So this mutual friend of ours spoke to him and told him that he would set up a blog where we could debate the topic. After some time the Christadelphian agreed and committed to the debate. The parameters of the debate were set by the moderator. They are as follows:
This is a Four Point Debate
Point 1 is: "The Doctrine of the Trinity-is it or is it not Sound Biblical Doctrine?"
Point 2 is: "The Person or Being of the Father"
Point 3 is: "The Person of the Son"
Point 4 is: "Who or What is the Holy Spirit"
Rules were then discussed between the three of us (the mutual friend is moderating) and agreed upon. Those rules being:
Each person will get two posts for each Point of debate which appears as:
1. Opening Statement (Participant 1)
2. Rebuttal (Participant 2)
3. Reply to Rebuttal (Participant 1)
4. Closing Statement (Participant 2)
We agreed to alternate between points. He began point 1, I began point 2, He will begin point 3, I will begin point 4.
A 1500 word limit was placed upon each post so as not to bore the reader but also to keep things even. And also it was asked that each response be made within 3 days of the other debator posting. In addition, after the argument was posted, no one was allowed to go back and edit it.
Immediately, this guy began with what I felt was a rule violation in that he posted links with extra text. I felt as if this was adding to his argument more than the 1500 words could express. This was taken to the moderator and because we did not specifically exclude the use of links, some ground rules were established. These were:
No more than 4 links per post.
Each link can only show charts, creeds, scripture quotations, or early church father quotes.
The links can not be used to continue an argument past the 1500 word limit.
All proper citations must be included at end of post for any page linked.
So again this guy violated even these rules in that he continued arguments i the links. He also included footnotes to the NET Bible which certainly violated the rules. He quoted me in the links but not in his posts, so that got around the 1500 word limit. Whenever I quoted him it was within the limit of my 1500. After making note of this, the gentleman went back and edited his link pages, which violated another rule, so the moderator decided to discontinue the use of links.
Now that all that has been explained, I can get to the point of this post... Before beginning point 1 he sent me an email asking if the Creeds were my foundation for belief in the Trinity. I said, NO, the Bible is. He then begins to argue that the Trinity is unscriptural based on creeds. I reminded him in my response that the topic was "The Trinity-Is it or is it not Sound BIBLICAL DOCTRINE?" -- His last post to point 1 stayed focused on the creeds. OK, that's his right... To bring in irrelevant information as a point of argument, I have no problem with that as it only shows the strength of my position since my position was not refuted.
Now we move to point 2 which was the "Person or Being of the Father" -- I made my affirmative argument for the deity of the Father (which we both agree upon) but moreso for the Personality of the Father (a point he was taking for granted). The close of my argument dealt with the fact that the Father is only known in relation to the Son. I mean, there is no Father without a Child (i.e. Son). So he responds with the same red herring argument he had used throughout which was the creed thing. He then attributed arguments to me that I had never made, and brought in some more irrelevant data. He began his response by stating that we agreed that the Trinity is not taught in any passage of scripture... To this I objected because clearly we had not agreed on this. He then ended his post with an objection that my argument for the Father being known as the Father based on his having a Son should not be discussed in this post and it should be saved for Point 3! -- Well, how can I present any position on the Father and leave the Son out?
In any event, I replied and responded to all of his arguments, both relevant (which wasn't much) and illogical (which there was too much of). I wasted much of my space refuting his caricatures of my position. Then I received this email a few minutes ago from him asking the moderator to make me change my comments because he doesn't want to have to spend time correcting my misrepresentations of his arguments. My jaw literally dropped! He then proceeded to document what he felt were misrepresentations, but after having read them I was only more resolute in my post. I emailed him back and told him that he could use his 1500 words as he saw fit. He could use them as I did and correct what he feels to be in error, or he can use them as I did and present an affirmative argument which proves his position.
I doubt that he'll choose either option probably opting rather to continue along the same lines that he has been traveling, irrelevant arguments and misdirection. God only knows what he'll do, but one thing is for sure... He won't win the debate if continues in his current direction.
Anyway... If you want to read the debate then check it out here... As with all blogs, start at the bottom and work your way up... Enjoy!
To God be the Glory!!!
