# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  St. Clement's First Letter to the Corinthians

## TER

As there have been some questions of late regarding the teachings of this early Apostolic Father, chosen by the Apostles to lead the glorious Church in Rome at the end of the first century, this current epistle attributed to him would be a great starting point to study who the man was and what he taught.  As these writings reflect the faith of the Church in the Imperial City of Rome at the end of the first century, we can gleam how they compare to the teachings of St. Ignatius who was a contemporary of St. Clement and bishop of the great Christian Church located in Antioch.  Note, there was a great vast distance between these two cities relative to the time frame we are talking about.  Let us see what we can find in reading from these two great Bishops in the Apostolic age.  Perhaps doing so, we can gain deeper insight into the ontology of the Church and what the kerygma the Apostles handed down as the faith whereby we enter into communion with God and become sanctified members of His Body, the Church.  Outside the Holy Scriptures and the time span following the end of the recorded Acts of the Apostles within the Holy Writ, these are our earliest examples and sources of what the Apostles handed down and what the faithful members of the Church professed to be the true way towards salvation in Christ.

----------


## TER

Firstly, before we begin, does anyone profess to have more knowledge about the Apostolic teachings than this successor of St. Peter?

----------


## Sola_Fide

Who cares?

Clement's ideas and doctrines are judged by the bar of Scripture just like yours or mine are.

----------


## TER

I will proceed then with the notion that St. Clement's letter is a valuable document which demonstrates the historical teachings of the great early Church in Rome and is according to the faith and teachings of the Apostles, having much greater insight into the truths of what they believed and taught than anyone reading this thread right now.  Again, if anyone claims to be a greater source than him or believe their interpretations of the fath handed down to be of greater value, then speak now and identify yourself.  

If not, then we can proceed with the document at hand.

----------


## TER

> Who cares?
> 
> Clement's ideas and doctrines are judged by the bar of Scripture just like yours or mine are.


Do you believe yourself to have more knowledge than this Bishop of Rome of the first century, who worshiped alongside with the Apostles?

----------


## TER

As for 'who cares?', the answer would be 'whoever wishes to know the truth'.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do you believe yourself to have more knowledge than this Bishop of Rome of the first century, who worshiped alongside with the Apostles?


Who cares?

There were people who not only worshiped alongside the apostles, but they mention in their very letters in the New Testament,  that they condemn for their heresy.

Worshipping alongside, or being friends with, or saying you know them, or the proximity you are to the apostles in history means *nothing.*

The only thing that matters is God's Word that He inspired in the Scripture.

Your entire belief system is antichristian.

----------


## TER

While we wait to find out if Sola considers himself to be greater than this Saint of the Apostolic times, let us gain some insight into who this man was:

We know St. Clement mostly through his letter to the Corinthian Church. But we also know about him through the later Church Fathers. St. Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 200 AD) was a pupil of St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna.  St. Irenaeus later became a priest (presbyter) in Lyon under bishop Pothinus (c. 87 – 177), and around 177-178 St. Irenaeus was sent to St. Eleutherus (bishop of Rome from AD 175-189), to help bring some relief from the persecution under Marcus Aurelius.  St. Irenaeus spent significant time with the Church at Rome, later serving as bishop of Lyon from approximately AD 177 until the end of his life. In his work _Adversus haeresis_, St. Irenaeus writes the following concerning St. Clement and his letter to the Corinthians:




> The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and *after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric*. *This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.* 
> 
> In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, *and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles,* proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. *In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth*. (Ad. haer. 3.3.3.) (emphases mine)


According to St. Irenaeus, St. Clement had conversed with the Apostles (i.e. Peter and Paul), and was bishop of the Church at Rome after St. Linus and St. Cletus. That is also attested to by the liturgy of the Church at Rome, which to this day preserves the name of “Clemens” after the names of ‘Linus’ and ‘Cletus’ in the litany of prayers, and these names follow directly after those of the Apostles. The recitation of these names in the Roman liturgy has been in place apparently since the second century.

Eusebius (AD 249 – 340 AD), in his History of the Church claims that St. Clement of Rome is the same Clement referred to by St. Paul in Philippians 4:3, where St. Paul writes, “I ask you also, who are a true co-worker, to help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.”  Some have claimed that the Fortunatus referred to at the end of St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians is the same Fortunatus referred to by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 16:17. Eusebius refers to St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, writing:




> There is extant an epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church. We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own. And of the fact that a sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time referred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness.


Hegesippus (c. 110-180 AD), who visited various bishops during his travels, including the bishops of Corinth and Rome, is quoted by Eusebius as having appended some remarks to Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians. These remarks indicate that the Church at Corinth remained pure in doctrine until Primus became bishop.

The tradition has always and everywhere treated the letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians as from St. Clement of Rome. Dionysius the bishop of Corinth in AD 170 mentions St. Clement’s letter, and reports that it was still read in their Sunday gatherings.  The letter was cited as St. Clement’s by St. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215) and by Origen (AD 185 – 254). Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 222), in his Prescription Against Heretics, claims that St. Clement was ordained by the Apostle Peter, as St. Polycarp was ordained by the the Apostle John.

According to Eusebius, St. Clement was still the “head of the Roman community” in the first year of Trajan (i.e. AD 98). According to Eusebius, St. Clement “departed this life, yielding his office to Evarestus” in the third year of the Emperor Trajan (c. AD 100-1), having been “in charge of the teaching of the divine message for nine years in all.”  St. Clement is therefore believed to have been the bishop of the Church at Rome from about the year AD 90-91 AD to about AD 100. The date of his letter to the Corinthians is not entirely certain, but traditionally it has been thought to come right after the persecution under Domitian, and thus around AD 96.

----------


## TER

> Who cares?
> 
> There were people who not only worshiped alongside the apostles, but they mention in their very letters in the New Testament,  that they condemn for their heresy.
> 
> Worshipping alongside, or being friends with, or saying you know them, or the proximity you are to the apostles in history means *nothing.*
> 
> The only thing that matters is God's Word that He inspired in the Scripture.
> 
> Your entire belief system is antichristian.


I see you did no answer the question I asked you.  I will use my common sense, given to me by God, and place St. Clement's wisdom and knowledge about the apostolic teachings to be greater than yours.  

And if you don't care about what this man of God sad, then exit the thread and allow those who do care to proceed.  Thank you!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> While we wait to find out is Sola considers himself to be greater than this Saint of the Apostolic times,


I just told you that Clement's writings, your writings, my writings, and everyone's writings are subject to judgement of God's Word in the Scriptures. 

You don't believe this because you worship an idol, select men in a church that you agree with, not Jesus.

----------


## fisharmor

Yeah, TER, everyone's writings are subject to judgment of other writings.  Why do you not get this?

----------


## TER

> I just told you that Clement's writings, your writings, my writings, and everyone's writings are subject to judgement of God's Word in the Scriptures. 
> 
> You don't believe this because you worship an idol, select men in a church that you agree with, not Jesus.


Again, I do not worship men, I worship God.  I simply accept Clement to be more knowledgable of the apostolic faith than either you or me.  I am still waiting for someone to speak up to claim that they know more about the teachings handed down than St. Clement, which no one, up until this time, including yourself, is saying.

Now that you repeated your lie against me again and accuse me falsely, please demonstrate some basic Christian courtesy and allow others to discuss this writing honestly and without your distractions and slander.  Thank you!

----------


## TER

Intro

*
The Church of God which sojourneth at Rome, to the Church of God which sojourneth at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified in the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you from Almighty God through Jesus Christ.
*

----------


## erowe1

It's ridiculous to say Clement was the bishop of Rome. His own epistle indicates that when it was written it was still the case that the labels episkopos (overseer, bishop) and presbyteros (elder) were used interchangeably, and that there were many of these in both Rome and Corinth. Neither city at that time had a bishop for the whole city. Probably no city in the world did yet.

----------


## TER

In this greeting, we find St. Clement addressing 'the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth' from the 'Church of God which sojourneth at Rome'.  

We see here an immediate striking similarity with how St. Ignatius, who served as Bishop FAR away in the city of Antioch, greeted the Church in Tralles and Magnesia.  Namely, calling the faithful there as the Church _in the singular_. 

 While there where indeed house churches and individual leaders in the very first years of the history of the Church as described in the Acts of the Apostles, it is clear that by the end of the first century, an established organized ecclesiology had developed of laity and clergy and centralized in the person of a Bishop of the particular city/region (through the guidance of the Apostles and, above all, the Holy Spirit Who worked within the Chuch to protect and guide it.)

This was not accidental, but the very workings of the divinely inspired Church in it's mission to preserve the faith handed down to them, feed and protect the flock given to them by God, and to fulfill the Lord's commission to go and baptize the nations.

----------


## TER

> It's ridiculous to say Clement was the bishop of Rome. His own epistle indicates that when it was written it was still the case that the labels episkopos (overseer, bishop) and presbyteros (elder) were used interchangeably, and that there were many of these in both Rome and Corinth. Neither city at that time had a bishop for the whole city. Probably no city in the world did yet.


Except it did, as demonstrated in both Clements and Ignatius' letters.  Also, it was attested to by St. Ireneaus as quoted above. 

Do you, erowe, consider yourself greater in authority than either of these three Saints of the early Church?

And BTW, you are stuck with the interchangeability of episkopos and presbyteros.  But as we will find in studying both Clement and Ignatius, their definitions and roles of service to the faithful had most definitely become more defined and established.  Your problem is that the book of Acts ended too early and didn't include this formation.  The works of the Apostles however, didn't end, and neither did the work of the Holy Spirit Who guided these ordained leaders of the Church.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah, TER, everyone's writings are subject to judgment of other writings.  Why do you not get this?


