Does John 17:3 Exclude Others, Such as Jesus Christ, as the "True God"? Part 2

Here's my first rejoinder to Bowman’s first rebuttal.

Shelenberger's First Rejoinder (February 27, 2021)

Part 1 of 4

Rob:

>>> Please take into advisement that over this entire post should be a disclaimer that I do not agree that working out the semantic and philosophical issues inherent in this particular line of argument is essential to the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation. <<<

 

Aaron:

/// Why is that? Could you please expand on this. ///

 

Rob:

>>> As I've explained before, and as you seem to anticipate, there is a difference between the following two claims:

P1. Only the Father is the true God.

P2. The Father is the only true God.

John 17:3 expresses P2, not P1, and orthodox Christians accept P2. <<<

 

Aaron:

/// Are you saying that John 17:3 *strictly* requires the P2 expression? ///

 

Rob:

>>> Now, some orthodox Christians do accept P1, but my point stands that these are not necessarily the same proposition. P1 means that the Father is the only member of the class "true God"; P2 means that the class "true God" is a class that excludes all false gods and that the Father is properly described as belonging to that class. To put it another way, "the only true God" is simply a more expansive designation for "God," so that there really is no difference between saying "the Father is God" and "the Father is the only true God." Now, I would agree that P2 would exclude Jesus as true God *if* the true God is one and only one person, the Father. However, that condition is basically Unitarianism. In short, yes, your argument *does* presuppose Unitarianism. <<<

 

Aaron:

/// From what I understand, there are Monarchical Trinitarians (and maybe Nicene Trinitarians?) who take John 17:3 to be expressing *both* P2 *and* the true God being one and only person, the Father, because he is the fountainhead of God, while they maintain the "full divinity" (whatever this means) of the Son, Jesus Christ.

If you're consistent, you would also have to call this condition basically Monarchical Trinitarianism, which *does* presuppose Monarchical Trinitarianism. But then you really cannot be consistent, because the positions Monarchical Trinitarianism and Unitarianism are contradictory, so that your accusation of "presupposing Unitarianism" would ultimately lead to self-refutation.

 

You're admitting that "some orthodox Christians do accept P1". I see. Could those specific "orthodox Christians" be Monarchical Trinitarian? I'm curious: Who are you referring to specifically? Now, from talking to the said Monarchical Trinitarians, they seem to assume that the placement of "only" does not matter, and for that they affirm both P1 and P2 to be expressions of John 17:3.

 

In any case, no it doesn't presuppose Unitarianism, because as I've stated in my OP the way the language is used in the Bible, it does not matter where "only" is placed. But you are disputing this claim. Let's see how your comeback holds. ///

 

Part 2 of 4

Aaron:

// But from the standpoint of the way the language is used in the Bible, it does not matter where "only" is placed. We know that the statements “Jesus is the only begotten Son” and “only Jesus is the begotten Son” have the same meaning in so far as “only” is placed in the statements. In John 17:3 "only" is used as a quantifier. It is making a quantification that the "true God" is *none* other than the Father. //

Rob:

>>> Your example isn't a very helpful one, because "only begotten" actually translated one word, not two, and it means something like "unique/only child" (context matters as far as the precise sense). "Jesus is the monogenes Son" is a true proposition, and yes, it entails that only Jesus is the Son specifically described as monogenes. "Only Jesus is the Son of God" is arguably not a true proposition, because (for example) Israel is God's son in a different sense. <<<

 

Aaron:

/// I'd like to hear you engage my statement: In John 17:3 "only" is used as a quantifier. It is making a quantification that the "true God" is *none* other than the Father.

I think my example does its job in making a point about the placement of "only". Your Israel example proves my point even more. That "only" Jesus being God's Son does not in any way pose a problem with Israel's being God's son, precisely because of what you said: They are sons in two different senses. ///

.

.

.

Aaron:

// Is there an example in the Bible where the placement of "only" matters? I don't think there is. If there is, then that may be a game changer in the debate. //

 

Rob:

>>> Perhaps there isn't, but that wouldn't matter, because (again) the logic of predication is stipulated to work somewhat differently in the unique case of God, if God is triune. <<<

 

Aaron:

/// You're saying that, if God is triune, the logic of predication is stipulated to work somewhat differently. Is it because God is unique in that God is triune? Explain how this is. You're not saying that logic works differently when comes to God. Are you? I hope not. I would like you to be as clear as you possibly can when you explain yourself here please. ///

 

Rob:

>>> In other words, the placement probably wouldn't matter when making predications of individual finite beings, but it might matter when making predications about one of the divine persons united as/in one divine being. <<<

 

Aaron:

/// You're using the words "probably" and "might", as though you're not sure or tentative. Care to elaborate? ///

 

Rob:

>>> Perhaps more relevant is the fact that there are biblical texts that use the word "only" in which, if you applied the same reasoning as you are using here, we would have to conclude that the text is self-contradictory. I'll give you two examples.

After the Flood, according to Genesis, “Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark” (Gen. 7:23). The Septuagint translation uses the word monos, as in John 17:3. From a woodenly simplistic grammatical analysis, it may appear that “those who were with him in the ark” are distinguished from the “only” one who “was left” (the verb is in the singular form, indicating literally that only one person was left). But such an inference is clearly contrary to the intent of the statement as a whole in context. The statement singles out Noah as the one who “alone” was left alive after the Flood, yet its intended meaning is clearly not to exclude “those that were with him in the ark” as also having survived.

The same idiomatic way of speaking occurs in the passage about the woman caught in adultery, which says that Jesus “was left alone [monos], and [kai] the woman who was in the midst” (John 8:9, my translation). (I agree with the consensus of biblical scholars that John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the original Gospel of John, but it does show how Greek writers of the period used such language, which is all that matters here.)

