I believe in a concept of Divinity or divine nature that can be applied to both the Father and the Son, but it's not equivalent to the Trinitarian idea of a shared divine essence within a single being. For me, Divinity refers more to the shared teachings, principles, and purposes of the Father and Son, which justify calling both divine. However, I also believe that the Father and Son are distinct, independent beings, capable of corroborating each other's testimony, as seen in the legal requirement of two witnesses, which Jesus highlights when he speaks of both his and the Father’s testimony. This mutual corroboration matters to me because it emphasizes their distinct identities while still allowing them to share a certain Divinity. Unlike some Unitarians, I don’t discount the appropriateness of ascribing Divinity to both the Father and the Son, but I don’t accept the Trinitarian idea of one divine essence or being, which I believe undermines their individuality. My position is somewhere in the middle—not Trinitarian, but not fully Unitarian either—where Divinity is shared in a sense, but not in a way that erases the distinction between the Father and the Son. I’m confident in this middle ground, seeing it as a firm and meaningful stance that respects both the shared divinity and the independent roles of the Father and Son as distinct beings who can offer true, corroborating testimony.
By Stephen D Green, worded by ChatGPT, 2024