No, subject to the judgement of God's Word, which stands above everything and judges everything.  God's Word is truth.

----------


## TER

Chapter 1

*On account of the sudden and repeated calamities and mischances, brethren, that have come upon us, we suppose that we have the more slowly given heed to the things that are disputed among you, beloved, and to the foul and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few headstrong and self-willed persons have kindled to such a degree of madness, that your venerable and famous name, worthy to be loved of all men, is greatly blasphemed.

For who that hath tarried among you hath not approved your most virtuous and firm faith, hath not admired your sober and seemly piety in Christ, hath not proclaimed your splendid disposition of hospitality, hath not deemed blessed your perfect and unerring knowledge?*

----------


## erowe1

Ignatius' letters also indicate that there was no bishop of Rome evan as late as that time, ca. AD 110. He recognized each city he wrote as having a bishop over it except for Rome.

I don't know where the idea comes from that 1 Clement supports the idea of Clement being the bishop of Rome. It clearly utterly contradicts it. The office of a monarchical bishop is totally incompatible with what that letter says about bishops. The author and original audience of it had never heard of such a thing.

Yes, we do know that some time later someone devised a list of bishops of Rome and included Clement on it. And Irenaeus is a witness to this list. I don't need to claim anything about knowing more than Irenaeus knew. Irenaeus did nothing more than report what the list he knew said. But if somebody is going to assert that the list was trustworthy in this matter, they would have to know where the list came from, who wrote it, and how they came to determine that the people whose names they wrote really occupied the position that they claimed. Without knowing that, then they have no basis for trusting it and saying that Irenaeus, just because he repeated what was on this list, couldn't be wrong. Most likely what happened was that, when lists like that were made, the person making the list just assumed that the structure they knew in their own day had also existed earlier on in the days of some of the earlier church leaders about whom they had records, like Clement. So, rather than regarding those leaders of Clement's day as members of a college of bishops/elders, they assumed they were the bishop over the city.

The most important source about the question of Clement being the bishop of Rome is 1 Clement. And that source says that he wasn't. Case closed. Don't take my word for it. Take Clement's.

----------


## TER

Here we see that the reason the Bishop of Rome is addressing the Church in Corinth is because there were members there causing division and scandal, not unlike the reason why St. Paul addressed them in his epistle years before. In that epistle, St. Paul exhorted them "that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you".

Unity in faith and mind was required, as well as obedience to the teachings handed down to them by the Apostles, which St. Paul makes clear to them he stands as such a one in his second letter to Corinth.

In this particular letter by St. Clement, again divisions have become a cause for scandal "that [their] venerable and famous name, worthy to be loved of all men, is greatly blasphemed."

----------


## TER

> Ignatius' letters also indicate that there was no bishop of Rome evan as late as that time, ca. AD 110. He recognized each city he wrote as having a bishop over it except for Rome.


Source?




> I don't know where the idea comes from that 1 Clement supports the idea of Clement being the bishop of Rome. It clearly utterly contradicts it. The office of a monarchical bishop is totally incompatible with what that letter says about bishops. The author and original audience of it had never heard of such a thing.


Source?

Do you claim to have more knowledge about the early Church and the apostolic succession of Bishops in Rome than the second century father St. Ireneaus?




> Yes, we do know that some time later someone devised a list of bishops of Rome and included Clement on it. And Irenaeus is a witness to this list. I don't need to claim anything about knowing more than Irenaeus knew. Irenaeus did nothing more than report what the list he knew said. But if somebody is going to assert that the list was trustworthy in this matter, they would have to know where the list came from, who wrote it, and how they came to determine that the people whose names they wrote really occupied the position that they claimed. Without knowing that, then they have no basis for trusting it and saying that Irenaeus, just because he repeated what was on this list, couldn't be wrong. Most likely what happened was that, when lists like that were made, the person making the list just assumed that the structure they knew in their own day had also existed earlier on in the days of some of the earlier church leaders about whom they had records, like Clement. So, rather than regarding those leaders of Clement's day as members of a college of bishops/elders, they assumed they were the bishop over the city.


Why is it that you think you have more knowledge about the succession of Bishops in Rome than St. Ireneaus?  You never answered the question.  Did you have his sources?  Did you have his access to the history and early teachings handed down better than him?  Why should I believe you over him?  You have yet to answer this.




> The most important source about the question of Clement being the bishop of Rome is 1 Clement. And that source says that he wasn't. Case closed. Don't take my word for it. Take Clement's.


Yes, I will!  And St. Ignatius and St. Ireneaus and St. Justin Martyr's and indeed all the early Christian Saints over your word!

Let us continue with the letter then and find out together what St. Clement wrote...

----------


## TER

*For ye did all things without respect of persons, and walked in the laws of God, submitting yourselves to them that have the rule over you, and giving the due honour to the presbyters that are among you. Young men ye enjoined to think such things as be sober and grave. Women ye exhorted to perform all things in a blameless and honourable and pure conscience, loving dutifully their own husbands; and ye taught them to manage the affairs of their houses with gravity, keeping in the rule of obedience, being temperate in all things.*

----------


## TER

Here we see St. Clement go back to listing the reasons for his adulation and respect for the Church in Corinth.

Amongst these include 'submitting to them that have the rule over you' (in the same vein as St. Paul wrote), which most definitely includes the episkopos (Bishop).  Also, he admires them for the 'due honor to the presbyters among [them]'. 

He also lists the other characteristics and virtues they demonstrated in Corinth which kept them in the rule of obedience and temperant in all things, walking in the laws of God.

----------


## TER

Chapter 2

*And ye were all humble, boasting of nothing, submitting yourselves rather than subjecting others, more gladly giving than receiving, content with the provision that God had given you; and attending diligently to his words, ye received them into your very hearts, and his sufferings were before your eyes.

Thus a deep and rich peace was given to all, and an insatiable longing for doing good, and a plentiful outpouring of the Holy Spirit was upon all of you.

*

----------


## TER

Here he is describes the 'plentiful outpouring of the Holy Spirit' which was upon them according to the humility they had and their submission and obedience to God, being 'content with the provisions' given to them by God and more be of a disposition of gladly giving then receiving.

Although this Church in Corinth had scandalous members, it too had within her numbers humble, God-fearing and obedient members who were recipients of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

----------


## TER

*
And ye, being filled with a holy desire, with excellent zeal and pious confidence, stretched out your arms to Almighty God, beseeching him to be merciful unto you, if ye had in anything unwillingly done amiss.

Ye contended day and night for the whole brotherhood, that in his mercy and good pleasure the number of his elect might be saved.*

----------


## TER

This is the first instance of the word 'elect' outside of the writings of the New Testament Canon that we have if I recall correctly.

Notice, however, that it is _far_ different and away from the later idea of unconditional election as invented many many centuries later by the Reformers.

For here Clement is applauding the faithful there for their pious prayers and divine zeal in asking of mercy from God and contending day and night for the whole brotherhood, that in God's mercy and good pleasure, the number of His elect _MAY_ be saved.

Noticed, that through prayers, the elect _MAY_ be saved.

There is no unconditionality here.  There is no perseverance as invented by the Reformers.  Rather, there are pious members praying for themselves and the brotherhood that God may have mercy and save the number of His elect.

----------


## TER

* 
Ye were simple and sincere without malice one toward another:

all sedition and all schism were abominable unto you. Ye grieved over the transgressions of your neighbour, judging his short-comings your own.

Ye repented not of any well-doing, being ready to every good work;

and being adorned with a very virtuous and holy habit of life, ye did all things in his fear. The commandments and ordinances of the Lord were written on the breadth of your heart.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is the first instance of the word 'elect' outside of the writings of the New Testament Canon if I recall correctly.
> 
> Notice, however, that it is _far_ apart and away from the later idea of unconditional election as invented many many centuries later by the Reformers.
> 
> For here Clement is applauding the faithful there for their pious prayers and divine zeal in asking of mercy from God and contending day and night for the whole brotherhood, that in God's mercy and good pleasure, the number of His elect _MAY_ be saved.
> 
> Noticed, that through prayers, the elect _MAY_ be saved.
> 
> There is no unconditionality here.  There is no perseverance as invented by the Reformers.  Rather, there are pious members praying for themselves and the brotherhood that God may have mercy and save the number of His elect.


That's ridiculous.   You're using the "may" defense too?  Hahaha

You read Greek, right?  What does the Greek sentence say?  http://www.dabar.org/ChurchHistory/F...roduction.html

----------


## TER

> That's ridiculous.   You're using the "may" defense too?  Hahaha
> 
> You read Greek, right?  What does the Greek sentence say?  http://www.dabar.org/ChurchHistory/F...roduction.html


The Greek says 'might be saved', and every English translation says the same thing, including Lightfoot, Hoole, and Robert-Donaldson's individual translations.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Greek says 'might be saved', and every English translation says the same thing, including Lightfoot, Hoole, and Robert-Donaldson's individual translations.


What is the Greek sentence?

----------


## TER

In the next verses listed above, Clement continues to remind the faithful in at Corinth of their righteousness which they demonstrated by living Hoky and virtuous lives, in the works of service they did for one another, that 'the commandments and ordinances of the Lord were written on the breadths of their hearts.

----------


## TER

> What is the Greek sentence?