The point is that one must consider what is actually being said in context and not treat an apparent grammatical disjunction in a woodenly literal way. <<<

Aaron:

/// As I've stated again and again, I certainly agree that we cannot take a verse or two in isolation. We must take the whole counsel of God, the Bible, into consideration and account for all the relevant texts. ///

 

Rob:

>>> The same caution also applies to John 17:3 (although it is not using precisely the same idiom as the above two texts). The verse affirms that eternal life consists in knowing the Father and Jesus Christ. Now this is a startling statement if Christ is just a creature, no matter how great. <<<

 

Aaron:

/// At one level it is startling to me, for how could God possibly make a mere creature, as the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5), be that great?

At another level it shouldn't be startling to me (and it isn't), because I believe that God is *powerful enough* to exalt this man to the highest status, making him Lord (Phil. 2:8-11). Why would I want to limit God? God is God, and I am not. ///

 

Rob:

>>> Eternal life is all about knowing God—that is, about having a relationship with him in which we know him personally, in which we enjoy life with him forever. John 17:3 expands this observation to say that eternal life consists in knowing both the Father and Jesus Christ. <<<

 

Aaron:

/// Amen! And to clarify, eternal life consists in knowing both the Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. ///

 

Rob:

>>> In this context, Christ’s reference to his Father as “the only true God” does not exclude himself from that status. Rather, Christ is honoring the Father as God while trusting the Father to exalt him at the proper time. Thus, Jesus immediately goes on to affirm that he had devoted his time on earth to glorifying the Father (v. 4) and to ask the Father in turn to glorify him (v. 5). <<<

 

Aaron:

/// Now, wait just a minute! If Christ is "the only true God" too (just like the Father) why wait for the Father to exalt him at the proper time? If Christ is "the only true God" too (just like the Father), then he's already up there equal with the Father as "the only true God".

If you come back with "Well, the doctrine of the Incarnation holds that Christ the God-man was to be exalted at the proper time" or something to that effect, it still wouldn't solve the problem, because there is the "God" part (in 'God'-man) that's already exalted that doesn't require exaltation. ///

 

Part 3 of 4

Aaron:

// Some might comeback with: “You are assuming Unitarianism in order to prove Unitarianism.” No I’m not. I’m merely applying the way the Bible talks, and we even the modern readers intuitively and naturally apply the same way of talking in our day-to-day conversation with others. // 

 

Rob:

>>> I think I've shown that yes, you are assuming Unitarianism, because you are assuming that the language of predication used of God works in the same way as when used about finite beings "in our day-to-day conversation with others." <<<

 

Aaron:

/// This is not assuming Unitarianism. This is assuming and applying the way the Bible talks. You’re conflating the two. So, no you haven't shown me that I'm assuming Unitarianism.

 

First, to illustrate my application of the way the Bible talks, I provided an example of Donald Trump being the only true President, which you did not address in your reply. If Trump is the only true President, then no one else is. No one else is what? "true President". Similarly, if the Father is the only true God, then no one else is. No one else is what? "true God". To be clear, the language doesn't just exclude Christ; it excludes others who are not the Father.

 

Second, you're conflating the two things I said: (1) "I’m merely applying the way the Bible talks." I expanded this by providing an example of Jesus being the only begotten Son of God and only Jesus being the begotten Son of God. (See my further reply on this.) I also asked if there's any biblical example in which the placement of "only" matters, to which you answered "Perhaps there isn't". (See my further reply on this.) The very admittance that there *isn't* a biblical example itself supports what I think the way the Bible talks. For this reason alone, I'm not assuming Unitarianism.

 

(2) I also said that we *even* the modern readers intuitively and naturally apply the same way of talking in our day-to-day conversation with others. This was only meant to be a confirmation of the way the Bible places "only" in the way it talks.

Third, see my post above that this accusation of yours would I think ultimately lead to self-refutation on your part. ///

 

Rob:

>>> Also, I've given some evidence that "the way the Bible talks" sometimes runs counter to what "modern readers intuitively and naturally" expect. <<<

 

Aaron:

/// I do agree that Bible talks do sometime go against modern readers' intuition. But the "evidence" you provided do not, at all, have any negative effect on my position. ///

.

.

.

Aaron:

// 2. ...Since he does not include himself, it would follow that he is excluding himself from being in the category "the only true God". //

 

Rob:

>>> No, that does not follow at all. That's a blatant argument from silence. <<<

 

Aaron:

/// Rather than calling it "a blatant argument from silence" I'd like to hear you provide a reason why it's that. Besides, you took a small part of what I said and left a big chunk. Let me repost the whole thing with some emphasis, and I ask that you engage it.

Let's go strictly with "you [Father], the only true God,” so that we have the statement “The Father is the only true God”.

According to the text, the ONLY PERSON Jesus places in the category “the only true God” is the Father—no one else. Jesus does NOT INCLUDE HIMSELF in the category (NOR does he include ANYONE ELSE). (Sorry. I'm not yelling, only emphasizing.) Jesus does not say “that they know you [Father] *AND ME* [Jesus Christ], the only true God”. Since he does not include himself, it would follow that he is excluding himself from being in the category "the only true God".

Let me ask you: When Jesus said "you [Father] the only true God," does he exclude *anyone* at all from the category "the only true God"? Who does Jesus include in that category? ///

.

.

.

Aaron:

// 3. Being that it is appositive, the grammar interchangeably allows “you [Father]” and “the only true God” as subject and predicate, which logically points to the exclusion of Jesus as the only true God (unless the Bible teaches Modalism).

