Unitarian Theology is Wrong

The teaching of the Unitarians about God is that he's one both in person and nature. As a Trinitarian, I'll argue that their interpretation in certain passages of scripture is wrong.Scripture alone is to be used in providing arguments and Bible scholars may also be cited.ARGUMENT #1:Unitarians say that 2 Peter 1:4 speaks of Christians partaking in God's nature and yet it doesn't make them God. Therefore, they conclude, Jesus having God's nature doesn't make him God also.REBUTTAL:2 Peter 1:4 says that Christians partakes in the divine nature. This English Phrase is " theias physeos" in Greek and it means " the quality of God."God is immortal because he is without beginning and ending ( eternal).God is holy because he cannot ever sin but can ever only do good ( impeccable).Immortality and Holiness: these qualities of God are shared by Christians because they were begotten/born of God by faith.Premise 1: To be beget means to have an offspring of same nature with the parent.Premise 2: Christians were begotten/born of God by faith ( John 1:12-13,1 John 3:9).Conclusion: Christians are of same nature with God ( 2 Peter 1:4).Immortality and Holiness: these qualities of God is shared by Christbecausehe is eternally begotten from the Father.Premise 1:To be beget means to have an offspring of same nature with the parent.Premise 2:The Son is *eternally begotten from the Father (Hebrews 1:2-7).Conclusion:Therefore, the Son is of same nature with the Father ( John 1:18).*It should be noted that the Son is begotten without a beginning because the begetter of him has no beginning. It is the same way with us. Human begetters have a beginning that is why human offspring are begotten with a beginning.Clearly, the begetting language is an anthropomorphism.CONCLUSION:Therefore, Unitarians are wrong in their interpretation of 2 Peter 1:4 because they interpret Christ and Christians begotten in the same way. Jesus is begotten eternally and therefore, he shares in God's nature innately while Christians are begotten in time by faith and therefore, shares in God's nature unlike the way Jesus shares in it.ARGUMENT #2:Unitarians say that John 17:3 explicitly shows that Jesus himself affirms that he's not true God because he excludes anyone as true God other than the Father. He said that the Father is the " only true God."REBUTTAL:At first glance, their argument seems irrefutable due to the explicit Unitarian affirmation of the verse in isolation but upon scrutinization of the passage, of its immediate context plus the greater context, we found out that their argument is null and void.Here's the context of the pasage:John 17:1-5 (NASB)1Jesus spoke these things; andlifting up His eyes to heaven, He said,“Father, the hour has come;glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,2even asYou gave Him authority over all flesh, thattoall whom You have given Him,He may give eternal life.3This is eternal life, that they may know You,the only true God, and Jesus Christ whomYou have sent.4I glorified You on the earth,having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.5Now, Father,glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I hadwith You before the world was.It's clear in the texts that Jesus didn't excluded himself in the identity of the Father as true God because he is the Son of the Father.Notice that the one who affirms the exclusivity of the divinity of the Father is his very own Son himself.Premise 1: offspring of a human is human by nature ( genetics)Premise 2: offspring of God is God by nature (scriptural anthropomorphism-Hebrews 1:5)Conclusion:The Son is of same nature with the Father ( John 1:18 is explicit on this).Furthermore, the crux of the matter rests on the fact that Jesus is really contrasting his Father not to himself but to other gods.There's a cogent argumewnt for this:The Father is the only true God means that there are gods that are false.The contrast is made between persons not things (ourselves,money etc.) becausethe Father is a person. We read in the Bible that there are gods:For even if there are so-calledgodswhether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,( 1 Corinthians 8:5 NASB).and that these gods are father and offspring in relationship:A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis( Diana), brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there ( Acts 19:24).Barnabas they called Zeus( Jupiter)_, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker ( Acts 14:12).but these gods aren't gods by nature:Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods ( Galatians 4:8).These verses shows that the Lord Jesus is contrasting his true sonship and his Father's godhood to those father and offspring gods who aren't real gods at all ( e.g. Zeus and Hermes/ Zeus and Diana).Conclusion: The Son is of same nature with the Father. He and his Father possess true godhood and all other Greek and Roman deities are false, that is, "aren't gods by nature" ( Galatians 4:8). Having known this, it is pretty clear that John 17:3 should not be used in isolation but with context because "a text without a context is a pretext"ARGUMENT #3:Unitarians say that 2 Timothy 2:5 explicitly teaches that Jesus is not God because he is the mediator between God himself and men.REBUTTAL:If the verse is used in isolation, then, the Unitarian argument is irrefutable but upon scrutinization of the passage, we found out thattheir argument is null and void.1 Timothy 2:5 should not be interpreted in isolation to other passages in the Scriptures or else contradictions will ensue.In fact, 1 Timothy 2:5 did not say " Christ is only human" but rather,"the human Jesus Christ." The verse is simply not speaking about the nature of Christ but rather, his mediative work in the economy of salvation.Trinitarians agree that Jesus is truly human by nature also aside from being truly God by nature. We affirm the "human Jesus", the adjective "human" itself describes the quality of Jesus in 1 Timothy 2:5.Unless the Unitarian refutes the doctrine of the Incarnation, he/she cannot use 1 Timothy 2:5 to prove Unitarian Theology.