O theos na se voiethesi, na anixi ta matia sou, yia na kanies metanouises ap'tis amarteies sou.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Firstly, before we begin, does anyone profess to have more knowledge about the Apostolic teachings than this successor of St. Peter?


Does the Eastern Orthodox church consider the writings of Clement to be infallible?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Does the Eastern Orthodox church consider the writings of Clement to be infallible?


TER's three pound brain does.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> O theos na se voiethesi, na anixi ta matia sou, yia na kanies metanouises ap'tis amarteies sou.


Is there any conditionality expressed in that phrase?   You know there's not, so why are you saying there is?

----------


## TER

Chapter 3

*All honour and enlargement was given to you, and then was fulfilled that which is written: -- The beloved ate and drank, and was enlarged and grew fat and kicked.

From this came emulation and envy, strife and sedition, persecution and disorder, war and captivity.

Thus the mean men were lifted up against the honourable; those of no repute against those of good repute; the foolish against the wise; the young against the elder.

Through this justice and peace are afar off, because each of you leaveth off the fear of God and is dimsighted in his faith, nor walketh in the laws of his commandments, nor behaveth as becometh a citizen of Christ; but each walketh according to his own evil lusts, having taken up unjust and unholy envy, by which also death entered into the world*

----------


## TER

Here, the Bishop of Rome is describing the poor state which formed at the Church in Corinth on account the envy and strife which grew out of their complacency and pride and lack of the fear of God. 

Having abandoned walking in the laws of God's commandments, and behaving not as becometh a citizen of Christ, they walked according to his own evil lusts, "having taken up unjust and unholy envy, by which also death entered into the world."

Having once walked the way of God, and praying for mercy that the elect might be saved, now they have lost that walk and allowed evil lusts to be the way of their walk.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Here is an example of how English translations use "may“




> Hebrews 9:15
> 
> Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, *so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance*, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant”


The Greek lieterally says “those who have been called to an eternal inheritance receive the promise”.

The conditionality that is conveyed in English when translated does not exist in the Greek.

----------


## TER

Chapter 4

*For it is thus written: And it came to pass after certain days, that Cain brought of the fruits of the ground a sacrifice to God, and Abel brought also of the firstlings of the sheep and of their fat.

And God had respect unto Abel and unto his gifts; but unto Cain and his gifts he had no regard.

And Cain was grieved greatly, and his countenance fell.

And God said unto Cain, Why art thou very sorrowful, and why hath thy countenance fallen? If thou hast rightly offered, but hast not rightly divided, hast thou not sinned?

Hold thy peace; thy gift returneth unto thee, and thou shalt be master over it.

And Cain said unto Abel, Let us pass over into the field. And it came to pass while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him.

Ye see, brethren, jealousy and envy wrought the slaughter of a brother.

Through envy our father Jacob fled from the face of his brother Esau.

Envy caused Joseph to be persecuted unto death, and to enter into bondage.

Envy compelled Moses to flee from the face of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, because he heard his countryman say, Who made thee a judge or a decider over us? Wilt thou kill me, as thou didst the Egyptian yesterday?

Through envy Aaron and Miriam pitched their tents without the camp.

Envy brought down Dathan and Abiram alive to the grave, because they contended against Moses, the servant of God.

Through envy David suffered jealousy not only of foreigners, but was persecuted also by Saul, king of Israel *

----------


## TER

> Here is an example of how English translations use "may“
> 
> 
> 
> The Greek lieterally says “those who have been called to an eternal inheritance receive the promise”.
> 
> The conditionality that is conveyed in English when translated does not exist in the Greek.


Except, that is not what it says but what you want it to say.  I speak Greek and understand it, and the historians who have translated this work in English in the past (who I believe are Protestants from the names I gave above), all agree that it says "might be saved".  Quite telling that for you to defend many of your doctrines, you have to invent new definitions for the words, like 'world doesn't mean world' and 'all doesn't mean all'.

----------


## TER

In this section of the letter, Clement uses examples from the Old Testament to express what the fruits of envy and jealousy are, which it seems is the main reason for the problems of the Church in Corinth.  Such jealousy existed in the days when St. Paul wrote to them as well, yet have now come to the level of scandal where the Bishop of Rome and Succesor of St. Peter had to address it formally via an epistle.

----------


## erowe1

> Here is an example of how English translations use "may“
> 
> 
> 
> The Greek lieterally says “those who have been called to an eternal inheritance receive the promise”.
> 
> The conditionality that is conveyed in English when translated does not exist in the Greek.


It is conditional. It's conditioned on the prerequisite that Jesus be the mediator of a new covenant.

But I think what you mean is that the use of the subjunctive (which is present in both the Greek, via the verb form, and the English, via "may") doesn't prove some uncertainty about it happening. And you're right about that. It doesn't. It's just the grammatically appropriate way to express the relationship between the purpose clause and the main clause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive

----------


## TER

> It is conditional. It's conditioned on the prerequisite that Jesus be the mediator of a new covenant.
> 
> But I think what you mean is that the use of the subjunctive (which is present in both the Greek, via the verb form, and the English, via "may") doesn't prove some uncertainty about it happening. And you're right about that. It doesn't. It's just the grammatically appropriate way to express the relationship between the purpose clause and the main clause.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive


Proof that is not what Clement is saying and implying, that they 'might be saved'?

Proof that any Church Father spoke of unconditional election?  

Please start a thread on it.  I would be thrilled to find your proofs with this regard.

----------


## TER

Chapter 5

*But let us pass from ancient examples, and come unto those who have in the times nearest to us, wrestled for the faith.

Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death.

Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles.

Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.

Through envy Paul, too, showed by example the prize that is given to patience:

seven times was he cast into chains; he was banished; he was stoned; having become a herald, both in the East and in the West, he obtained the noble renown due to his faith;

and having preached righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extremity of the West, and having borne witness before rulers, he departed at length out of the world, and went to the holy place, having become the greatest example of patience*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It is conditional. It's conditioned on the prerequisite that Jesus be the mediator of a new covenant.
> 
> But I think what you mean is that the use of the subjunctive (which is present in both the Greek, via the verb form, and the English, via "may") doesn't prove some uncertainty about it happening. And you're right about that. It doesn't. It's just the grammatically appropriate way to express the relationship between the purpose clause and the main clause.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive


Thanks for explaining that.

+rep

----------


## TER

Here, Clement is using examples of more 'modern times' (namely, the New Testament period), referring to the 'greatest and most just pillars of the Church' who 'wrestled for the faith' and who were victims of the jealousy of others.

Here he refers to the life, works and martyrdoms of Sts. Peter and Paul in particular, whom St. Clement knew and worshiped together with, and who he wrestled alongside them for the faith.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Except, that is not what it says but what you want it to say.  I speak Greek and understand it, and the historians who have translated this work in English in the past (who I believe are Protestants from the names I gave above), all agree that it says "might be saved".  Quite telling that for you to defend many of your doctrines, you have to invent new definitions for the words, like 'world doesn't mean world' and 'all doesn't mean all'.


What does kosmos mean when the New Testament writers use it?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Proof that is not what Clement is saying and implying, that they 'might be saved'?
> 
> Proof that any Church Father spoke of unconditional election?  
> 
> Please start a thread on it.  I would be thrilled to find your proofs with this regard.


TER...I'm beginning to think your knowledge of Greek is like your knowledge of church history. 

What was wrong with what Erowe said there?

----------


## TER

Chapter 6

*
To these men, who walked in holiness, there was gathered a great multitude of the elect, who, having suffered, through envy, many insults and tortures, became a most excellent example among us.

Through envy women were persecuted, even the Danaides and Dircae, who, after enduring dreadful and unholy insults, attained to the sure course of the faith; and they who were weak in body received a noble reward.

Envy hath estranged the minds of wives from their husbands, and changed the saying of our father Adam: This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.

Envy and strife have overthrown mighty cities and rooted out great nations.*

----------


## TER

Clement continues his pastoral verses on the dangers and evil of envy.

----------


## TER

Chapter 7

*
These things we enjoin you, beloved, not only by way of admonition to you, but as putting ourselves also in mind. For we are in the same arena, and the same contest is imposed upon us.

Wherefore, let us leave empty and vain thoughts, and come unto the glorious and venerable rule of our holy calling.

Let us consider what is good and pleasing and acceptable before him who made us.

Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious in the sight of God is his blood, which having been poured out for our salvation, brought to the whole world the grace of repentance.

Let us go back to all generations, and learn that in every generation God hath granted a place for repentance to such as wished to return unto him.

Noah preached repentance, and as many as hearkened unto him were saved.

Jonah prophesied destruction to the Ninevites, and they, repenting of their sins, appeased God through prayer, and, though alien from God, obtained salvation.*

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Proof that is not what Clement is saying and implying, that they 'might be saved'?
> 
> Proof that any Church Father spoke of unconditional election?  
> 
> Please start a thread on it.  I would be thrilled to find your proofs with this regard.


Did Clement believe in the Divine authorship of Scripture? 

I definitely could interpret him believing in justification by faith alone.  Of course we pray for one another on our walk of faith, and yet I believe Clement taught those whom Christ elects, will be saved.  This is one of Clement's quotes:

“All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, 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 in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” ANF, Vol. 1, p. 13.

----------


## Sola_Fide

TER,

Can you please help me understand what was wrong with Erowe's response?

----------


## TER

> Did Clement believe in the Divine authorship of Scripture? 
> 
> I definitely could interpret him believing in justification by faith alone.  Of course we pray for one another on our walk of faith, and yet I believe Clement taught those whom Christ elects, will be saved.  This is one of Clement's quotes:
> 
> “All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, 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 in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” ANF, Vol. 1, p. 13.