We may grammatically construct the appositive as (1) "The Father is the only true God" and (2) "The only true God is the Father." These constructions show that the only true God *just is* the Father: Father=the only true God; the only true God=Father. They have the form a=b and b=a. //

 

Rob:

>>> I'm starting to wonder how many times I need to answer this argument. That's an overly cut-and-dried, wooden understanding of apposition. I thought I explained this to you not long ago and you conceded the point, backing down to the softer claim that the apposition *could* be interpreted in a completely interchangeable manner, not that it "logically" must be, <<<

 

Aaron:

/// There's an OP by Bobby Glen Thomas (2/20/21) in this forum under which you posted: "Apposition can be used for description or for further identification or specification; it does not automatically or invariably express complete interchangeability in all contexts."

To which I replied: "I agree. What I would like to hear you acknowledge is that the grammar itself, at least, *allows* such an interchangeability. Of course, grammar all by itself does not decide. And yes everything that the Bible says needs to be taken into account."

Then you replied: "Aaron, if all you want to claim is that there *could* be complete interchangeability between appositional elements, depending on context and all relevant information being considered, you've got my support. Up to now, whenever I've seen this issue raised by Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, et. al., they have made a strong claim that the grammar requires us to understand John 17:3 in such a way that Jesus Christ is absolutely excluded from being recognized in other statements as truly God."

I don't see anywhere here that I conceded the point. I'm still maintaining that the appositive allows the interchangeability of "Father" and "the only true God" as subject and predicate. I see no restriction to this. You would need to provide an argument why P2 (The Father is the only true God) is *strictly* the required expression of John 17:3, if this is your position. ///

 

Part 4 of 4

Aaron:

// 4. If Jesus being the only true God is part and parcel of knowledge of eternal life, then he missed a great opportunity to mention that one very important thing. Well, Jesus didn’t mention it. It must not be important and, for that matter, true. //

 

Rob:

>>> Hence my stipulation in my first response to you in this thread:

"Avoid begging the question by assuming, for example, that if the NT writers wanted to teach 'X' they would have worded it in such-and-such a manner, or they would have mentioned it in this or that place."

The claim that if something was important it would have been mentioned in this or that specific text runs afoul of the fact that probably no one text or passage explicitly states everything that would be considered important to know. For example, John 17:3 says nothing about the atonement or the resurrection. It's just bad reasoning. <<<

 

Aaron:

/// I agree that no single biblical text captures all the important truths to be known, and here you are strawmanning: I never said that a text has to state explicitly everything that would be considered important to know. John 17:3 says nothing about the atonement or the resurrection, because the atonement or the resurrection are not under discussion in the text. But "the Father" being "the only true God" and "Jesus Christ" being "sent by the Father" and "knowledge of these two" being "eternal life" are under discussion in John 17:3. For this reason, I maintain that if Christ being the only true God--too, in addition to the Father--is part and parcel of knowledge of eternal life, then he missed a great opportunity to mention that one very important thing; well, he didn’t mention it; it must not be important and, for that matter, true. ///

 

Rob:

>>> Although I do not need to offer an explanation for why Jesus did not mention his being the one true God with the Father at this particular moment, I happen to have an explanation. Jesus humbled himself and came to glorify the Father, and he abided by the principle that one should not seek his own glory (e.g., John 7:18). This principle actually resonated with the honor/shame culture in which Jesus lived (as just one example, see Prov. 27:2). Christ's focus in John 17:3 was to honor his Father when addressing him humbly in prayer (as the divine Son incarnate, fully human). <<<

 

Aaron:

/// You're saying that Jesus (the only true God) humbled himself and came to glorify the Father (the only true God), and he, Jesus, (the only true God) abided by the principle that one should not seek his (the only true God's) own glory (e.g., John 7:18). This principle actually resonated with the honor/shame culture in which Jesus (the only true God) lived (as just one example, see Prov. 27:2). Christ's (the only true God's) focus in John 17:3 was to honor his (the only true God's) Father (the only true God) when addressing him (the only true God) humbly in prayer (as the divine Son incarnate, fully human).

And this is what you offer as an explanation of why Jesus did not mention his being the one true God? ///

Does John 17:3 Exclude Others, Such as Jesus Christ, as the "True God"? Part 1

I'm a member of a private Facebook group called Trinities. On February 24, 2021 I made a post there titled Does John 17:3 exclude others, such as Jesus Christ, as the "true God"? There are a number of responders, and I'm honored that Robert M. Bowman Jr. is one of them.

Bowman is a prominent and well respected Trinitarian apologist whose work I've quoted numerous times in this blog. I am currently having a dialogue with him. With Bowman's permission, I'm  presenting our exchange in this blog in several parts. He asked me to include a link to his blog.

Here's the post I made with Bowman's first rebuttal. Thank you in advance, dear readers, for any feedback that might be useful to this exchange.

Does John 17:3 exclude others, such as Jesus Christ, as the "true God"? 

“And this is eternal life, that they know you [Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). 

 

Consider the following. 

 

1. The language of the text appears to exclude Jesus as true God. 

 

If the Father is the only true God, then no one else is. It’s similar to the statement “Donald Trump is the only true President.” (This is from the standpoint of many Americans who believe that Joe Biden’s presidency is illegitimate, because they believe he stole the election.) Now, if Trump is the only true President, then no else is. 

 

So, since the Father is the only true God, it follows that no one else is—not Jesus, nor anyone else. To be sure, the text does not say "only you [Father], the true God". Rather, it says "you [Father], the only true God". Notice the placement of “only”. This would clearly be saying that only the Father, and no one else, is the true God. 

