Yes. Who do you say the one true God is?Free
Which of the three persons that make up the trinity god would you say are the one True God?
You say all of them, right?
Firstly, "He is the true God and eternal life," can refer to either the Father or the Son.The Bible very clearly says otherwise.
"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the (ONE) true God, and eternal life."
1 John 5:20
Full of pronouns and culminating with a very decisive declaration of THE True God. Not even a hint of any plurality there.
Secondly, notice that the Son is distinct from the Father, as all sons are. Do you think a son is ever his own father or a father is his own son? Don't nature and common sense tell us that a son is always distinct from his father, yet of the same nature? So, yes, there is plurality.
Thirdly, we cannot just take one verse from a book and think it is conclusive. That is to divorce it from the context of the passage, the book, and the rest of the Bible. To avoid proof-texting we must, at a minimum, consider what John has written already:
1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—
1Jn 1:2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—
1Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Note the echoes of John 1:1-2,14. Also, that the Father and the Son are distinct.
1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
...
1Jn 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.
Of most importance here is that Jesus is our "advocate with the Father." An advocate, according to the relevant definition from Merriam-Webster, is "one who pleads the cause of another." Of course, that is done on behalf of another before another or others (such as a judge or a court). Logically then, the Son cannot be an advocate with the Father if he is the Father. It would be nonsense to make such a claim.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
1Jn 3:24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.
1Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.
1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
...
1Jn 4:13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.
1Jn 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.
1Jn 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
1Jn 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
Notice in 4:9-10, 14 that the Father sends the Son. This very much echoes John 3:13-17. The Father sends the Son to be the Saviour, which means the Son is distinct from the Father. Otherwise, why the confusion? Why the continual distinctions and use of "Father" and "Son" (and "Spirit"), if so much confusion would have been eliminated by just the simple use of "God"? For example, John 3:16 could easily read: "For God so loved the world, that he gave himself, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life,"
1Jn 5:6 This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that testify:
1Jn 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
1Jn 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.
1Jn 5:10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.
1Jn 5:11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jn 5:12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
1Jn 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
All those passages show a clear distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Never once are they said to be the same person. As you said, God is not the author of confusion, so if they are all the same, then why would they continually be mentioned as distinct one from the other?
Also, 1 John 2:23 and 5:12 echo what John wrote in his gospel:
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
And, of course, we cannot ignore what he wrote in the prologue:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
That is exactly what he says in 1 John 1:2. That "with" is very important. As I stated regarding John 1:1, which you left unaddressed, is that pros indicates relational intimacy. It makes no sense to say that the Son was with the Father for eternity but they are both one and the same person.
However, it does make sense when speaking of at least two persons. And this is supported by 1 John saying that "God is love" in 1 John 4:8, 16. That is, to say God is love, is to make a statement about his essence and not merely the idea that he is loving; he cannot not love.
What then is love? At its fullest, it is both a healthy love of self and an outward expression towards others. We should fully expect then, that if God is love, that his love must have the fullest expression and necessarily includes love of others from before creation of all time and space, from eternity past. However, if God is a monad, then to say that “God is love” means 1) that God loved himself, and 2) that the fullest and proper expression of his love is dependent on creation. This contradicts the statement that “God is love,” as it leaves His love incomplete and deficient, meaning that he cannot be truly and fully God.
When we consider the Trinity, however, it all works. There are three persons each being truly and fully God, equally possessing the full and undivided essence (one being that is God), having been in and intimate and loving relationship and communion for eternity past. Only now we can truly say that God is love. Diversity within the unity.
(All ESV.)