On John 17:3

The following material follows a line of argumentation suggested by K.N. Stovra's material found at this site:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Jn17_3.html
__________________________________________________
ON JOHN 17:3
There is no difference in the meaning of the following statements: “Only Jesus is the true Messiah” and “Jesus is the only true Messiah.” This linguistic truth may be brought to bear for a correct understanding of John 17:3 as respects who God is, for when we define “God” correctly, then there is no difference between “Only you, Father, are the true God” and “You, Father, are the only true God.” When once we see that “God” refers to an identity, a person (for example, ‘God = the only true Creator’), then we find nothing in the formula “You, Father, are the only true Creator” to be useful to trinitarians, for a set of divine attributes as attributes does not create, but the person God can. (An assertion to the contrary is an example of the logical fallacy of reification of the abstract, the misplaced concretion. A “what” does not create; however, a certain “who” can create.) Yes, the owner of a certain expression of divine attributes in the person of God the Father did become the only true Creator. Moreover, neither is anything salvaged by trinitarians if they make “God” to equal “Trinity” because 'You, Father, are the only true Trinity (God)' is not sensical on its face, either. We will have more on that when we consider Augustine. (See below.)

So, do we say something sensical if we say that “God” is a label for a certain set of attributes as attributes? No. The problem with trinitarian doctrine is that it assumes that there is such a use of “God” at John 17:3. But the structure (the symmetry) of the passage cannot support the assumption that a set of attributes as attributes is in view under the label “God.” The fact that the phrase “the only true God” is not a reference to a set of attributes but to identity (= the very owner of the attributes) is enforced by the symmetrical structure of the passage. We see set forth below two objects of knowledge that are both of them open to relationship with us humans precisely because the two objects are persons. We show the symmetry as follows:

That they may know You (identity)
the only true God (identity)

and

Jesus Christ (identity)
whom You sent. (identity)

Each referential expression refers to an individual being, a person. The expression “You” refers to the Father; the phrase “the only true God” also refers to the Father; the name “Jesus Christ” refers to the speaker himself, the Son of God; and the clause “whom you sent” also refers to the speaker himself. The second referential expression is in apposition to the first referential expression, and is, in fact, a definition of the first. The fourth referential expression is in apposition to the third referential expression, and is, in fact, a definition of the third. Ought we not to reject the thought that the symmetry of the text be ignored? And ought we not to reject the thought that Jesus’ words teach us to have relationship with a sterile abstraction of divine attributes that goes under the label “(the) Father/the true God”? Really, how does one have relationship with divine attributes considered abstractly? Really, then, Jesus’ prayer to his Father is that his followers have good relationship both with the person of his Father, Who is God (the Universal Sovereign) and with the person of God's Son. We would not keep a sensical reading of the passage if we were to say about any one of the referential expressions that it is not a reference to identity. And because that is the case, then Jesus is saying that his Father has the identity of being the person that is “the only true God,” and since the identity (the person) in view is “God,” then no other being (person) but Jesus’ Father qualifies for his being called “the only true God.”

Augustine found that John 17:3 presented him with a thorny problem, and he promptly set himself to the task of twisting the word order of the text, but his solution does not work.
Augustine lyingly stated: “The proper order of the words is, “That they may know Thee and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent, as the only true God.” Consequently, therefore, the Holy Spirit is also understood, because He is the Spirit of the Father and Son, as the substantial and consubstantial love of both. For the Father and Son are not two Gods, nor are the Father and Son and Holy Spirit three Gods; but the Trinity itself is the one only true God.”
Augustine could not accept the word order (the symmetry) at John 17:3 as it is in the Greek text. So, he twisted the word order of the passage so that he might explicitly include Jesus under the defining expression “the only true God.” But then Augustine realized—seemingly as an afterthought—that the text has no reference to the holy spirit, and that the translation he arbitrarily invented still logically rules out that holy spirit be included with the Father and the Son under the defining expression “the only true God.” How did he try to get around the dilemma? He arbitrarily added into his commentary a reference to the holy spirit because he wanted readers of his commentary to believe that holy spirit is God, too, even if the assertion (as made in connection with his interpretation of John 17:3) was one made purely on his (Augustine’s) own authority; otherwise, the reader might conclude that Augustine had consciously rejected trinitarianism in favor of binitarianism. So, Augustine twisted Jesus’ words in order to try to make them support a denial he consciously made, namely, that ‘it is not the Father who is the only true God,’ but that “the Trinity itself is the one only true God.” And because we should not agree that Augustine was right to twist the word order of the text, we should also see enough from within John 17:3 so that we disagree with his definition of “the only true God.” How is that so? It is so because with the correct word order in place, we see what a logical absurdity Augustine made of John 17:3. And what is that absurdity? The absurdity comes to light in the following way: if “the Trinity itself is the one only true God,” then the text in its correct word order would have to have the following meaning: ‘You, Father, are the one only true God, the Trinity.’ That, however, is not what trinitarians believe about the Father, for they say that the Father is but one “person” of the Trinity. And yet they cannot logically make John 17:3 to be in agreement with their doctrine.