It is true that one must speak with conviction their understanding on a given subject in the scriptures. It is also true that it is not an easy matter to admit that our convictions which we have based on our understanding are mistaken. We might require some time away from the crossfire of discussion to reflect on what we have heard against what we have professed.
Here is a telltale indicator which may give good reason to be leery about a teaching; when the illustrations and rhetorical questions are so detached and disconnected so as to stretch thin the limits of credulity to where these become (especially in the absence of a ready response), or at least, they appear to be true. The discussion concerning the question of deity is without exceptional exception. The discussion is often rife with disingenuous defenses on both sides of the discussion.
This article is not a lengthy discourse or refutation or presentation. It is a brief presentation of the scripture and of the scripture on the scripture. In other words, I have made every effort to stay out of the way of the scripture and let it (as though I could impede the word of God) speak.
Here is favorite scripture from the gospel of John. It is the prayer of Jesus to the Father.
1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said,"Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,
2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.
3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. (John 17)
What is taken without exception from the passage is the words spoken by Jesus in reference to the Father, “. . . You, the only true God . . .” The phrase is extracted from all else in the passage because it purportedly makes a definitive, clear declaration of the deity of the Father, solely. The desired and intended effect, according to this interpretation, is to exclude Jesus or to deny the deity of Jesus.
Now, here is the scripture on the scripture. Interestingly enough, it was written by the same writer, the apostle John.
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. 21 Little children, guard yourselves from idols. (I John 5)
Follow the references yourself between the passages in John 17 and I John 5 concerning:
eternal life,
true and
true God.
Then, draw your own inferences and conclusions concerning deity.
Remember what I stated about telltale indicators. Some time ago I noticed what struck me as a peculiar use of a phrase by a brother who attached it generously to his message. His own inferences and conclusions were limited to John 17 and were focused and locked in on the deity of the Father solely. I was struck by his admonition against idolatry to anyone whose understanding on deity was not, like his understanding, limited to the Father. Yes, the admonition stands on its own as being as from the apostle John. What I came to realize one day was that it was not righteous zeal which I was hearing from that brother. I believe his reference to idolatry revealed his familiarity with the passage. What he had done was to merely seize the phrase from the closing verse of the letter of First John and attached it to his truncated message for a certain desired ringing effect of legitimacy:
Little children, guard yourselves from idols. (5:21)
Why does this seemingly righteous and biblical reference to idolatry seem to be an incomplete and disingenuous apologetic on deity? It is because his reference to the term idolatry is always devoid of any reference to the above verses which I have cited from I John 5. John makes the same claims of deity with respect to Jesus in I John 5 as he made about the Father in John 17.
It is not the purpose or scope of this article to go into the cascade of illustrations and rhetorical questions which are so detached and disconnected, but which nonetheless do, with patience, merit their own discussion space and time.
