Singalphile, you wrote:If anyone knows of a good debate/discussion between a binitarian and a trinitarian, let me know, please. I'm probably somewhere in between those views (but defaulting to the latter), but I can only find debates between unitarians and trinitarians.
If there has been such a debate or discussion, I have never heard of it. It seems to me that the major problem with both trinitarians and binitarians is the concept that God is a composite Being, composed of either three individual divine Persons, or two. Yet, the word "God" as used by the Scriptural writers NEVER refers to a composite Being, and in over 95% of cases (in my estimation) the referent of the word is the Father alone.
I suppose I would have to be classified as a unitarian, since, like Jesus, I believe in "one true God." That is how Jesus addressed His Father. However, having said that, I must declare that I do not hold the position of classical unitarians, for they deny the deity of Christ, whereas I believe that Jesus is just as divine as His Father in virtue of the fact (if the beliefs of the early Christians can be called "facts") that He was begotten by God "before all ages," the first of God's acts. So the Son of God may be called "God" (in the generic sense) just as the son of a man can be called "man." The son of a man is human; the son of God is divine.
My only contribution to this discussion is that I don't know of any father who ever got mad at somebody for thinking too highly of his beloved son.
I would appreciate knowing what you have in mind with that statement. Do you know anyone who thinks too little of Christ? To hold that He is not the Father, or a part of a compound God, is not to think less of Him than He truly is. Did He think too lowly of Himself when He declared, "The Father is greater than I"? (John 14:28)