First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

[ReformedBaptist]

Got no respones yet from the other thread, so I thought I would post here.

Hey BB,

I spent the last 40min reading this letter. My copy is the one in the Hendrickson Church Fathers set. Here are a few reactions:

1. Wow.
2. Wonderful exhortations.
3. This guy must have loved the Apostle Paul.
4. Election is everywhere.
5. What about this do the Roman Catholics like?
6. The Pheonix part is..odd.
7. It does NOT teach apostolic succession.
8. It actually DOES rebuke the papacy.
9. It provoked me to holiness.
10. It teaches the regulative principle of worship

What are your thoughts on it? Of course, your going to have to read it.

RB

I was very surprised by reading this letter that so many Roman Catholics and Orthordox, especially Roman Catholic, make so much of the apostolic fathers. This was startling to me given Clement's statements concerning the presbyters, his LONG exhortation regarding Old Covenant worship being prescribed of God which is a great outline of the Regulative Principle of Worship, his discussion of the elect of God and they are referred to and how their salvation is spoken of: by the WILL of GOD, not man.

I think Clement did a good job in the epistle, if it is read properly, as one who teaches the doctrine of the Scriptures well.

RB

 

[BRIANH]

It is a wonderful letter you are correct. Catholic Apologists like to point to it as an example of the Papacy...except it never mentions it of course...

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Catholic Apologists like to point to it as an example of the Papacy...except it never mentions it of course...

I agree, unless they're hung-up on Clement being a Bishop of Rome as that somehow being proof of the papacy...

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is a wonderful letter you are correct. Catholic Apologists like to point to it as an example of the Papacy...except it never mentions it of course...

Yes Clements letter to the Corinthians is a worth while read. Interesting to note his knowledge and quotes from book in the apocrypha. And of cour Brianh your right. It doesn't speak specifically to the papacy but this is how they derive the concept.:

A favorite word he uses is Harmonoia (harmony, unity). He uses it often in this letter. The catholics for papal claims will reference this comment:

The right thing then is not to run away from his will, (For rather than oppose God, we had much better oppose the folly and senslessness of these self-important men and the bluster of their arrogant speaches), but to reverence the lord Jesus Christ whose blood was given for us. Accordingly, let us be respectful to those who have been set over us, honor our elders, and train up our young people in the fear of God...After testing them by the spirit-to be bishops and deacons for the believers of the future....Similarily, our apostles knew, through the Lord Jesus Christ that there would be dissensions over the title of bishop. In their full foreknowldge of this, therefore, they proceed to appoint the ministers I spoke of, and they went on to add instruction that if these should fall asleep, other credited persons should succeed them in their office...little did they guess that the Most High is the guardian and protector of all those who serve his Holy Name.

He is condeming the laity ousting their presbytrs and wants the laity to humbly follow the authority set over them. Also this was in the comentary I read:

Why the church of Rome felt called upon itself to involve itself in the affairs of the Church of Corinth, we do not know, but Clements tone does not falter and his authority seems assured. - Early Christian Writings Penguine Classicstranslated by Maxwell Staniforth introduction notes by Andrew Louth

This is what got me thinking however on early christian practices (liturgy?)

It follows, then, that there ought to be strict order and method in our performance of such acts as the Master has prescibed for certain times and seasons. Now it was his command that the offering of gifts and the conduct of public service should not be haphazard or irregular but should take place at fixed times and hours. Moreover, in the exercise of his supreme will He has himself in what place and by what persons he desires this to be done

 

[Matt Black]

Certainly evidence of Apostolic Succession and clerical presidency in worship there.

 

[BRIANH]

Yes Clements letter to the Corinthians is a worth while read. Interesting to note his knowledge and quotes from book in the apocrypha. And of cour Brianh your right. It doesn't speak specifically to the papacy but this is how they derive the concept.:

A favorite word he uses is Harmonoia (harmony, unity). He uses it often in this letter. The catholics for papal claims will reference this comment:

He is condeming the laity ousting their presbytrs and wants the laity to humbly follow the authority set over them. Also this was in the comentary I read:

This is what got me thinking however on early christian practices (liturgy?)

Paul mentions him and one can speculate that he is connected with him. Just like Paul wrote Corinth.
Early church and liturgy is an entirely different topic but quite interesting. One has to take into account Paul's writings in his letter to the Corinthians. The earliest description of a worship service has the following elements as given by Justyn Martyr
The read scripture as long as time permitted
The President (pastor) of the congregation said prayers to the best of his ability; ie not a scripted liturgical response
He spoke.
The took the Lord's Supper.
Pretty plain.

 

[BRIANH]

Certainly evidence of Apostolic Succession and clerical presidency in worship there.

Not in any sense that we now think of that. I am not sure what you mean by clerical presidency. The Apostles appointed people; no one denies that because we know Paul did. We also know that AFTER that, it was up to the individual church and congregation to decide:
Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I'm not Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic, but as one (an Anglican) who has read First Clement through a couple of times (as well as the other Apostolic Fathers), I figured I'd chime in...