 

But from the standpoint of the way the language is used in the Bible, it does not matter where "only" is placed. We know that the statements “Jesus is the only begotten Son” and “only Jesus is the begotten Son” have the same meaning in so far as “only” is placed in the statements. In John 17:3 "only" is used as a quantifier. It is making a quantification that the "true God" is *none* other than the Father. 

 

Is there an example in the Bible where the placement of "only" matters? I don't think there is. If there is, then that may be a game changer in the debate. 

 

Some might comeback with: “You are assuming Unitarianism in order to prove Unitarianism.” No I’m not. I’m merely applying the way the Bible talks, and we even the modern readers intuitively and naturally apply the same way of talking in our day-to-day conversation with others. So, an application of this language points to the direction of declaring the Father as exclusively true God, and no else. It seems clear to me that the language does not exclude just Jesus; it excludes others that are not the Father. 

 

Moreover, there are Trinity theories that accommodate this application of language. One is Monarchical Trinitarianism in which the Father alone (or only the Father) is said to be the true God, while somehow attempting to maintain that Jesus too is true God in some sense. 

 

2. Let's go strictly with "you [Father], the only true God,” so that we have the statement “The Father is the only true God”. 

 

According to the text, the only person Jesus places in the category “the only true God” is the Father—no one else. Jesus does not include himself in the category (nor does he include anyone else). He does not say “that they know you [Father] *and me* [Jesus Christ], the only true God”. Since he does not include himself, it would follow that he is excluding himself from being in the category "the only true God". 

 

3. Being that it is appositive, the grammar interchangeably allows “you [Father]” and “the only true God” as subject and predicate, which logically points to the exclusion of Jesus as the only true God (unless the Bible teaches Modalism). 

 

We may grammatically construct the appositive as (1) "The Father is the only true God" and (2) "The only true God is the Father." These constructions show that the only true God *just is* the Father: Father=the only true God; the only true God=Father. They have the form a=b and b=a. 

 

A number of Trinity theories hold the view that Jesus is (the only true) God (in addition to God the Father). However, if Jesus is God in this sense, it would follow that Jesus is identical to the Father, which the said Trinity theories deny. 

 

4. If Jesus being the only true God is part and parcel of knowledge of eternal life, then he missed a great opportunity to mention that one very important thing. Well, Jesus didn’t mention it. It must not be important and, for that matter, true. 

 

Together these considerations seem to make a cumulative case for thinking that John 17:3 excludes others—such as Jesus—as the “true God” or “the only true God”. 

 

Bowman's First Rebuttal (February 24, 2021)

Please take into advisement that over this entire post should be a disclaimer that I do not agree that working out the semantic and philosophical issues inherent in this particular line of argument is essential to the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation. 

 

// 1. The language of the text appears to exclude Jesus as true God. //

 

As I've explained before, and as you seem to anticipate, there is a difference between the following two claims: 

P1. Only the Father is the true God.

P2. The Father is the only true God. 

 

John 17:3 expresses P2, not P1, and orthodox Christians accept P2. Now, some orthodox Christians do accept P1, but my point stands that these are not necessarily the same proposition. P1 means that the Father is the only member of the class "true God"; P2 means that the class "true God" is a class that excludes all false gods and that the Father is properly described as belonging to that class. To put it another way, "the only true God" is simply a more expansive designation for "God," so that there really is no difference between saying "the Father is God" and "the Father is the only true God." 

 

Now, I would agree that P2 would exclude Jesus as true God *if* the true God is one and only one person, the Father. However, that condition is basically Unitarianism. In short, yes, your argument *does* presuppose Unitarianism. 

 

You say: 

// But from the standpoint of the way the language is used in the Bible, it does not matter where "only" is placed. We know that the statements “Jesus is the only begotten Son” and “only Jesus is the begotten Son” have the same meaning in so far as “only” is placed in the statements. In John 17:3 "only" is used as a quantifier. It is making a quantification that the "true God" is *none* other than the Father. // 

 

That is precisely the disputed claim. 

 

Your example isn't a very helpful one, because "only begotten" actually translated one word, not two, and it means something like "unique/only child" (context matters as far as the precise sense). "Jesus is the monogenes Son" is a true proposition, and yes, it entails that only Jesus is the Son specifically described as monogenes. "Only Jesus is the Son of God" is arguably not a true proposition, because (for example) Israel is God's son in a different sense. 

 

You asked:

// Is there an example in the Bible where the placement of "only" matters? I don't think there is. If there is, then that may be a game changer in the debate. // 

 

Perhaps there isn't, but that wouldn't matter, because (again) the logic of predication is stipulated to work somewhat differently in the unique case of God, if God is triune. In other words, the placement probably wouldn't matter when making predications of individual finite beings, but it might matter when making predications about one of the divine persons united as/in one divine being. 

 

Perhaps more relevant is the fact that there are biblical texts that use the word "only" in which, if you applied the same reasoning as you are using here, we would have to conclude that the text is self-contradictory. I'll give you two examples. 

 

After the Flood, according to Genesis, “Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark” (Gen. 7:23). The Septuagint translation uses the word monos, as in John 17:3. From a woodenly simplistic grammatical analysis, it may appear that “those who were with him in the ark” are distinguished from the “only” one who “was left” (the verb is in the singular form, indicating literally that only one person was left). But such an inference is clearly contrary to the intent of the statement as a whole in context. The statement singles out Noah as the one who “alone” was left alive after the Flood, yet its intended meaning is clearly not to exclude “those that were with him in the ark” as also having survived. 

