I have been continued the conversation from a previous post and we’ll see how long this conversation will continue:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2018/10/31/godhood-and-dominion/

ContraModalism:

I do not appreciate your constant misrepresentations of my position, and your failure to meaningfully respond to many of the points I’ve brought up. For instance I have cited scriptural reasons why I understand Godhood/divinity to be relative and relational, and to be dominion, and you have for the most part ignored these and tried to dismiss my observations on what scripture teaches as a mere invention on my part designed to support my views.

This is not the case; I hold that divinity is dominion because that is what we learn from scripture; I draw my views from the scriptures, rather than reading speculation into them. The scriptures are our only sure source of knowledge on these issues. There are countless places where scripture speaks of divinity as relative (eg, “my God”, “your God”, “our God”, the God of Israel”, “the God of gods”).

You accuse me of saying that the Son is impotent; such false accusations do not befit someone making a claim to godliness. We acknowledge the Father alone Almighty, and that the Son is the Mighty God, begotten from the Almighty God. The Son’s power is greater than all creation; yet He Himself testifies that He is subject to His own Father. “Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.” John 5:19 NASB

You bring up again that the one God is distinguished from idols by His ontological attributes; perhaps you did not understand my reply. Of course the living God is rightly distinguished from dead statues by the fact that He is living; of course the Almighty is rightly contrasted with statues of rock and stone that have no power at all. Yet this does not make God’s unique ontological attributes part of what it means to be God. Who would deny that He is unique? Yet this does not establish anything respecting what divinity is.

You say that ‘elohim’ simply refers to spiritual beings; yet there is nothing you have given from the scriptures, or from logic, to support this. If the term merely refers to a class of being, then the relational language scripture frequently uses is left unexplained. Your position does not account for the scriptural data. While you falsely accuse us of abandoning the authority of the scriptures, its you who insists on reading into the scriptures your own metaphysical idea of divinity. Our understanding of Godhood is derived from the scriptures themselves; yours is not.

You say that ‘elohim’ simply refers to spiritual beings; yet there is nothing you have given from the scriptures, or from logic, to support this. If the term merely refers to a class of being, then the relational language scripture frequently uses is left unexplained. Your position does not account for the scriptural data. While you falsely accuse us of abandoning the authority of the scriptures, its you who insists on reading into the scriptures your own metaphysical idea of divinity. Our understanding of Godhood is derived from the scriptures themselves; yours is not.

You say that we do not truly believe that Christ is divine because we do not say that His divinity is ontological; I say this is as absurd as supposing that one must affirm a king to be king ontologically. To say that someone is king is not a statement about their ontological attributes, but their relational position of authority. So it is with Christ’s divinity.

If for our discussion a substance is going to be defined as an individual thing or entity, then certainly the Son is not the same substance as the Father, but another, a second substance; were He not, He would be the Father Himself, and no true Son. And the Son Himself testifies “the Father is greater than I”. He is another substance besides the Father, uniquely begotten of Him before creation and all time; He is God from God, Lord from Lord, King from King, good from the one good, holy from He Who is alone holy, power from the Almighty, Wisdom from He Who is alone wise. I do not presume to say anything about the Son’s ontology beyond what scripture reveals; it is enough for us to know that He is the Son of the Father, like the Father, the image of the invisible God, the exact representation of His person and the brightness of His glory; through Whom God created, preserves, rules over, saves, and judges all.

Those who know the scriptures would not consider that God is a physical being, made of the very matter He created.

It does indeed make God the ontological grounding of moral good. Have you not read that the Father and Son share one image and one likeness? To be conformed to the likeness of Christ is to be conformed to the likeness of God. When the scriptures tell us that man was made to be like God, and command us to imitate Him, it is clear that this is our responsibility, and the grounding of morality.

It is not befitting someone making a claim to godliness to make such false accusations, and to so misrepresent their opponent. Do you not speak a word with the fear of God? I never said that God commands evil; scriptures says that God commanded things that were not good, that is, they were not innately good, but were given for sake of the hardness of heart of the jews. While supposing that you argue against me, you actually argue against the holy scriptures. God is Himself the standard for moral good, and He alone is Most High; subject to none, and from none, Himself the one from Whom are all things, and to Whom all things are subject.

TheSire:

You’ve failed to establish that claim and my entire first argument was granting your assumption. Divinity means “to be dominion” doesn’t make sense. Beings possess dominion they aren’t identical to dominion. You’ve merely ignored the dilemma your position is in. The question was and is that Divinity(dominion) requires a being with certain attributes. Does the Son possess all those attributes or some of them? If so, then we can say the Son possesses the same Divinity as the Father.

