I asked some questions to two Unitarian apologists that believe themselves to be a Trinitarian.
TheSire:
How close is their similarity? Do they possess all the same(generic) Divine properties? What distinguishes you from a tritheist?
ContraModalism:
“God begot God, that the Lord begot the Lord, that the King begot the King, that the Creator begot the Creator, that the Good begot the Good, that the Wise begot the Wise, that the Merciful begot the Merciful, and that the Powerful begot the Powerful.” (Maximinus) The Son is like the Father in that He is the Image of the Father, the exact representation of His person, the Brightness of His glory, Who shares one image and likeness with Him. In His character, in His works, and in many attributes, He is like the Father. I don’t think scripture reveals to us a generic unity of nature; consider the many attributes that belong to the Father alone, that He alone is unbegotten, uncaused, infinite, invisible, and absolutely supreme in authority (Almighty). The Son’s likeness to the Father may be seen as symbolized well by His title as being the “Image of the Invisible God”; for one is visible and derivative, as Image, the other invisible and underived, as the Original, and yet both share one and the same likeness.
TheSire:
That leaves my question:
” and in many attributes”
Does the Son share all the same Divine properties as the Father(e.g. omniscience, omnipotence)?
ContraModalism:
I did already answer that pretty much: “I don’t think scripture reveals to us a generic unity of nature; consider the many attributes that belong to the Father alone, that He alone is unbegotten, uncaused, infinite, invisible, and absolutely supreme in authority (Almighty).” So They don’t have all the same attributes. But as Godhood/divinity is dominion, not a species or set of attributes, however, I don’t see that as in any way infringing upon the true divinity of the Son.
TheSire:
“But as Godhood/divinity is dominion, not a species or set of attributes”
I don’t think this is true. For one, it is kinda silly to think you could have any set of attributes and have “dominion”. Could a human just wave his arms? Obviously not. Plus I think the term God by necessity carries ontology.
But if it were the case the Bible was silent on the issue(and in many ways it is). You believe the Father has many attributes that make him God so to speak. I’m asking if the Son also has those properties. If not, then you believe the Son is a lesser substance. If so, then you have to deal with the idea further.
ContraModalism:
I think I’m missing your meaning; how do people waving their arms relate to what we’re talking about? And I believe biblically divinity is indeed dominion. To say someone is God or a god is to say that they are God over, or God of, something over which they possess dominion. We have many, many examples of that sort of language in scripture. That’s why the Father, the Son, angels, and men, can all have the word ‘god’ applied to them without absurdity. If it meant being ontologically identical to the Father, it could not be applied to men or angels without absurdity.
So I don’t think the Father has many attributes which make Him God. I believe He is called God on account of His dominion, and the one God, the only true God, on account of His supreme dominion over all absolutely.
I agree with Sir Isaac Newton here: “This Being [God] governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God Pantokrator [Greek word usually translated “Almighty”], or Universal Ruler. For God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God, not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: These are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies a Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God; a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God.” (Newton, General Scholium)
TheSire:
“I think I’m missing your meaning; how do people waving their arms relate to what we’re talking about? And I believe biblically divinity is indeed dominion. To say someone is God or a god is to say that they are God over, or God of, something over which they possess dominion.”
The point is that God is uniquely God. But how is having Dominion unique to being “god”? I have dominion over my house but that is hardly making me a god. But suppose the use was more general(Elohim for example). My argument is not dependent on your theories of what the term God means. It is dependent about what things or properties make God distinct from something else. Maybe he has “dominion” over all the world and that is what makes him distinct. But also his dominion includes his creation of the world. But then he must have a set of attributes consistent with him creating the world. So, no offense, you seem to think you can escape ontology but the fact of the manner is that you can’t and no one can. You have the same dilemma about the issue. The certain set of attributes allow the Father to have dominion. Does the Son possess them? If not, then Semi-Arianism. If so, then trinitarianism.