 

The same idiomatic way of speaking occurs in the passage about the woman caught in adultery, which says that Jesus “was left alone [monos], and [kai] the woman who was in the midst” (John 8:9, my translation). (I agree with the consensus of biblical scholars that John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the original Gospel of John, but it does show how Greek writers of the period used such language, which is all that matters here.) 

 

The point is that one must consider what is actually being said in context and not treat an apparent grammatical disjunction in a woodenly literal way. 

 

The same caution also applies to John 17:3 (although it is not using precisely the same idiom as the above two texts). The verse affirms that eternal life consists in knowing the Father and Jesus Christ. Now this is a startling statement if Christ is just a creature, no matter how great. Eternal life is all about knowing God—that is, about having a relationship with him in which we know him personally, in which we enjoy life with him forever. John 17:3 expands this observation to say that eternal life consists in knowing both the Father and Jesus Christ. In this context, Christ’s reference to his Father as “the only true God” does not exclude himself from that status. Rather, Christ is honoring the Father as God while trusting the Father to exalt him at the proper time. Thus, Jesus immediately goes on to affirm that he had devoted his time on earth to glorifying the Father (v. 4) and to ask the Father in turn to glorify him (v. 5). 

 

You wrote: 

// Some might comeback with: “You are assuming Unitarianism in order to prove Unitarianism.” No I’m not. I’m merely applying the way the Bible talks, and we even the modern readers intuitively and naturally apply the same way of talking in our day-to-day conversation with others. // 

 

I think I've shown that yes, you are assuming Unitarianism, because you are assuming that the language of predication used of God works in the same way as when used about finite beings "in our day-to-day conversation with others."

 

Also, I've given some evidence that "the way the Bible talks" sometimes runs counter to what "modern readers intuitively and naturally" expect.

The Father Alone is the One God – Part 3

The Father, One God
7. 1 Corinthians 8:6
"[Y]et for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

Here, it cannot be clearer than that the "one God" is "the Father" and that Jesus Christ is identified as "one Lord". Does this mean the Father is not "Lord"? The lordship of Jesus Christ is unique, for it is bestowed upon him alone, hence "one Lord", by God the Father. Whereas the lordship of the Father is not bestowed at all, for it is inherent in him.

In Acts 2 we are told that God raised Jesus to life and made him "both Lord and Messiah" (vv. 32 and 36). The apostle Paul, author of First Corinthians, writes in Romans 14:9, "Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living."

Moreover, in Philippians 2 Paul tells us that God exalted Jesus "to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (vv. 9-11).

McGrath,[1] Bowman,[2] Rhodes,[3] and Geisler[4] use 1 Corinthians 8:6 to establish the oneness of the Trinitarian God.

8. Ephesians 4:4-6
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

This text, too, provides a clear indication that the "one God" is none other than the Father (Eph. 1:2; 5:20; 6:23). In opening his letter, Paul gives praise to this one God who is "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1:3; cf. v. 17). There is nothing here about Jesus being the one God.

McGrath,[5] Bowman,[6] Rhodes,[7] Bowman and Komoszewski,[8] and Geisler[9] cite Ephesians 4:6 as another basis for Trinitarian monotheism.

9. 1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus."

In verse four Paul declares that God "wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth". Two basic essentials of the truth to be known are in order. (1) The "one God" being spoken of here is "God the Father" (1 Tim. 1:2). (2) The one mediator between this God and and mankind is "the man Christ Jesus". There is no hint in Paul's declaration of Jesus being the "one God and man" or "God-man". If, for Paul, Jesus being a God-man is an essential truth to be known, then he missed a great opportunity to inform his readers. The fact is Paul does not say anything about Jesus being God-man in this letter or any of his other writings in the New Testament.

First Timothy 2:5 is perhaps one of the most often quoted biblical references in establishing the oneness of the Trinitarian God, as McGrath,[10] Bowman,[11] Rhodes,[12] Bowman and Komoszewski,[13] and Geisler[14] do in their respective work.

10. James 2:19
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."

Who is the "one God" according to the epistle of James? It is "God our Father" (1:27). The author does not identify Jesus as the one God—in addition to the Father, nor does he give a hint to the idea.

McGrath,[15] Bowman,[16] Rhodes,[17] Bowman and Komoszewski,[18] and Geisler[19] refer to James 2:19 as also a basis for the Trinitarian view of God.

Conclusion
Using biblical texts as the ten discussed above to establish the oneness of a Trinitarian God—without providing a single text that clearly and decisively points to Jesus as the one God—is problematic. The only two established premises are: there is but one God; that one God is the Father. These premises seem to amount to what was stated in the first article: If the Bible singles out the Father—and no one else as the one God, then it follows that Jesus is not the one God of the Bible—in addition to God the Father.

For this reason, it appears that Trinitarians are saddled with a burden to mount up a particular case: Although the Bible does not directly identify Jesus as the one God, there are indirect biblical indications that identify him as such. Or, are there?

I would submit that mounting up this case is difficult, complicated, long and messy. Minimally, Trinitarians would need to clearly define what it means for Jesus to be (1) “fully divine” (whatever this means) and at the same time (2) “fully human” (whatever this means).

While attempting to establish Jesus’ “full divinity”, Trinitarians must not confuse him with God the Father in terms of “personhood” (whatever this means). This is very important because, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Son and the Father are “one being” (whatever this means). That is, while the two are the one God, the Son and the Father are two distinct persons.

To be sure, just because mounting up a case for Jesus being the one God of the Bible is difficult, complicated, long and messy, it does not automatically mean that the doctrine of the Trinity itself is unbiblical. It just means that the burden is on the Trinitarians to demonstrate that it is biblical. Until they do so successfully, if we want to be biblical Christians, we are—to say the least—free to regard the doctrine as unbiblical and hence non-essential to salvation.

