In an attempted critique of my response to Jeff Durbin (youtube link), James White took exception with my use of the following text from 1 Clement:
For White, he seemed struck by why I would cite that against Trinitarianism. Simple: as for the author of 1 Clement, "God" is exhausted by, not the Tri-une being of God/three persons, but the singular person of the Father. Remember: Trinitarianism, albeit in an ambiguous way, allows for a distinction between the "persons" of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but not between "God" (and other like-terms [e.g., YHWH; Adonai]) and these persons.
White does the same fallacy as so many commentators on the patristics engage in: confusing triadic phrases with the (Creedal/Latin) Trinity.
And as for Justin Martyr, he also called Jesus "the Second God," something not consistent with the Trinity. As for another early Christian author, Origen (185-254), note the following in his work, “Dialogue with Heraclides”:
1Clem 46:6
Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ?
For White, he seemed struck by why I would cite that against Trinitarianism. Simple: as for the author of 1 Clement, "God" is exhausted by, not the Tri-une being of God/three persons, but the singular person of the Father. Remember: Trinitarianism, albeit in an ambiguous way, allows for a distinction between the "persons" of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but not between "God" (and other like-terms [e.g., YHWH; Adonai]) and these persons.
White does the same fallacy as so many commentators on the patristics engage in: confusing triadic phrases with the (Creedal/Latin) Trinity.
And as for Justin Martyr, he also called Jesus "the Second God," something not consistent with the Trinity. As for another early Christian author, Origen (185-254), note the following in his work, “Dialogue with Heraclides”:
Origen said: Since once an inquiry has begun it is proper to say something upon the subject of the inquiry, I will speak. The whole church is present and listening. It is not right that there should be any difference in knowledge between one church and another, for you are not the false church. I charge you, father Heraclides: God is the almighty, the uncreated, the supreme God who made all things. Do you hold this doctrine?
Heracl.: I do. That is what I also believe.
Orig.: Christ Jesus who was in the form of God, being other than the God in whose form he existed, was he God before he came into the body or not?
Heracl.: He was God before.
Orig.: Was he God before he came into the body or not?
Heracl.: Yes, he was.
Orig.: Was he God distinct from this God in whose form he existed?
Heracl.: Obviously he was distinct from another being and, since he was in the form of him who created all things, he was distinct from him.
Orig.: Is it true then that there was a God, the Son of God, the only begotten of God, the firstborn of all creation, and that we need have no fear of saying that in one sense there are two Gods, while in another there is one God?
Heracl.: What you say is evident. But we affirm that God is the almighty, God without beginning, without end, containing all things and not contained by anything; and that his Word is the Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things were made, God according to the spirit, man inasmuch as he was born of Mary.
Orig.: You do not appear to have answered my question. Explain what you mean. For perhaps I failed to follow you. Is the Father God?
Heracl.: Assuredly.
Orig.: Is the Son distinct from the Father?
Heracl.: Of course. How can he be Son if he is also Father?
Orig.: While being distinct from the Father is the Son himself also God?
Heracl.: He himself is also God.
Orig.: And do two Gods become a unity?
Heracl.: Yes.
Orig.: Do we confess two Gods?
Heracl.: Yes. The power is one.
Orig.: But as our brethren take offence at the statement that there are two Gods, we must formulate the doctrine carefully, and show in what sense they are two and in what sense the two are one God. Also the holy Scriptures have taught that several things which are two are one. And not only things which are two, for they have also taught that in some instances more than two, or even a very much larger number of things, are one. Our present task is not to broach a problematic subject only to pass it by and deal cursorily with the matter, but for the sake of the simple folk to chew up, so to speak, the meat, and little by little to instill the doctrine in the ears of our hearers. . . . Accordingly, there are many things which are two that are said in the Scriptures to be one. What passages of Scripture? Adam is one person, his wife another. Adam is distinct from his wife, and his wife is distinct from her husband. Yet it is said in the story of the creation of the world that they two are one: "For the two shall be one flesh." Therefore, sometimes two beings can become one flesh. Notice, however, that in the case of Adam and Eve it is not said that the two shall become one spirit, nor that the two shall become one soul, but that they shall become one flesh. Again, the righteous man is distinct from Christ; but he is said by the apostle to be one with Christ: "For he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit." Is it not true that the one is of a subordinate nature or of a low and inferior nature, while Christ's nature is divine and glorious and blessed? Are they therefore no longer two? Yes, for the man and the woman are "no longer two but one flesh," and the righteous man and Christ are "one spirit." So in relation to the Father and God of the universe, our Saviour and Lord is not one flesh, nor one spirit, but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God. The appropriate word when human beings are joined to one another is flesh. The appropriate word when a righteous man is joined to Christ is spirit. But the word when Christ is united to the Father is not flesh, nor spirit, but more honourable than these —God. That is why we understand in this sense "I and the Father are one." When we pray, because of the one party let us preserve the duality, because of the other party let us hold to the unity. In this way we avoid falling into the opinion of those who have been separated from the Church and turned to the illusory notion of monarchy, who abolish the Son as distinct from the Father and virtually abolish the Father also. Nor do we fall into the other blasphemous doctrine which denies the deity of Christ. What then do the divine Scriptures mean when they say: "Beside me there is no other God, and there shall be none after me," and "I am and there is no God but me"? In these utterances we are not to think that the unity applies to the God of the universe . . . in separation from Christ, and certainly not to Christ in separation from God. Let us rather say that the sense is the same as that of Jesus' saying, "I and my Father are one."