I think that God being in relation to such is compatible with us being in relation to a being with the omni-attributes. You have only set a false dilemma to whether God is relational and ontological. So, once again you haven’t stated anything with the force you suppose. You have to ignore the OT background in order to have such an idea. The background to the OT is ANE polytheism. The gods were beings of greater qualities. Humans were often depicted as lesser beings with little to moral significance. Sometimes the deities would take human forms and sleep with morals producing demi-gods. The reason that is because people recognized a species-difference with deities. Gods of the OT were territorial spirits. This background of paganism follows into the NT.

In the ancient world, the gods were parochial and had geographically limited jurisdictions. In the mountains, one sought the favor of the mountain gods; on the sea, of the sea gods. Ancient warfare was waged in the belief that the gods of the opposing nations were fighting as well, and the outcome would be determined by whose god was strongest.

Arnold, Clinton E.; Jobes, Karen H.. 1, 2, and 3 John (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (Kindle Locations 1926-1928). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Take how God is uniquely God over pagan gods because of his attributes:

Jeremiah 32:17 
‘Ah Lord Yahweh! Look, you made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm. Nothing is too difficult for you,

Jeremiah 32:27 
“Look, I am Yahweh, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for me?”

Psalm 72:18 
Blessed be Yahweh God, the God of Israel, who alone does wonderful things.

Isaiah 43:10
“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
    “and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
    and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
    nor will there be one after me.

Psalm 102:25-27
In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
    and the heavens are the work of your hands.
²⁶ They will perish, but you remain;
    they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
    and they will be discarded.
²⁷ But you remain the same,
    and your years will never end.

1 Kings 18:24
“Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD, and the God who answers by fire, He is God.” And all the people said, “That is a good idea.”

The reason Isaiah 43:10 is added is for the fact it treats gods as ontological beings. In the ANE world gods were formed from preexistent materials. This is clearly speaking about beings with attributes and not dominion. The point is that Yahweh is species-unique and not even comparable with anything else. Those are ontological statements. Yahweh, in order to be Yahweh, has to be ontologically superior to everything else.

In the ancient world, son’s were apprentices to their fathers. If your father was a fisherman then you were most likely a fisherman. If your father was a carpenter, then most likely his son was a carpenter. So, in this analogous way, Jesus serves and is a perfect apprentice to his Father. So, much so that he does whatever the Father does. This shows Christ Divinity is compatible with the Father being divine.

The Greek text of verses 19–23 is structured around four gar (‘for’ or ‘because’) statements. The first introduces the last clause of v. 19. The thought runs like this: It is impossible for the Son to take independent, self-determined action that would set him over against the Father as another God, for all the Son does is both coincident with and coextensive with all that the Father does. ‘Perfect Sonship involves perfect identity of will and action with the Father’ (Westcott, 1. 189). It follows that separate, self-determined action would be a denial of his sonship. But if this last clause of v. 19 takes the impossibility of the Son operating independently and grounds it in the perfection of Jesus’ sonship, it also constitutes another oblique claim to deity; for the only one who could conceivably do whatever the Father does must be as great as the Father, as divine as the Father

Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John (p. 251). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans.

That is again an oversimplification of my position where I argued that Yahweh is set against not only idols but any other gods of such. Yahweh is a god in a sense that pagan gods and any being attributed Elohim is not.

Your definition of Godhood is a made up one in attempt to get around the fact that you’re a semi-Arian. My definition fits every usage of the word “Elohim”. Whether you look at biblical or extrabiblical occurrences of the word.

Take 1 Sam. 28:13

¹³ The king said to her, “Do not be afraid; but what do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a divine being(Elohim) coming up out of the earth.”

Do we see a dominion coming out the ground? Do human spirits have a lot of dominions? Did the deceased Samuel have dominion over a house where he could rattle chains?

It isn’t absurd for the fact that Christ not being divine isn’t worthy of being the sovereign king of the universe. Only the Father is and to leave it to the Son would be inferior unworthy of worship. Of course, Christ receives worship and has just as much Divinity as the Father.

You end up with Semi-Arianism. The son on your scheme may be eternal but he isn’t truly Divine. If they are two different things, then you have two different gods. So, anyone familiar would call foul on you for violating Jewish Monotheism. Second, you simply beg the question against Trinitarianism which would maintain that you have a numerically same essence but yet distinct persons.

On your interpretive grid, you have no reason to suppose God isn’t made of eternal matter where everything else is made of temporal matter. I suppose that I agree that the image of God is relevant to human dignity and worth. But that hardly proves the metaphysical idea that the Father is the grounding for goodness.

While all this is compatible with the idea that God is the ontological grounding of goodness. None of this actually states that. That is yours and many Christians further meta-ethical theories. That goes to show that we simply will do metaphysics that go beyond what the Bible tells us.

You didn’t clarify your position very well because you made it sound like God can command things that aren’t good. So, that is your fault for not being precise in what you are claiming.