1st Clement

[JM]

Last night I started reading 1st Clement in eBook format. It's from Westminster Press and free...the intro to the letter was extremely helpful. In the intro the editors compare Clements letter to Hellenistic Judaism and contrast the contains of Clements teaching on justification by faith with the Apostle Paul. It seems Clement moralized the Gospel, seeing in Abraham a pattern of obedience first, rather than being justified by faith first, seeking to establish order.

Good read so far.

 

[abacabb3]

Interesting, I read Clement twice I believe and I saw his teaching as very similar to Paul's, consistent with that of which James taught. There are quite a few Calvinsitic interpretations too, chapter 31 (or is it 32?) is an example.

 

[JM]

Interesting, I read Clement twice I believe and I saw his teaching as very similar to Paul's, consistent with that of which James taught. There are quite a few Calvinsitic interpretations too, chapter 31 (or is it 32?) is an example.

I'll try to post examples latter...

Did you notice how Bishop and Elder were used interchangeably throughout?

 

[abacabb3]

I'll try to post examples latter...

Did you notice how Bishop and Elder were used interchangeably throughout?

I am unsure of your translation,l but yes I am aware of a section (chap 42?) that I quoted recently in another thread here, though I think the mod deleted it.

There was a change between CLement's and Ignatius' time. Clement's thinking is so close to the Bible his letter almost reads like it. Probably my favorite extra-biblical work for several reasons.

 

[JM]

I am unsure of your translation,l but yes I am aware of a section (chap 42?) that I quoted recently in another thread here, though I think the mod deleted it.

There was a change between CLement's and Ignatius' time. Clement's thinking is so close to the Bible his letter almost reads like it. Probably my favorite extra-biblical work for several reasons.

John T. McNeill (pretty sure it's the Calvin scholar) wrote that Clement essentially copied the form and format of Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians so I'm not surprised they sound similar.

jm

 

[abacabb3]

[W]e … being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought … but by that faith through which … Almighty God has justified all men (Letter to the Corinthians, Ch. 32).

 

[abacabb3]

I also wrote on his view on church government here, though I have been drifted towards the elder-led sort as of late: Do the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Have It Right On Church Government? | Reformed Christian Theology

 

[JM]

[W]e … being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought … but by that faith through which … Almighty God has justified all men (Letter to the Corinthians, Ch. 32).

Right. But Clement in his 2 letter (assuming it's the same author) also wrote that, "Almsgiving therefore is a good thing, even as repentance from sin Fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving better than both. And love covereth a multitude of sins, but prayer out of a good conscience delivereth from death. Blessed is every man that is found full of these. For almsgiving lifteth off the burden of sin." 16.4 I believe this is the kind of thing McNeill was warning us about in 1 Clement...that our actions have a redemptive quality from sin.

I'll try to find an example when I get home from work in 1 Clement. I know it's there I just didn't bring my ereader to work today.

 

[abacabb3]

I don't remember that from1 Clement. And almost no one seriously thinks Clement wrote 2 Clement.

 

[JM]

I don't remember that from1 Clement. And almost no one seriously thinks Clement wrote 2 Clement.

I think that's the problem. All of the letters of Clement have been challenged at some point, especially due to obvious interpolation.

 

[abacabb3]

Not the first one and it is mentioned by Eusebius, unlike the second one.

 

[JM]

Not the first one and it is mentioned by Eusebius, unlike the second one.

It's only the last 150 years that the 1st has been widely accepted.

 

[abacabb3]

It's only the last 150 years that the 1st has been widely accepted.

It was acceptable to the church fathers:

1. The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. 2 Timothy 4:21

2. Anencletus succeeded him, and after Anencletus, in the third place from the apostles, Clement received the episcopate. He had seen and conversed with the blessed apostles, and their preaching was still sounding in his ears, and their tradition was still before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for many who had been taught by the apostles yet survived.

3. In the times of Clement, a serious dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church of Rome sent a most suitable letter to the Corinthians, reconciling them in peace, renewing their faith, and proclaiming the doctrine lately received from the apostles. (Eusebius, Church History, Book V, Chapter 6)

The fact no second letter is mentioned shows that it was not extant when Eusebius referenced the first one.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Right. But Clement in his 2 letter (assuming it's the same author) also wrote that, "Almsgiving therefore is a good thing, even as repentance from sin Fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving better than both. And love covereth a multitude of sins, but prayer out of a good conscience delivereth from death. Blessed is every man that is found full of these. For almsgiving lifteth off the burden of sin." 16.4 I believe this is the kind of thing McNeill was warning us about in 1 Clement...that our actions have a redemptive quality from sin.

I'll try to find an example when I get home from work in 1 Clement. I know it's there I just didn't bring my ereader to work today.

