anyway, thanks for the plug since parts 4-5 and the appendices should be published soon, Lord willing.

They’re up now.