____________________
[1] McGrath, 120.
[2] Bowman, 50.
[3] Rhodes, 95, 269.
[4] Geisler, 39.
[5] McGrath, 120.
[6] Bowman, 50.
[7] Rhodes, 72, 95, 248, 269.
[8] Bowman and Komoszewski, 166.
[9] Geisler, 39, 270.
[10] McGrath, 121.
[11] Bowman, 50.
[12] Rhodes, 72, 248, 269.
[13] Bowman and Komoszewski, 166.
[14] Geisler, 39, 270.
[15] McGrath, 121.
[16] Bowman, 50.
[17] Rhodes, 72, 95, 248, 269.
[18] Bowman and Komoszewski, 166.
[19] Geisler, 39.

The Father Alone is the One God – Part 2

The Father, the Only God
3. John 5:43-44
“I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?”

In this setting, the Jews are persecuting Jesus for healing a paralytic on a Sabbath day (John 5:7-18). Jesus knew the Jews did not have the love of God in their hearts (John 5:42). They accepted glory from others and rejected Jesus despite of the fact that he came in his Father’s name (John 5:43). Jesus is asking how the Jews can accept glory from others, but not seek the glory that comes from the “only God” (John 5:44), namely, the Father of Jesus (John 5:43; John 17:1-3). Jesus singles out the Father as the only God and, again, never singles out himself as such in this text or anywhere else in the Bible.

At an apologetics website called Apologetics Index, Bowman posted an outline for the biblical basis of the Trinity, using a variety of biblical references to establish the doctrine. The outline included John 5:44 to show that there is one God as an “explicit” statement in the Bible.[1] Bowman does not provide a reference that explicitly says Jesus is the only God.

One Trinitarian named Bert Thompson of Apologetics Press quotes from K.C. Moser’s book Attributes of God. Thompson writes, “While those who were involved in the false religions that surrounded the Jews worshipped a myriad of non-existent gods and goddesses, the Israelites worshipped ‘Jehovah the true God, the living God, an everlasting King’ (. . . ‘the only God,’ John 5:44).”[2] Thompson does not provide a verse for Jesus being the only God.

Sam Shamoun of Answering Islam is a vehement defender of the doctrine. He uses John 5:44 as one of the bases for Trinitarian monotheism. He writes, “The heart of the Trinity is that there is only one eternal God, only one sovereign Creator and Sustainer, and that there is nothing like him (. . . John 5:44. . .).[3] Like other Trinitarian apologists, Shamoun does not provide a verse where Jesus is identified as the only God.

4. 1 Timothy 1:17
“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul greets him and ascribes to the “only God” honor and glory for ever and ever. The “only God” is a reference to “God the Father” and not to “Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2).

Trinitarian scholars John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck make an important comment on Paul’s use of “only God” in 1 Timothy 1:17. In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, Walvoord and Zuck write, “The only God emphasizes His uniqueness in a typical Jewish monotheistic fashion. To this God alone must all honor and glory be ascribed, eternally.”[4]

McGrath,[5] Bowman,[6] Rhodes,[7] and Bowman and Komoszewski[8] use 1 Timothy 1:17 as yet another basis for establishing Trinitarian monotheism.

5. Jude 25 
“[T]o the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.”

Who is the “only God” according to the Epistle of Jude? Verse one tells us: “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ.” God the Father is the ultimate recipient of “glory, majesty, power and authority,” whereas Jesus Christ is the agent through whom these qualities are ascribed.

McGrath,[9] Bowman,[10] Rhodes,[11] Bowman and Komoszewski,[12] and Shamoun [13] use Jude 25 in establishing the view that the one true God is a Trinity.

The Father, the Only Wise God
6. Romans 16:27
“[T]o the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.”

Here Paul had a perfect opportunity to point out that the “only wise God” is “Jesus Christ” or both Jesus Christ and the Father. Instead, Paul draws a clear distinction between the two, just as what was done in Jude. The “only wise God” here is none other than “God our Father” as seen in Romans 1:7. Again God the Father is the ultimate recipient of “glory forever,” whereas Jesus is the agent through whom glory forever is given.

Rhodes uses this verse in the first of a three-step case for the Trinitarian God. His remarks are worth quoting:
“The fact that there is only one true God is the consistent testimony of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. It is a thread that runs through every page of the Bible. God positively affirms through Isaiah the prophet: ‘This is what the LORD says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and the last; apart from me there is no God’ (44:6). God also says, ‘I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me’ (Isa. 46:9).”[14]

Rhodes then states that the verses he quoted from the book of Isaiah “and a multitude of other verses” including Rom. 16:27 “make it clear that there is one and only one God.”[15] What is also clear from the verses he cites is that none of them says Jesus is the “one and only one God.”

Bowman[16] and Bowman and Komoszewski[17] use Romans 16:27 as yet another scriptural basis for the oneness of the Trinitarian God. Looking at the discussed Bible references, the only oneness established thus far is the Father—not the Trinitarian God—being the one God.

Updated January 22, 2021
____________________
[1] Robert Bowman, “The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity,” in Apologetics Index, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/t04.html (accessed June 3, 2017).
[2] Bert Thompson, “Is God Male?,” in Apologetics Press, http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1165 (accessed June 3, 2017), http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/god_male.pdf (accessed December 7, 2020).
[3] Ibid.
[4] John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 1983), 733, emphasis in original.
[5] McGrath, 120-21.
[6] Bowman, 50.
[7] Rhodes, 72.
[8] Bowman and Komoszewski, 340 note 31.
[9] McGrath, 121.
[10] Bowman, 50.
[11] Rhodes, 72.
[12] Bowman and Komoszewski, 340 note 31.
[13] Shamoun, “The Holy Spirit in Christianity and Islam.”
[14] Rhodes, 269.
[15] Ibid.; cf. 72, 95, 248.
[16] Bowman, 50.
[17] Bowman and Komoszewski, 340 note 31.