I think that God does actually deal with certain attributes and prerogatives. God clearly has his property of being omnipotent to distinguish him from other Elohim is a counterexample for your idea that properties aren’t relevant to the term God(especially Yahweh). (Jer 32:17, 27; Pss 72:18; 115:3),
” We have many, many examples of that sort of language in scripture. That’s why the Father, the Son, angels, and men, can all have the word ‘god’ applied to them without absurdity. If it meant being ontologically identical to the Father, it could not be applied to men or angels without absurdity.”
Well, this is a naïve idea how the terms of “God” are used and what we mean in English to the Greek and Hebrew counterparts. Elohim mainly refers to spiritual beings and not dominion. You are simplifying the concept of God to how the term may be used in some instances.
Readytoreason:
I don’t see how quoting a verse, for example, about God being omniscient would prove that Godhood includes the dominion of an omniscient being. It just doesn’t follow. I really don’t know what else to say to this, but that it’s simply an assumption.
Actually, Romans 1:20 more clearly expresses Godhood as Dominion: “his eternal power and Godhead”
Also, the verse never mentions metaphysical nature, in reference to Godhood, so your statement would be completely unfounded.
TheSire:
“I don’t see how quoting a verse, for example, about God being omniscient would prove that Godhood includes the dominion of an omniscient being. It just doesn’t follow. I really don’t know what else to say to this, but that it’s simply an assumption.”
it isn’t an assumption. The assumption is on your parts. You falsely and obviously so assume Godhood or deity is just about dominion. I think that is your gnostic filter. I just provided two-pronged criticism:
1. I showed you guys can’t pretend to be metaphysically neutral with your view of God. I explained how “dominion” especially “God’s dominion” would itself require a certain being with certain qualities. God’s or Yahweh’s dominion is only over Israel? I doubt you would say that. So, you would say it is over all that he has made. Dominion for God then is tied with being the creator of stuff. But you need certain properties or qualities to make a universe. You need certain properties to have been aware of the entire universe. You need certain properties to control the world. So, that is hardly an assumption. It is a necessary truth.
2. I showed the concept in the Old Testament does include attributes and Yahweh’s ontological uniqueness. It is even more clear that the New Testament that the term God isn’t reducible to being about dominion. The term means attributes in Romans 1:20 and not “Dominion”.
People come to a knowledge of God through the created world because “God made it manifest to them” (ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν, ho theos gar autois ephanerōsen, v. 19). 16 Of course, this knowledge is mediated through observation of the created world. God’s attributes of power and divinity “have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made” (v. 20).
Schreiner, Thomas R.. Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (Kindle Locations 3744-3749). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
θειότης, ητος, ἡ (s. prec. entry; of a divinity: the term in such description is not tautologous but usually refers to performance that one might properly associate w. a divinity: Plut., Mor. 398a; 665a; Lucian, Calumn. 17; Herm. Wr. 9, 1c; SIG 867, 31 of Artemis, who made Ephesus famous διὰ τῆς ἰδίας θειότητος, i.e. through manifestations of her power, s. ln. 35; POxy 1381, 165 πληρωθεὶς τ. σῆς [Imouthes-Asclepius] θειότητος namely manifestations of healing; PGM 7, 691; Wsd 18:9; EpArist 95; ApcSed 14:8; 15:2; Philo, Op. M. 172 v.l.; Just., D. 3:5.—Of persons who stand in close relation to a divinity: Heraclit. Sto. 76 p. 102, 4 Homer; Jos., Ant. 10, 268 Daniel; ins, pap, princes and emperors. So of Augustus, e.g. SEG XXVI, 1392, 31 [18–19 A.D.].—Of the Christian proclamation θ. τοῦ παρʼ ἡμῖν λόγου Theoph. Ant. 3, 29 [p. 264, 16]) the quality or characteristic(s) pert. to deity, divinity, divine nature, divineness Ro 1:20.—HNash, θειότης-θεότης Ro 1:20, Col 2:9: JBL 18, 1899, 1–34.—New Docs 3, 68. DELG s.v. θεός. Lampe s.v. M-M. TW. Sv.
The Council 