We are going to get to the verse above (God-willing).  But, we should examine the entire text and not merely take one snippet from it without context and divorced from the overall meaning. That way, we can have more discernment and understanding of what the author is expressing and saying.

----------


## Sola_Fide

I need help with Greek TER.  Why was Erowe's explanation of subjunctives wrong?

----------


## TER

In chapter 7 above, Clement is reminding the Church members at Corinth that they are "in the same arena" and the "same contest is imposed" on them.

Here we see him echo the Apostle Paul's teachings about running the race.  St. Clement is stating that they too in Rome, indeed, all of the Church, are in the same contest as the members in Corinth, where they can either lose or win.  For what is a contest if it does not have winners and losers, or a prize that is rewarded to those who persevere?  Again, this first century writing completely destroys any notion of unconditional election and perseverance of the saints as interpreted by the Reformers.  Just as St. Paul taught, and all the Apostles taught, likewise this chosen of the Apostles, Clement, teaches the same, so they _might_ be saved.

And how might we be saved?  Through repentance, which he states God has granted as a means for those to come to Him.

And then he proceeds to mention examples of the Old Testament, stating clearly that Noah preached repentance, "and as many as hearkened unto him were saved."  Those who did not repent, in other words, we're not saved.

Likewise, he recalls how the Prophet Jonah prophesied destruction to the Ninevites, "and *they*, *repenting of their sins, appeased God through prayer, and, though alien from God, obtained salvation.*"

Repentance is what St. John the Baptist, the last of the Old Testament Prophets cried out.  'Repent, for the Kingdom is at hand' is what the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ called out.  Through repentance and prayer, Clement says, God was appeased, and though the Ninevites were not part of the covenant and alien from God, they still obtained salvation on account of their repentance in the particular contest they were contending in.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> We are going to get to the verse above (God-willing).  But, we should examine the entire text and not merely take one snippet from it without context and divorced from the overall meaning. That way, we can have more discernment and understanding of what the author is expressing and saying.


I read the whole epistle.  I most surely discern monergistic saving faith and continued good works for those already saved.  It's really quite beautifully written.  Although we don't agree on the meaning of his words, I'm very glad to have read them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

No response to my question TER?  Hmmm...that's strange.

----------


## TER

> I read the whole epistle.  I most surely discern monergistic saving faith and continued good works for those already saved.  It's really quite beautifully written.  Although we don't agree on the meaning of his words, I'm very glad to have read them.


That's great you read them!

----------


## TER

Chapter 8

*The ministers of the grace of God spake by the Holy Spirit concerning repentance;

and the Lord of all himself spake concerning repentance with an oath. As I live, saith the Lord, I desire not the death of a sinner, as I desire his repentance; adding thereto an excellent saying:

Repent, O house of Israel, from your iniquity: Say unto the sons of my people, Though your sins reach from earth to heaven, and though they be redder than scarlet, and blacker than sackcloth, and ye turn unto me with your whole heart and say, My father, I will hearken unto you as to an holy people.

And in another place he speaketh in this wise: Wash, and be ye clean; take away the wickedness from your souls from before my eyes; cease from your evil deeds, learn to do well; seek judgment; deliver him that is oppressed; give judgment for the orphan, and justify the widow; and come and let us reason together, saith he; and though your sins be as purple, I will make them white as snow; and though they be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool. And if ye be willing and hearken unto me, ye shall eat the good things of the earth; but if ye be not willing, and hearken not, the sword shall devour you; for the mouth of the Lord hath said this.

Desiring, therefore, that all his beloved ones should partake of repentance, he hath confirmed it by his almighty will.*

----------


## TER

In the next verse, we clearly see the Aposotlic doctrine of synergism be described, whereby God cleanses the sinner and grants them salvation if they 'cease from their evil deeds' and perform works of love and charity.  That if they 'be willing and hearken unto [Him]' they will be rewarded with the good things of the earth, and if they are not willing, (that is put their wills above His) and hearken not, 'the sword shall devour [them].'

Repentance is a work which is required of every person who wants to come to God and be rewarded by His grace.  And not only repentance, but works of charity and love and ceasing from doing evil.  By doing so, God will make them white as snow, even though their sins be purple, and white as wool, even though they are scarlet in their sins.

This verse alone destroys many doctrines of Reformed Protestantism, and speaks clearly to the apostolic faith which was visibly present and in patristic consensus from the Scriptures, the first century and afterwards.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> In the next verse, we clearly see the Aposotlic doctrine of synergism be described, whereby God cleanses the sinner and grants them salvation if they 'cease from their evil deeds' and perform works of love and charity.  That if they 'be willing and hearken unto [Him]' they will be rewarded with the good things of the earth, and if they are not willing, (that is put their wills above His) and hearken not, 'the sword shall devour [them].'
> 
> Repentance is a work which is required of every person who wants to come to God and be rewarded by His grace.  And not only repentance, but works of charity and love and ceasing from doing evil.  By doing so, God will make them white as snow, even though their sins be purple, and white as wool, even though they are scarlet in their sins.
> 
> This verse alone destroys many doctrines of Reformed Protestantism, and speaks clearly to the apostolic faith which was visibly present and in patristic consensus from the Scriptures, the first century and afterwards.


I just can't figure out how you can come to this conclusion.  Clement would not have been concerned with anything other than proclaiming the Gospel, which I think he does quite beautifully.   I am quite struck by the way in which Clement embraces the Old Testament, when he declares the Lord's speaking repentance, cleansing, desiring and confirmation of His will.  He is doing all the work.  He always does all work of salvation.

----------


## erowe1

What is it that causes someone to cease from their evil deeds, to do works of love and charity, and to hearken unto the Lord?

Nothing that is in any of our fleshly sinful natures does that. Only an act of God's grace has ever or will ever accomplish that in any sinner. And even their willingness to cooperate with that grace comes from even more grace of God. There is no element in the entire process that isn't totally dependent on God's grace in brining it about.

This is the consistent testimony of Jesus, his apostles, and true Christians among the early Church Fathers in both the West and the East.

Even fathers who reputedly leaned more towards Pelagianism than Augustinianism, like John Cassian, taught this.

----------


## TER

> What is it that causes someone to cease from their evil deeds, to do works of love and charity, and to hearken unto the Lord?
> 
> Nothing that is in any of our fleshly sinful natures does that. Only an act of God's grace has ever or will ever accomplish that in any sinner. And even their willingness to cooperate with that grace comes from even more grace of God. There is no element in the entire process that isn't totally dependent on God's grace in brining it about.
> 
> This is the consistent testimony of Jesus, his apostles, and true Christians among the early Church Fathers in both the West and the East.
> 
> Even fathers who reputedly leaned more towards Pelagianism than Augustinianism, like John Cassian, taught this.


Thank you for your post, however, I do not find it convincing after having read the writings of real historical Christian Saints of the first few centuries.  That is what this exercise is all about!  To address reality!  So we can weigh your position or Eagle's Wing's position, or mine, or anybody's against the testimony of the Christian Saints of the early centuries.  How else am I, a historical nobody and big-time sinner, going to find the historically true interpretations according to the Church which I am told is the pillar and ground for the truth?  Should I simply ignore proofs?  I don't think that is the Christian way.  I also don't think Christ's Church was devoid of great Saints in the first few centuries.  Do you?  

I think reality tells us that the formative years was the time when it was much more filled with holy God-bearing men and women who labored tirelessly and fearlessly for the faith in Christ.  It grew so big it eventually converted the entire pagan Roman Empire!  These great wonder-working Saints are remembered and memorialized even today for being filled with the Holy Spirit; and by the Holy Spirit, they brought many to the body of Christ.  

We should be cognizant of the fact that these men and women of the turn of the first century were _much more closer_ in time and distance and contact with the pillars of the faith, the Apostles, then us.  It would be the height of arrogance, and would sadly lead to fanciful superstitions, to believe that we living in the world now had more knowledge of the apostolic truths then what these early members did.  St. Clement embraced the Apostles arm in arm, kissed them the kiss of peace, experienced with them intimate and divine sacramental communion through the Holy Eucharist celebration on the Lord's Day, and shared tears of joy and pain with them while protecting and defending the sheep given to them by God.

So far, in this first epistle by St. Clement, he has not made the doctrinal statements you have made in your statement above.  In fact, I don't think he makes any mention ever of total depravity or of an idea that man has lost the image of God in him (which I think amounts to what you are saying, though please correct me if I am wrong).   

 Nor does he speak of man having lost the ability to repent and turn to God.  In fact, he exhorts quite clearly in the letter to do exactly that and have repentance, which is desired by God of all His beloved.  He pastorally teaches them that through repentance and acts of charity and love, man is cleansed from his sins.  God purifies them who do His commandments of love and charity.  

This is the orthodox understanding of synergism, that the Just and Good God truly blesses those who with a pure and humble heart freely do good to others, and fulfill His holy will.  Through acts of love and mercy, we find forgiveness of sins and gain entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.  These are the apostolic teachings, and St. Clement uses the Scriptures of the day, namely the books of the Old Testament, to demonstrate this point.

So far, what I have learned studying this letter to the Cornithians is that there is an organizing clergy serving the laity, and that with mutual respect, filial love, and sharing the same hope and faith, blessings of peace are given by God.  I also learned that the Church in Corinth at the time of the letter were having difficulties and problems on account of envy and pride.  The last thing I learned so far is that God rewards those who do His will and desires not the death of a sinner, but for man to come to Him in repentance.  'For a contrite heart, God will not despise'.  Through man's willful acts of good for others, God will make him white as snow and as white wool, even as he is scarlet in his sins.  This is part of the Gospel which was handed down to St. Clement from the very Apostles who ordained him and worshipped God with him.