The Father Alone is the One God - Part 1

One foundational pillar of the doctrine of the Trinity is that the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah, is the one God of the Bible—in addition to God the Father. This teaching is affirmed in the Trinitarian model presented in What is the Trinity? (see C.1 and C.2.). If this pillar goes, then the whole doctrine collapses.

In my journey out of belief in the Trinity, this pillar was first to go. It was heartbreaking to let go because I loved the Trinitarian God with all of my heart, soul, mind and strength as I tried to follow what Jesus commanded in Mark 12:30. I remember when I sang with full delight and awe a favorite of hymn of mine. For me the last two lines were the most beautiful.
“Holy, holy, holy; merciful and mighty!
God in three Persons, blessed Trinity!”

In most of my life, I defended the Trinity as absolute truth and at the very heart of Christianity until I discovered later that it is not even taught in the Bible. Instead, the Bible teaches that the Father alone is the one God. The basis for this teaching is derived from two findings.

1. The Bible singles out the Father as the one God.
2. The Bible singles out no one else as the one God.

Together the two make up the teaching that the Father alone is the one God. These findings go directly against a number of areas in the Trinitarian doctrine, of which is the teaching that Jesus is the one God. If the Bible singles out the Father—and no one else as the one God, then it follows that Jesus is not the one God of the Bible—in addition to God the Father.

In this and the next two articles I aim to establish that the Father alone is the one God of the Bible, which renders Jesus being the one God unbiblical. To that end, I will discuss ten most commonly cited biblical references that directly point to who the one God is, engage several popular Trinitarian works, and demonstrate that Trinitarians do not provide a single decisively clear biblical statement for Jesus being the one God of the Bible.

The Father, the Only True God

1. John 17:1-3

“After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: ‘Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.’”[1]

In praying for his disciples, Jesus addresses the Father as the “only true God”. He identifies himself as the one whom this only true God, the Father, has “sent”. He does not identify himself as the one true God in this text or anywhere else in the Gospel of John.[2] Neither does Jesus do so anywhere in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke or even where Jesus is quoted by the Apostle Paul in any of his epistles.

Ironically, Trinitarian apologists use John 17:3 to maintain their claim for absolute biblical monotheism.[3] They do this despite of the fact that the “only true God” is a reference to God the Father.

For sure, establishing the Father as the one true God is a necessary step in making a case for one’s biblical monotheistic view. However, there is a gaping hole in Trinitarian apologetics in making a case for a Trinitarian view of God: There is not a single Bible verse that clearly and decisively singles out Jesus as the one true God.[4]

Prominent Trinitarian apologist Robert M. Bowman, Jr. uses John 17:3 as one of his biblical basis for Trinitarian monotheism.[5] In Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Bowman writes, “There is only one Almighty God Jehovah, and he alone is to be worshipped—but the Bible also states flatly that he is the only God. More precisely, the Bible says that there is only one true God.”[6]

Similarly, cult expert Ron Rhodes uses John 17:3 as a basis for Trinitarian monotheism. He wrote a book titled The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions. Rhodes’ purpose was to train those involved with dialoguing with people in cults “with a view to motivate them to use their religious freedom to choose to leave the cult and transfer allegiance to the one true God of whom Scripture speaks (John 17:3).”[7]

Usage of John 17:3 as a basis for Trinitarian monotheism is not confined within the Trinitarian apologetic movement. It is also found amongst other Trinitarian works. For example, well-respected theologian Alister E. McGrath writes, “The New Testament emphasizes that there is only one God (. . . John 17:3. . .).”[8]

The Father, the Only One God

2. Romans 3:29-30
“Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.”

The “only one God” of both the Jews and Gentiles that Paul refers to here is none other than the Father (Rom. 1:7). He singles out the Father as the only one (true) God (cf. 1 Thess. 1:9) and never does this to Jesus in any of his writings in the New Testament.

Romans 3:30 is used by Bowman in his work with J. Ed Komoszewski to establish Trinitarian monotheism. They write, “Paul and other New Testament writers echo the Shema when they affirm that God is one or that there is one God,” citing Romans 3:30 as one of the biblical references, but they do not cite a reference to Jesus being the one true God.[9]

In volume two of his four-volume work, apologist Norman L. Geisler uses Romans 3:30 as one of the verses to support belief in absolute biblical monotheism. He writes, “[I]t is evident from these many verses that there is, absolutely, only one God. But if God is absolutely one, then He cannot be divided into many gods.”[10] Here, it appears that Geisler is trying to establish monotheism in general, rather than Trinitarian monotheism in particular. However, nowhere in any of his works, that I know of, does Geisler provide a verse that identifies Jesus as the only one God.

What is more, notice how Rhodes tries to establish Trinitarian monotheism. He provides three lines of evidence: (1) there is “only one true God”; (2) there are three persons who are God; (3) there is evidence that indicates “three-in-oneness within the Godhead.”[11] However, as to the first line of evidence, Rhodes uses Romans 3:30 as one of the biblical references, and none of the other references he uses speaks of Jesus being the “only one true God.”[12]

Lastly, Romans 3:30 is on McGrath’s list of biblical references for the Father being the “only one God.”[13] He recognizes the fact that the “only one God” referred to both in the Old Testament and the New Testament is none other than the Father.[14] McGrath states that it is clear that the only one “God is not identified with Jesus: for example, Jesus refers to God as someone other than himself; he prays to God; and finally he commends his spirit to God as he dies.”[15]

Updated January 15, 2021
____________________
[1] Scripture references in these three articles are from the New International Version of the Bible (2011).