Interesting: Judaism uses charity and righteousness interchangeably. Both are derived from the Hebrew 'tzedekah.' Now, put this reading back into the gospels, epistles and ECFs; it might be enlightening.

 

[JM]

Still responding from my phone...where does this get us? Let's say everything in 1 Clement is correct, no interpolations, and it was written in 95ad.

What now? What do we do with it?

 

[abacabb3]

Still responding from my phone...where does this get us? Let's say everything in 1 Clement is correct, no interpolations, and it was written in 95ad.

What now? What do we do with it?

It helps us with a lot of things.

1. It contains very early references to 2 Peter, Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews and other "disputed" works. I mean, if they were not disputed 30 years after they were written, it historically lends them major credibility (and destroys liberal theologians' contentions that they are fake.)

2. Clement rejects works based salvation, which appears emphasized in the Didache, another early work. So, it shows a constant stream of orthodoxy from the very beginning which gives us comfort that we stand on the shoulders of our spiritual forefathers.

3. Clement appears to speak of a plurality of Bishops, as opposed to Ignatius, which shows that RCC and EO church government is an innovation. Like the Didache, there is a plurality of elders chosen from the church body (presumably by its current elders).

4. Clement has the earliest "Calvinistic" interpretation of salvation outside of Scripture itself, as does Ignatius. This proves that Augustine was not dreaming new things up.

 

[JM]

Still...I don't get it. Unless I want to argue with RC's or liberals online I don't see the point of it. (I'm not anti-intellectual by any stretch.) They are works with doubtful dates, assumed material and potentially loaded with interpolations. My buddy reads the fathers over and over again. It's caused him nothing but grief. His marriage was almost ruined because, after reading the fathers, he wanted to leave the Presbyterian church and become Roman Catholic. Right now he recognizes the plurality of Bishops and has moved more toward Eastern Orthodoxy. As he puts it, "the Bible is subject to a multitude of interpretations so we need an authoritative interpreter just like they did in the early church." I'm trying to read the fathers now (read them over 10 years ago) and just have a hard time plodding through.

 

[abacabb3]

Still...I don't get it. Unless I want to argue with RC's or liberals online I don't see the point of it. (I'm not anti-intellectual by any stretch.)

It is the same reason we read Augustine. We don't have to, but they help inform us of the Scripture and show us we are not the first people to think something up.

They are works with doubtful dates, assumed material and potentially loaded with interpolations.

No, the dates are pretty good as far as ancient stuff goes for the most of them. However, they are not the Bible. The Bible, and the Quran, have the most manuscripts out there in history. So, we don't have the level of certitude obviously, but we have a decent level of understanding of times and dates historically.

My buddy reads the fathers over and over again. It's caused him nothing but grief. His marriage was almost ruined because, after reading the fathers, he wanted to leave the Presbyterian church and become Roman Catholic.

That's not the Fathers' faults, however. Satan works through the Bible too. Look at the Pentecostals. Man is a depraved beast with itching ears, his flesh wanting to be deceived.

The Fathers obviously contradicted one another and spanned hundreds of years. They were not RCC or EO, many would contradict their teachings. I have heard of someone else who actually became RCC because of their readings, but the fact they went RCC and not EO or OO reflects serious Eisegesis and not a historical, critical look at the Fathers.

Right now he recognizes the plurality of Bishops and has moved more toward Eastern Orthodoxy. As he puts it, "the Bible is subject to a multitude of interpretations so we need an authoritative interpreter just like they did in the early church."

Remind him that the Church Fathers recognized that only the Scripture is God-breathed, so our only inscrutable evidence of God's will is the Scripture itself.

The Fathers obviously appealed to a sola scriptura view, and even when they spoke of tradition, they made clear if there was dispute to go to the Scripture:
The Authority of Scripture – Part 2 – Worthy to the Early Church | Reformed Christian Theology

I mean, you even have Augustine himself saying that he asa changed his mind about stuff. We have Cyril appealing tot radition, saying it is authorative, and then saying if two traditions contradict you must show him from the Scripture. It's very obvious.

I'm trying to read the fathers now (read them over 10 years ago) and just have a hard time plodding through.

I have been so busy reading through Job (and I wish I had more pdfs of Joseph Caryl) and finishing a commentary I hadn't even have the time. I want to do a critical read through of Augustine's On Predestination and On Preseverance because I believe he rejects limited atonement and double predestination (Prosper of Aquataine does). Further, I would like to annotate the Didache. Just don't have the time.

 

[JM]

Thanks abacabb3.

I do believe Augustine rejected double predestination and limited atonement as well.

 

[abacabb3]

This may help your friend: Contra Magesterium: Practical problems with Holy Tradition | Reformed Christian Theology

Pretty much destroys the notion that the Catholic Magesterium is on par with Scripture. It is a logical impossibility.