 Erowe, you are not addressing the verses being presented, but are making certain doctrinal statements based on your own personal opinions and suppositions, which happen to be found nowhere in the writing we are currently reviewing.   Let us stick with this letter in this thread and what is really historically written in it. Thank you.

But when you have a moment, please reveal to us (preferably as a new thread) who are the 'true Christians among the early Church Fathers' which you alluded to in your post so that we can study their writings and teachings.  Thanks!

----------


## ReformedObserver

> What is it that causes someone to cease from their evil deeds, to do works of love and charity, and to hearken unto the Lord?
> 
> Nothing that is in any of our fleshly sinful natures does that. Only an act of God's grace has ever or will ever accomplish that in any sinner. And even their willingness to cooperate with that grace comes from even more grace of God. There is no element in the entire process that isn't totally dependent on God's grace in brining it about.
> 
> This is the consistent testimony of Jesus, his apostles, and true Christians among the early Church Fathers in both the West and the East.
> 
> Even fathers who reputedly leaned more towards Pelagianism than Augustinianism, like John Cassian, taught this.


Amen.


This is historically and spiritually true, plus well said by you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What is it that causes someone to cease from their evil deeds, to do works of love and charity, and to hearken unto the Lord?
> 
> Nothing that is in any of our fleshly sinful natures does that. Only an act of God's grace has ever or will ever accomplish that in any sinner. And even their willingness to cooperate with that grace comes from even more grace of God. There is no element in the entire process that isn't totally dependent on God's grace in brining it about.
> 
> This is the consistent testimony of Jesus, his apostles, and true Christians among the early Church Fathers in both the West and the East.
> 
> Even fathers who reputedly leaned more towards Pelagianism than Augustinianism, like John Cassian, taught this.


+rep

And what is so wonderful about this simple truth of monergism is that God alone gets the glory for a man's salvation and his life.

----------


## ReformedObserver

> Thank you for your post, however, I do not find it convincing after having read the writings of real historical Christian Saints of the first few centuries.  That is what this exercise is all about!  To address reality!  So we can weigh your position or Eagle's Wing's position, or mine, or anybody's against the testimony of the Christian Saints of the early centuries.  How else am I, a historical nobody, going to find the historical truth?  Should I simply ignore proofs?  I don't think Christ's Church was devoid of great Saints in the first few centuries.  Do you?  I think reality tells us that it was the time when it was much more filled with holy God-bearing men and women who labored tirelessly and fearlessly for the faith in Christ.  It grew so big it eventually converted the entire pagan Roman Empire!  These great wonder-working Saints are remembered and memorialized even today for being filled with the Holy Spirit; and by the Holy Spirit, they brought many to the body of Christ.  
> 
> We should be cognizant of the fact that these men and women of the turn of the first century were _much more closer_ in time and distance and contact with the pillars of the faith, the Apostles, then us.  It would be the height of arrogance, and would sadly lead to fanciful superstitions, to believe that we living in the world now had more knowledge of the apostolic truths then what these early members did.  St. Clement embraced the Apostles arm in arm, kissed them the kiss of peace, experienced with them intimate and divine sacramental communion through the Holy Eucharist celebration on the Lord's Day, and shared tears of joy and pain with them while protecting and defending the sheep given to them by God.
> 
> So far, in this first epistle by St. Clement, he has not made the doctrinal statements you have made in your statement above.  In fact, I don't think he makes any mention ever of total depravity or of an idea that man has lost the image of God in him (which I think amounts to what you are saying, though please correct me if I am wrong).   
> 
>  Nor does he speak of man having lost the ability to repent and turn to God.  In fact, he exhorts quite clearly in the letter to do exactly that and have repentance, which is desired by God of all His beloved.  He pastorally teaches them that through repentance and acts of charity and love, man is cleansed from his sins.  God purifies them who do His commandments of love and charity.  
> 
> This is the orthodox understanding of synergism, that the Just and Good God truly blesses those who with a pure and humble heart freely do good to others, and fulfill His holy will.  Through acts of love and mercy, we find forgiveness of sins and gain entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.  These are the apostolic teachings, and St. Clement uses the Scriptures of the day, namely the books of the Old Testament, to demonstrate this point.
> ...


IMO,  "synergism" is  theologically misleading and nothing but a dirty word.

----------


## TER

> IMO,  "synergism" is  theologically misleading and nothing but a dirty word.


Thank you for your opinion.  Any opinion on what we have read so far in this letter by Clement?

----------


## ReformedObserver

> Thank you for your opinion.  Any opinion on what we have read so far in this letter by Clement?


Clement, who?

----------


## TER

> Clement, who?


St. Clement, Bishop of Rome.

----------


## ReformedObserver

> St. Clement, Bishop of Rome.


This personage has no biblical endorsement nor scriptural mention. 

In these days, God has spoken to His people through Jesus Christ alone.  Hebrews 1:1-3

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This personage has no biblical endorsement nor scriptural mention. 
> 
> In these days, God has spoken to His people through Jesus Christ alone.  Hebrews 1:1-3


TER actually gives men in a church the same authority that he gives to Scripture.   It boggles the mind.

----------


## fisharmor

> TER actually gives men in a church the same authority that he gives to Scripture.   It boggles the mind.


FBO less easily boggled minds,
Nobody reading this thread believes that Jesus penned the Scriptures, and nobody believes that the Holy Spirit hand-delivered a finished copy of the Bible to the early Church.

Even the reformed position is that the HS worked through men.

The difference is that reformed Christians are hard pressed to explain how the HS didn't stop doing anything at all on this Earth, and we are not.

----------


## TER

> This personage has no biblical endorsement nor scriptural mention.


Here is St. Paul addressing the saints in Philipi (Philippians 4:3)




> I implore Euodia and I implore Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord.  And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with *Clement* also, and_ the rest of my fellow workers_, whose names are in the Book of Life.




Why should I put your interpretations above Clement's?  Perhaps you have some kind of biblical endorsement or scriptural mention?

----------


## ReformedObserver

> Here is St. Paul addressing the saints in Philipi (Philippians 4:3)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I put your interpretations above Clement's?  Perhaps you have some kind of biblical endorsement or scriptural mention?




No human institution nor mortal sinner, even those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life, speak with equal authority as Jesus Christ, Who alone is the sole representative and spokesman for God in these last days.

----------


## TER

> No human institution nor mortal sinner, even those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life, speak with equal authority as Jesus Christ, Who alone is the sole representative and spokesman for God in these last days.


Are you going to answer my question?

Why should I put your interpretations above Clement's?

----------


## Sola_Fide

....

----------


## ReformedObserver

> Are you going to answer my question?
> 
> Why should I put your interpretations above Clement's?





No.



Your question is invalid.

----------


## TER

Oh.



Okay.


Good night.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you going to answer my question?
> 
> Why should I put your interpretations above Clement's?


Instead of going around looking for men to be subject to, your desire should be to be subject to the Word of God alone.   But I understand why it's not for you...only a Christian has this desire.

----------


## TER

Today is the feast day of St. Clement, Pope of Rome.  Pray for us St. Clement, and for peace in the world.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Today is the feast day of St. Clement, Pope of Rome.  Pray for us St. Clement, and for peace in the world.


Where did the prophets or apostles ever pray to the dead for intercession?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Today is the feast day of St. Clement, Pope of Rome.  Pray for us St. Clement, and for peace in the world.


LOL!  There was no such abomination as the modern papacy in his day.

----------


## TER

*Hieromartyr Clement, Pope of Rome (+ 101)*




St. Clement of Rome (Feast Day - November 24)



Verses


_Clement is cast into the depths like an anchor,_
_And is present with Christ, the anchor of the eschaton._


By St. Nikolai Velimirovich


*LIFE*
Clement was born in Rome of royal lineage and was a contemporary of the holy apostles. His mother and two brothers, traveling on the sea, were carried by a storm to different places. His father then went to find his wife and two sons and he, too, became lost. Clement, being twenty-four years old, then set out for the east to seek his parents and brothers. In Alexandria, he made the acquaintance of the Apostle Barnabas and, afterward, he joined the Apostle Peter whom his two brothers, Faustinus and Faustinian, had already followed. By God's providence, the Apostle Peter came upon Clement's mother as an aged beggar woman and then his father also. Thus, the whole family was united and all returned to Rome as Christians. Clement did not separate himself from the great apostle, who appointed him as bishop before his death.

After the death of Peter by martyrdom, the bishop of Rome was Linus, then Cletus [Anacletus] - both of them for a short time - and then Clement. Clement governed the Church of God with flaming zeal and, from day to day, brought a great number of unbelievers to the faith of Christ. In addition, he ordered seven scribes to write the lives of the Christian martyrs who, at that time, suffered for their Lord. The Emperor Trajan banished him to Cherson where Clement found about two thousand exiled Christians. All were occupied with the difficult job of hewing stones in an arid place. The Christians received Clement with great joy and he was a living source of comfort to them. By his prayer, he brought forth water from the ground and converted so many of the unbelieving residents to Christianity that, in one year, seventy-five churches were built in that place. In order that he not further spread the faith of Christ, Clement was condemned to death and drowned in the sea with a stone around his neck in the year 101 A.D. His wonderworking relics were removed from the sea only in the time of Saints Cyril and Methodius.