[2] Three further considerations pertaining to John 17:3 are in order. First, notice that the only person Jesus places in the category “only true God” is the Father. He does not place anyone else—not even himself—in that category. Second, it seems natural to think that John 17:3 by itself would settle the issue once and for all that the Father alone is the God of the Bible because of the nature of the language. For if the Father is the only true God, then no one else is, not even Jesus Christ. Consider the statement “Donald Trump is the only true President.” If Donald Trump is the only true President, then no one else is, not even Joe Biden. However, there are Trinitarian apologists who do not apply this language to the text for reasons I plan to address in my future blogs. For now, suffice it to say that, while I believe that John 17:3 should settle the issue, my contention here does not rest on the natural way to think of the language of the text. My contention, rather, is that the Bible en toto points to no else but the Father as the one God, which necessarily disqualifies Jesus as such. Third, if “eternal life” is to “know” Jesus as the one God—in addition to the Father, then Jesus missed the opportunity to say so. Trinitarians have their work cut out for them to establish that Jesus did ever say that he is the one God. In fact, they can’t because nowhere in the Bible did Jesus ever say this about himself. So they would have to take some other route to establish that Jesus is the one God of the Bible—in addition to the Father, another topic I plan to address in my future blogs.

[3] As will be realized, the Bible references discussed in these articles all point to none other than God the Father in support of absolute biblical monotheism.
[4] In an attempt to establish that Jesus is the one God of the Bible, some Trinitarians use 1 John 5:20 to argue that “this is the true God” is a clear reference to Jesus Christ. However, even amongst Trinitarians, this is a highly contested—and hence too problematic a—text to be used as a reference to Christ. For a number of reasons this text fails to be a decisively clear indication that Jesus is the one God of the Bible. For an excellent exegetical treatment of 1 John 5:20, see Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 236-53.

[5] I draw a distinction between monotheism in general (the view that most people naturally think of God as one person, one being) and Trinitarian monotheism in particular (the peculiar view that Trinitarians think of God as three persons, one being).

[6] Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 51, emphasis in original.
[7] Ron Rhodes, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 15, emphasis in original; cf. 72, 95, 248, 269.
[8] Alister E. McGrath, Understanding the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Academic Books, 1988), 120-121.

[9] Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: the Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007), 166.
[10] Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology: God, Creation, vol. 2 (Minneapolis, Minn: Bethany House, 2003), 39-40.
[11] Rhodes, 248.
[12] Ibid.
[13] McGrath, 120.
[14] Ibid. 120-21, 123.
[15] Ibid. 120-21, emphasis in original.

What is the Trinity?

Most Christians today believe that the Trinity is taught in the Bible. Although majority affirm the teaching by faith, they really don't understand it. According Trinitarian apologist James R. White, the doctrine is "so misunderstood that a majority of Christians, when asked, give incorrect and at times downright heretical definitions of the Trinity."[1]

Norman Geisler, another Trinitarian apologist, contends that, although the term "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, the concept is taught in it as a logical conclusion. "The logic of the doctrine of the Trinity is simple. Two biblical truths are evident in Scripture, the logical conclusion of which is the Trinity.

1. There is one God.

2. There are three distinct persons who are God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit."[2]

Geisler suggests that God has one What and three Whos. "The three Whos (persons) each share the same What (essence). So God is a unity of essence with a plurality of persons. Each person is different, yet they share a common nature."[3]

White adds a third feature in defining the Trinity. He states that the belief is based on three biblical foundations.

1. Monotheism: There is only one God.

2. There are three divine persons.

3. The persons are coequal and coeternal.

White explains, "Christians believe in the Trinity not because the term itself is given in some creedlike form in the text of Scripture. Instead, they believe in the Trinity because the Bible, taken in its completeness, accepted as a self-consistent revelation of God, teaches that there is one Being of God (Foundation One) that is shared fully (Foundation Three) by three divine persons (Foundation Two), the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."[4]

A Representation of the Trinity

When I was a Trinitarian, I frequently ran in to this diagram. It is an attempt to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity.

With the help of this diagram, I understood the doctrine a certain way. That understanding was drawn from what I gathered the Bible is teaching and what Trinitarian theologians, apologists and philosophers I read are saying. Here is what seems to be the best and simplest way the doctrine can be outlined.

A. There is one God.

B. The one God is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

C. Individually,

1. the Father is the one God,
2. the Son is the one God, and
3. the Holy Spirit is the one God.

D. Collectively, these three persons are the one God.

E. Distinctly,

1. the Father is not the Son,

2. the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and

3. the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

Did I misrepresent the Trinity? If I did, offer a better model. It would be interesting to see how the Trinitarian model you offer differs from others'. We will see how it is able to withstand a close scrutiny.

An Objection to the Trinity

Of course the model above is not an exhaustive treatment—but merely an illustrative attempt—to explain my understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Now assuming that the model fairly represents the doctrine, if we want to be biblical Christians, ought we to believe the Trinity?

I submit that we ought not to believe the Trinity. In fact, we ought to reject the doctrine because it is unbiblical. In the next series of articles, I aim to provide good reasons for this.

Updated January 8, 2021

____________________
[1] James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 16, emphasis in original.
[2] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 730.
[3] Ibid., 732.
[4] White, 28-29, emphasis in original.