*REFLECTION*
Many learned pagans entered the Church of Christ and were baptized precisely because the Church preached immortal life as a proven fact and not as a speculation of human reason. St. Clement of Rome had studied all of Greek philosophy, yet his soul remained unsatisfied and empty. As a young man of twenty-four, he desired to know with all his soul if there were another, better life than this. Philosophy gave him only the thoughts of various men, but no real proof. He mourned for his lost parents and brothers and was tormented constantly by not knowing if he would be able to see them in some other life. The All-seeing God directed his footsteps and he met a man who spoke to him of Christians, and of their belief in life beyond the grave. This so stirred the young Clement that he immediately moved from Rome to Judea so that there, in the cradle of the Christian Faith itself, he might come to uncontestable knowledge regarding life beyond the grave. When he heard the preaching of the Apostle Peter, based entirely on Christ's Resurrection from the dead, Clement despised the conjectures of philosophy and sincerely adopted the Christian Faith. He was baptized, and dedicated himself totally to the service of the Church of God. As it was then, so it is today - he who has a strong faith in the resurrected Christ, and a clear knowledge of life beyond death and judgment, easily decides to pay the price for entry into that life; that is, the fulfilling of all God's commandments.



*HYMN OF PRAISE:*
*THE HIEROMARTYR CLEMENT, BISHOP OF ROME*


The Aristocrat Clement, of noble birth
Of the living Lord, became a zealous servant.
Scorned all the vanity of opulent Rome,
Above all illusions, raised his spirit.
Spiritual kinship with Peter, bound him,
From bodily kinship, with the emperor loosened.
As a shining star, in Rome he glowed,
With the Honorable Cross, dispelled the dense darkness;
The Apostolic Church, adorned and strengthened,
And, the weak powers of the demons, enraged.
A tempest from the demonic powers rose up
In order to slay with death, the saint of God,
His body they killed; the soul to Paradise went.
On the bottom of the waters of the sea, the holy body remained.
Iron, for eight centuries, would corrode
But, the body of the knight of Christ did not corrode,
But, many glorious miracles proclaimed,
And, with Christ, God glorified Clement.
O, Clement holy, help us also
By your prayers, before the throne of God.


*Apolytikion in the Third Tone*
You were shown forth as trumpeters of divine knowledge, and revealers of the ordinances of the faith, Clement thou fruitful vine of life, and Peter firm rock of the faithful. Since you are seers of ineffable mysteries deliver us from every harm.


*Kontakion in the Fourth Tone*
Unshakable divine pillars of the Church, God-inspired and mighty pillars of piety: we praise you, Clement and Peter, guard us all by your intercessions.

----------


## Sola_Fide

TER, 

Go back and answer Erowe1s post about subjunctives.

----------


## TER

Chapter 9

*Wherefore, let us submit ourselves to his excellent and glorious will, and, becoming suppliants of his mercy and goodness, let us fall before him and betake ourselves to his mercies, having laid aside the vain toil and the strife and the jealousy that leadeth unto death.

Let us look steadfastly at those that have ministered with perfectness to his excellent glory.

Let us take as example Enoch, who, having been found just by reason of obedience, was translated, and his death was not found.

Noah, having been found faithful, preached, by his ministry, regeneration unto the world, and by him God preserved the animals that entered with one consent into the ark.*

----------


## TER

> TER, 
> 
> Go back and answer Erowe1s post about subjunctives.


Not interested.  Would rather dig deeper into this wonderful Epistle.  Eusebius calls this 'the wonderful Epistle of St. Clement', and says that it was publicly read in the assemblies of the primitive church. It is included in one of the ancient collections of the Canon Scripture. 

Thus it seems like an Epistle which could provide us with some important information with regards to the teachings and traditions handed down by the Apostles.

----------


## RJB

> TER, 
> 
> Go back and answer Erowe1s post about subjunctives.


Don't out The Big E.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not interested.  Would rather dig deeper into this wonderful Epistle.  Eusebius calls this 'the wonderful Epistle of St. Clement', and says that it was publicly read in the assemblies of the primitive church. It is included in one of the ancient collections of the Canon Scripture. 
> 
> Thus it seems like an Epistle which could provide us with some important information with regards to the teachings and traditions handed down by the Apostles.


You aren't interested because, once again, Erowe proved you wrong.

----------


## Superfluous Man

The epistle that is commonly called First Clement actually never claims to have been written by Clement. It is the Epistle from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth.

I don't doubt that Clement was involved in writing it, perhaps even the main author. But he was probably not the same Clement as that mentioned in Philippians (see Lightfoot's thorough discussion of this). Clement was a very common name at that time. And he certainly wasn't the bishop of Rome. He might have been (I think probably was) a bishop in a church at Rome. But, as the letter itself proves, there was no such thing as a single bishop over all of Rome at that time. First Clement uses the terms "bishop" and "elder" interchangeably, and indicates that there are a plurality of them at both Rome and Corinth at the time it was written. Monarchical bishops (i.e. one bishop for a whole city) didn't exist yet when 1 Clement was written, at least not in the churches concerning which that letter provides evidence.

The tradition that Clement was a monarchical bishop of Rome derives from later Christian authors who anachronistically read back the church leadership model that they knew from their own time back on that earlier period.

----------


## TER

In Chapter 9 of this first century Epistle by the Bishop of the capital of the Roman Empire, he clearly repeats the commandment given by the Lord and carried down by the Saints, namely, to "submit ourselves to His excellent and glorious will, and, becoming suppliants of His mercy and goodness, let us fall before Him and betake ourselves to His mercies".

Again, he clearly demonstrated the apostolic doctrine of synergism, whereby we must submit to His will so that we may receive mercy, that by falling before Him in repentance, we may "betake" of His mercies.

Then referring to Enoch, who he includes in those who have "ministered with perfectness to His excellent glory", that by such faithful works, he was "found just by reason of obedience".  For those who do His will by their own volition and will are found just and are glorified, and being perfected by God, was translated and did not find death. 

So too, he mentions another great Prophet of God, namely Noah, who by his ministry, preached the regeneration of the world and by him (Noah) "God preserved the animals that entered with one consent into the ark."

Again, we find that these God-bearing saints were the vessels of change and hope in the world, and that even the animals which were saved in the floods entered into salvation not forcefully, but willingly, "with one consent", demonstrating that even the wild beasts when they will to consent and obey God's calling, find salvation.

----------


## TER

> The epistle that is commonly called First Clement actually never claims to have been written by Clement. It is the Epistle from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth.
> 
> I don't doubt that Clement was involved in writing it, perhaps even the main author. But he was probably not the same Clement as that mentioned in Philippians (see Lightfoot's thorough discussion of this). Clement was a very common name at that time. And he certainly wasn't the bishop of Rome. He might have been (I think probably was) a bishop in a church at Rome. But, as the letter itself proves, there was no such thing as a single bishop over all of Rome at that time. First Clement uses the terms "bishop" and "elder" interchangeably, and indicates that there are a plurality of them at both Rome and Corinth at the time it was written. Monarchical bishops (i.e. one bishop for a whole city) didn't exist yet when 1 Clement was written, at least not in the churches concerning which that letter provides evidence.
> 
> The tradition that Clement was a monarchical bishop of Rome derives from later Christian authors who anachronistically read back the church leadership model that they knew from their own time back on that earlier period.


So you say, but wiser men than you, living in times long ago and closer to the first century (using whatever sources and documents they possessed which we do not have any longer) say differently.

I chose the Saints over the Superfluous Man.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So you say, but wiser men than you, living in times long ago and closer to the first century (using whatever sources and documents they possessed which we do not have any longer) say differently.
> 
> I chose the Saints over the Superfluous Man.


No you don't. You choose much later people over the very author of the letter you're discussing. Why do you trust your own brain concerning the situation of the churches mentioned in 1 Clement, rather than what that epistle itself says?

----------


## TER

> No you don't. You choose much later people over the very author of the letter you're discussing. Why do you trust your own brain concerning the situation of the churches mentioned in 1 Clement, rather than what that epistle itself says?


I don't trust my brain to be the authority on truth, especially when it goes against what Saints have taught through illumination by God.  Especially so when the body of the faithful, namely the Church, proclaim such things as true.  I simply don't consider myself or my brain to be that great.

I am not trying to formulate my own faith or church.  I am trying to mold my mind to the faith handed down by the Church Christ established on earth.

But the funny thing is how you question whether Clement wrote the Epistle because he didn't specifically name himself, as if that would have made that much of a difference to you.  Meanwhile, you ignore the rest of the verses and teachings and cling onto such things so that you can justify why you don't believe the same things the Church in Rome in the first century did (the home of the greatest martyrs).

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I don't trust my brain to be the authority on truth


Yes you do.




> especially when it goes against what Saints have taught through illumination by God.  Especially so when the body of the faithful, namely the Church, proclaim such things as true.


How are you even capable of knowing what the saints and Church proclaim?

If you need them to interpret what First Clement says, and what the Bible says, then you must need another interpreter to interpret for you what they say. And then you also won't be able to understand that other interpreter unless you have someone interpret them to you as well. Ad infinitum.

This is what you're left with when you take this view that texts don't have objective meanings that you are capable of understanding without additional interpreters.

In the case at hand, you positively reject the testimony of First Clement concerning the churches it talks about in favor of things that you think later writers say (according to your personal interpretation of those later writers).

----------


## TER

> Yes you do.


To a degree, yes.  But when a Church of great brains inspired by the Holy Spirit of God teach things which speak something different, I cast away my radical thoughts and submit to their authority over my limited brain and the limited knowledge, experience and resources I have which have shaped my brain.

After all, the Scriptures and the Apostles do not teach that our brains are the pillar and foundation of the truth, but rather, that the Church is.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> But when a Church of great brains inspired by the Holy Spirit of God teach things which speak something different, I cast away my radical thoughts and submit to their authority over my limited brain and the limited knowledge, experience and resources I have which have shaped my brain.


But the Church doesn't speak. Individuals do. And the individuals who make up the Church don't all say the same thing, except concerning essentials of the faith. The "Church" does not have a view that it proclaims about Clement being the bishop of Rome, for example.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> To a degree, yes.  But when a Church of great brains inspired by the Holy Spirit of God teach things which speak something different, I cast away my radical thoughts and submit to their authority over my limited brain and the limited knowledge, experience and resources I have which have shaped my brain.
> 
> *After all, the Scriptures and the Apostles do not teach that our brains are the pillar and foundation of the truth, but rather, that the Church* is.


That is not what the verses says. I've explained this to you several times.  The church (meaning the individual people of God) is the PILLAR that holds up the truth.  The "truth" and the "church" are two different things in that verse.

----------


## TER

> But the Church doesn't speak. Individuals do. And the individuals who make up the Church don't all say the same thing, except concerning essentials of the faith. The "Church" does not have a view that it proclaims about Clement being the bishop of Rome, for example.


Maybe your church of like minded believers do not have a view that proclaims Clement being the Bishop of Rome, but the Orthodox Church which traces herself back to the first century Bishops and Apostles most certainly does.  (So, too, the other Churches which can trace themselves that far back, namely the Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches).

Again, I chose the Saints over the Superfluous Man.

But perhaps you are getting nervous about the next chapter in the book, which completely destroy the heretical views of the Reformers called justification by faith alone?  

Let's move on to Chapter 10 and see what this first century Epistle says...

----------


## TER

CHAPTER 10*

Abraham, who was called the friend, was found faithful, inasmuch as he became obedient to the words of God.

This man, by obedience, went out from his land and his kinsfolk, and the house of his father, that, by leaving a scanty land and weak kinsfolk and a small house, he might inherit the promises of God.

For he saith unto him, Go out from thy land and thy kinsfolk, and the house of thy father, unto the land that I shall show thee, and I will make thee a great nation, and bless thee, and magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee, and in thee shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed.

And again, when he separated from Lot, God said unto him, Lift up thine eyes, and look from the place where thou now art unto the north and unto the south, and unto the east and unto the sea; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it and to thy seed for ever,

and I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: if any man can number the dust of the earth, thy seed also shall be numbered.

And again he saith, God brought forth Abraham, and said unto him: Look up to heaven and number the stars, if thou art able to number them, so shall thy seed be. And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.

Through faith and hospitality a son was given unto him in old age, and through obedience he offered him a sacrifice unto God on one of the mountains that he showed him.*

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Maybe your church of like minded believers do not have a view that proclaims Clement being the Bishop of Rome, but the Orthodox Church which traces herself back to the first century Bishops and Apostles most certainly does.


You are mistaken. The Orthodox Church which traces herself back to the first century bishops and apostles does not proclaim that.

See, for example, the letter of First Clement.

----------


## TER

> You are mistaken. The Orthodox Church which traces herself back to the first century bishops and apostles does not proclaim that.
> 
> See, for example, the letter of First Clement.


I believe it is you who are mistaken.  Go to any Orthodox Calendar, or Hagiography, and check for yourself.  Study the hymns and iconography of the Church, including also the numerous writings of the Saints from the early Church afterwards, and nowhere will you find anything to suggest that Clement was not the Bishop of Rome.  They all state he was.  The Church most assuredly does 'speak' uniformly and universally on this topic.  Only those who don't want to believe have to ignore these things and do mental gymnastics to justify themselves.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Go to any Orthodox Calendar, or Hagiography, and check for yourself.


That will tell me what that calendar or hagiography says. But it won't tell me what the Orthodox Church says, neither in the true sense of the body of all those who have faith in Jesus, nor in the sense that you intend of the particular denomination of Eastern Orthodoxy.

----------


## TER

In Chapter 10, we find the apostolic belief of synergism again, namely that Abraham "was found faithful, inasmuch as he became obedient to the words of God."

Faith is found in a man when they are obedient to the words and commandments of God.  That is why at Judgement Day, Christ warns us that many will say to Him that they believed Him and called Him 'Lord', but only those who did works of mercy, love and charity will find salvation.

----------


## TER

> That will tell me what that calendar or hagiography says. But it won't tell me what the Orthodox Church says, neither in the true sense of the body of all those who have faith in Jesus, nor in the sense that you intend of the particular denomination of Eastern Orthodoxy.


You obviously have no idea how truths are proclaimed by the Orthodox Church.  Since you are not a baptized and communing member of the Orthodox Church, it is a bit presumptuous for you to speak for it.  For anyone who is reading and wishes to learn more about the Orthodox Church, they should look elsewhere than from you.  Most appropriately, they should seek out a local Orthodox Church and speak with the priest there.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In Chapter 10, *we find the apostolic belief of synergism again, namely that Abraham "was found faithful, inasmuch as he became obedient to the words of God."*
> 
> Faith is found in a man when they are obedient to the words and commandments of God.  That is why at Judgement Day, Christ warns us that many will say to Him that they believed Him and called Him 'Lord', but only those Who did works of mercy, love and charity will find salvation.


If that was what the writer meant, then it contradicts what Paul said in Romans chapter 4 about Abraham (and what the entire Bible says about saving faith).  More proof that this is someone's opinion and not Scripture...if indeed that is what the writer meant.

----------


## TER

Again, in Chapter 10, St. Clement writes:

"This man, by obedience, went out from his land and his kinsfolk, and the house of his father, that, by leaving a scanty land and weak kinsfolk and a small house, he might inherit the promises of God."

So that Abraham went and did the good works commanded to him by God, even leaving his home and family, so that, by willfully obeying Him, he might inherit the promises of God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

TER,

Do you know what Paul says about Abraham in Romans 4?

----------


## TER

> If that was what the writer meant, then it contradicts what Paul said in Romans chapter 4 about Abraham (and what the entire Bible says about saving faith).  More proof that this is someone's opinion and not Scripture...if indeed that is what the writer meant.


Rather, it is you who misinterpret St. Paul, and St. Clement, who knew St. Paul personally, knows better than you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Again, in Chapter 10, St. Clement writes:
> 
> "This man, by obedience, went out from his land and his kinsfolk, and the house of his father, that, by leaving a scanty land and weak kinsfolk and a small house, he might inherit the promises of God."
> 
> *So that Abraham went and did the good works commanded to him by God, so that, by willfully obeying Him, he might inherit the promises of God*.



Wrong.  Do you know what Paul says about works and faith in regards to Abraham in Romans 4?  I seriously think you've never read it.




> *Romans 4:13-15 
> 
> It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath.
> *

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Rather, it is you who misinterpret St. Paul, and St. Clement, who knew St. Paul personally, knows better than you.


Sorry, I choose the Word of God over the uninspired opinions of men.  That is the difference between me and you.

----------


## TER

> Sorry, I choose the Word of God over the uninspired opinions of men.  That is the difference between me and you.


Rather, you choose your interpretation of the Word of God over the interpretation of the great early Saints of the Church.  That is the difference between me and you.

----------


## TER

CHAPTER 11

*

By hospitality and goodness Lot was saved out of Sodom when the whole region round about was judged with fire and brimstone; the Lord making it manifest that he leaveth not them that hope upon him, but appointeth to punishment and torment them that turn in another way.

For his wife, who went out together with him, being of another mind, and not being in concord with him, was on that account placed as a sign, so that she became a pillar of salt even to this day; that it might be known to all that the double-minded, and they who doubt concerning the power of God, are for a judgment and a sign to all generations.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Rather, you choose your interpretation of the Word of God over the interpretation of the great early Saints of the Church.  That is the difference between me and you.


You choose your three pound brains interpretation of what the select people you think are right said, not the Word of God.  That is the difference between a Christian view of truth, and the antichristian view of truth.

Still, you do not understand what Paul said about works and faith in Romans chapter 4.  And you call yourself a Christian!

----------


## Sola_Fide

TER,

I'm asking honestly:  Have you ever read Romans chapter 4?

----------


## TER

Clement continues his Epistle to the Corinthians by demonstrating that it was by hospitality and goodness whereby Lot was saved out of Sodom.  Again, demonstrating the concept of synergism, we find that the Lord does not abandon those who do good works and follow His will, and to those that chose to turn away from Him and His commandments, such as Lot's wife, they will be judged with torment and punishment.  

So far, in the first few chapters of this single first century Epistle alone, there is enough to completely discredit and destroy the innovative interpretations and doctrines of the Reformers of the 16th century.

----------


## TER

CHAPTER 12

*

Through faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved;

for when spies were sent unto Jericho by Jesus, the son of Nun, the king of the land knew that they had come to spy out his country, and sent out men to apprehend them that they might be taken and put to death.

But the hospitable Rahab having received them, hid them in an upper story under the stalks of flax.

When, therefore, the men from the king came upon her, and said, There came unto thee men who are spies of this our land; bring them out, for the king so commandeth it; she answered, The two men whom ye are seeking entered in unto me, but they departed quickly and are on their way; but she showed not the men unto them.

And she said unto the men, Of a surety I know that the Lord your God has given over this city unto you; for the fear and trembling of you hath fallen upon them that inhabit it; when, therefore, it hath happened unto you to take it, save me and the house of my father.

And they say unto her, So shall it be, even as thou hast spoken unto us. When, therefore, thou hast perceived that we are coming, thou shalt gather together all thy household under thy roof, and they shall be saved; but as many as shall be found without the house shall be destroyed.

And they proceeded further to give her a sign, that she should hang from her house scarlet, making it manifest beforehand that through the blood of the Lord there shall be redemption to all who believe and hope upon God.

Behold, beloved, how there was not only faith, but prophecy in the woman.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

TER, you just said that Abraham received the promise by obedience to commands.  You are WRONG.  Paul says the exact opposite in Romans 4:




> *Romans 4:13-15 
> 
> It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath.
> *


The law brings wrath TER.  It condemns.  Man can't do the commands of God, be righteous, and receive anything from Him, because man is a sinner.

----------


## TER

Continuing on the same theme, Clement uses more examples in the Old Testament

Scholars point to a date of around 80 AD when this Epistle may have been written.  Of course, this is long before a Biblical Canon was decided.  In fact, at the time of the writing of this letter, the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John probably had not yet been written.  For these early Christians, who sat at the table with the Apostles of Christ, the writings which they called the Scriptures where referring mainly to the Books of the Old Testament.

We see in the story of Rahab the Harlot that it was "faith AND hospitality" which saved her.  Notice, it was not faith alone, but faith and the good works of hospitality.

Also notice at the end of the retelling of this scene in the Scriptures, Clement says "Behold, beloved, how there was not only faith, but prophecy in the woman."  She had faith, which was vitally important, but she too had prophecy, again pointing to the apostolic concept of synergism, for it was God working in this women on account of her faith and hospitality.

----------


## TER

CHAPTER 13

* Let us therefore, brethren, be humble, laying aside all boasting and pride, and folly and wrath, and let us do that which is written; for the Holy Spirit saith, Let not the wise boast in his wisdom, nor the strong in his strength, nor the rich in his riches; but let him that boasteth make his boast in the Lord, even by seeking him and doing judgment and justice. Let us especially remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ which he spake when teaching gentleness and long-suffering, for he spake thus:

Show mercy, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kindly affectioned, so shall kindness be showed unto you; with whatsover measure ye measure, with the same shall it be measured unto you.

With this commandment and with these exhortations let us strengthen ourselves, that we may walk obedient to his holy words with all humility. For the Holy Scripture saith,

Upon whom shall I have respect but upon him that is meek and quiet, and that trembleth at my words?*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Continuing on the same theme, Clement uses more examples in the Old Testament
> 
> Scholars point to a date of around 80 AD when this Epistle may have been written.  Of course, this is long before a Biblical Canon was decided.  In fact, at the time of the writing of this letter, the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John probably had not yet been written.  For these early Christians, who sat at the table with the Apostles of Christ, the writings which they called the Scriptures where referring mainly to the Books of the Old Testament.
> 
> *We see in the story of Rahab the Harlot that it was "faith AND hospitality" which saved her.  Notice, it was not faith alone, but faith and the good works of hospitality.*
> 
> Also notice at the end of the retelling of this scene in the Scriptures, Clement says "Behold, beloved, how there was not only faith, but prophecy in the woman."  She had faith, which was vitally important, but she too had prophecy, again pointing to the apostolic concept of synergism, for it was God working in this faithful and hospitable women on account of her faith and hospitality.






> *
> 
> Titus 3:5
> 
> he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 
> *



Another blatant contradiction to the word of God.  Whoever wrote that letter, if they mean what you say they mean, could not have been a Christian.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You obviously have no idea how truths are proclaimed by the Orthodox Church.  Since you are not a baptized and communing member of the Orthodox Church, it is a bit presumptuous for you to speak for it.  For anyone who is reading and wishes to learn more about the Orthodox Church, they should look elsewhere than from you.  Most appropriately, they should seek out a local Orthodox Church and speak with the priest there.


Actually I do (and, for the record, I am a baptized communing member of the Orthodox Church). Unfortunately, despite your dogmatism, it's you who don't know the positions of your own denomination. And even if you are a baptized and communing member of the denomination you claim to speak for, it is presumptuous for you to speak for it. I'm sure you will agree, upon a moment's reflection, that merely being a baptized and communing member of that organization does not qualify someone to speak for it.

Even if someone speaks to a priest at a local Eastern Orthodox Church, it will not necessarily be the case that that individual's opinions will be the same as those of other such priests on any given matter. There is a difference between a priest saying something and the Church itself saying it.

For the purposes of this internet forum, I wouldn't want anyone to take either my word or yours as fact. If either of us wants to claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church claims any given thing, I hope readers will expect proof of that claim.

----------


## TER

> Another blatant contradiction to the word of God.  Whoever wrote that letter, if they mean what you say they mean, could not have been a Christian.


Again, Sola, it is your misinterpretation which leads you to mistakenly believe that a first century Apostolic Father of the Church is contradicting St. Paul.  We can never find salvation by our own powers or works, which is what St. Paul is writing.  We are drowning in our sins.  God stretches His hand out to us so that we may be lifted.  When we reach out for His hand, through faith AND being obedient to His commandments, then He pulls us to safety and we find salvation.  It is God alone Who can pull us out of the situation we are in, but He requires and expects us to do our part.  This is called synergism, which is what all the Apostles and Christian Saints have taught.

We cannot come to God by our mere efforts and works (Pelagianism), but He commands that we do our best, so that He will reward us according to His wisdom, love and mercy.

----------


## TER

> Actually I do. Unfortunately, despite your dogmatism, it's you who don't know the positions of your own denomination. And even if you are a baptized and communing member of that denomination, it is presumptuous for you to speak for it. I'm sure you will agree, upon a moment's reflection, that merely being a baptized and communing member of that organization does not qualify someone to speak for it.
> 
> Even if someone speaks to a priest at a local Eastern Orthodox Church, it will not necessarily be the case that that individual's opinions will be the same as those of other such priests on any given matter. There is a difference between a priest saying something and the Church itself saying it.
> 
> For the purposes of this internet forum, I wouldn't want anyone to take either my word or yours as fact. If either of us wants to claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church claims any given thing, I hope readers will expect proof of that claim.


I do too, which is why I welcome and encourage them to read books about the Orthodox Church and to speak to their local priests.  Then, they can make up their mind who between you and me has a better understanding of the teachings and history of the Orthodox Church.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I do too, which is why I welcome and encourage them to read books about the Orthodox Church and to speak to their local priests.  Then, they can make up their mind who between you and me has a better understanding of the teachings and history of the Orthodox Church.


Of course, those books and priests only speak for themselves, not the Church.

The position you are propounding here is not the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church, nor is it the position held by the saints and martyrs throughout the centuries, nor the tradition passed on to us from the apostles.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Another blatant contradiction to the word of God.  Whoever wrote that letter, if they mean what you say they mean, could not have been a Christian.


Generally speaking, they don't mean what he says they mean. Read the quotes carefully and compare what they actually say with TER's interpretations of them.

----------


## TER

> Of course, those books and priests only speak for themselves, not the Church.
> 
> The position you are propounding here is not the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church, nor is it the position held by the saints and martyrs throughout the century, nor the tradition passed on to us from the apostles.


So says you!

I choose the Saints and the Church Christ established over what the Superfluous Man thinks!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Generally speaking, they don't mean what he says they mean. Read the quotes carefully and compare what they actually say with TER's interpretations of them.


I do understand that TER is putting his synergist spin on them.  Clement refers to "the elect" dozens of times in that letter.

----------


## TER

I have errands to do and must log off.  I hope to get back to this at other time.  

I leave you with a quote from the chapter at hand, which is quoting the Lord Himself:

"Show mercy, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kindly affectioned, so shall kindness be showed unto you; with whatsover measure ye measure, with the same shall it be measured unto you."

Such important teachings!  Such revolutionary doctrines!  These words of Christ demonstrate that God will judge us according to how we treat others, and according to the things which we do, through own own volition and freewill.

Faith without works is dead, and we are not saved by faith alone.  Our actions and behaviors have seismic effects to our own salvation through Christ.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I do understand that TER is putting his synergist spin on them.  Clement refers to "the elect" dozens of times in that letter.


Not only that, one can look up above in post #61 and, reading the very last line in that post, see that Clement has a monergistic theology. TER conveniently neglects to mention that line which he quotes, and instead divines synergism from words that in no way entail synergism.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So says you!
> 
> I choose the Saints and the Church Christ established over what the Superfluous Man thinks!


So says you.

I choose the saints and the Church Christ established over what TER thinks.

----------


## fisharmor

> So says you.
> 
> I choose the saints and the Church Christ established over what TER thinks.


I'm distressed that someone showed up here claiming to speak to what the Church says and yet contradicting what I've understood and gleaned, unaltered, from every priest and theologian I've run into in the last 20 years.
I had a problem with concepts like synergism and theosis for a long time... but never did I get the impression that these were mere matters of opinion as you suggest.
I made as much an ass of myself over the early fathers as anyone in this thread, but never did I hear Clement not named as one and never did I hear him called anything but authoritative.  (Largely because I never heard him even brought up as a topic by Protestants.)

Now I've only been Orthodox a little over 2 years, and I'm no expert.  But if you have some links or another source to back up your assertions, I'd really like to see them.  Because nothing TER wrote here contradicts what I've heard and read from scores of other Orthodox sources.

----------