Hey BB,

I spent the last 40min reading this letter. My copy is the one in the Hendrickson Church Fathers set. Here are a few reactions:

1. Wow.

I agree

2. Wonderful exhortations.

Indeed.

3. This guy must have loved the Apostle Paul.

He must have.

4. Election is everywhere.

True, but of course 'election' is not the exclusive doctrine or domain of the Calvinists and their "TULIP" theology.

5. What about this do the Roman Catholics like?

I imagine they'd say that it shows evidence of the Roman bishop giving instructions to a church in another city. However, this proves nothing as Ignatius' (bishop of Antioch) letters were likewise written to other churches (which had their own bishops) encouraging them in the faith and to follow their ordained leaders. (Likewise, Polycarp of Smyrna wrote an epistle of encouragement to the church at Philippi)

6. The Pheonix part is..odd.

Odd, but illustrative.

7. It does NOT teach apostolic succession.

Really? We must have read a different letter. One of Clements main points to the Corinthians is to follow those bishops duly appointed by the Apostles, as he states that the Apostles themselves knew after they departed there would be strife over the office of bishop. That's why the Apostles left successors.

8. It actually DOES rebuke the papacy.

In what way? I don't think the epistle has much to do with the "papacy" either way--whether rebuking it or establishing it.

9. It provoked me to holiness.

Good, me too.

10. It teaches the regulative principle of worship

Yeah, basically.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Really? We must have read a different letter. One of Clements main points to the Corinthians is to follow those bishops duly appointed by the Apostles, as he states that the Apostles themselves knew after they departed there would be strife over the office of bishop. That's why the Apostles left successors.

The emphasis on the appointment by the Apostles is not succession, but an exhortation to the Corinthians that the men were of good and holy conduct, and that it was by envy they wanted them removed. Also, the elders (presbyters) and deacons had agreement "of the whole church" mean THAT church. These were men approved, meaning they met the qualifications.

It doesn't teach apostoloic succession or an imposed elder or deacon without the consent of the whole church. A far cry from apostolic succession as it is today, or worse, the papacy who is the epitome of a usurper.

In what way? I don't think the epistle has much to do with the "papacy" either way--whether rebuking it or establishing it.

In Clement's exhortation on humility he makes the statement (going from memory) how the presbyter is not to lord over the flock. Very similiar to the Apostle's exhortation in the Scriptures. I can't think of a great anti-christian usurper on Christian history than the popes of Rome.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Not in any sense that we now think of that. I am not sure what you mean by clerical presidency. The Apostles appointed people; no one denies that because we know Paul did. We also know that AFTER that, it was up to the individual church and congregation to decide:
Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church

EXACTLY! :thumbs:

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The emphasis on the appointment by the Apostles is not succession, but an exhortation to the Corinthians that the men were of good and holy conduct, and that it was by envy they wanted them removed. Also, the elders (presbyters) and deacons had agreement "of the whole church" mean THAT church. These were men approved, meaning they met the qualifications.

It doesn't teach apostoloic succession or an imposed elder or deacon without the consent of the whole church. A far cry from apostolic succession as it is today, or worse, the papacy who is the epitome of a usurper.

Having the consent "of the whole church" doesn't mitigate against the idea of Apostolic succession. Certainly the churches (including the laity) have been involved in episcopal (and presbyterial) appointments through out history, and even today in many churches with episcopal goverment. However, there has also been the importance of recognition (if not consecration) by one's fellow bishops, and at the beginning the leaders were indeed appointed by the Apostles and some of their immediate successors like Timothy and Titus (historically themselves the first 'bishops' of Ephesus and Crete respectively)

In Clement's exhortation on humility he makes the statement (going from memory) how the presbyter is not to lord over the flock. Very similiar to the Apostle's exhortation in the Scriptures. I can't think of a great anti-christian usurper on Christian history than the popes of Rome.

I think, sadly, that many bishops (particularly of the more powerful sees like Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria) have fallen into the temptation to "lord it over" their flocks. However, this has also been the case among leadership of non-episcopal denominations as well.

 

[BRIANH]

Having the consent "of the whole church" doesn't mitigate against the idea of Apostolic succession. Certainly the churches (including the laity) have been involved in episcopal (and presbyterial) appointments through out history, and even today in many churches with episcopal goverment. However, there has also been the importance of recognition (if not consecration) by one's fellow bishops, and at the beginning the leaders were indeed appointed by the Apostles and some of their immediate successors like Timothy and Titus (historically themselves the first 'bishops' of Ephesus and Crete respectively)
.

There is a distinction being made here as well see in Clement. They were appointed by the Apostles in some cases. After that, men of repute with the consent of the church. It says nothing about those men of repute having to be a bishop appointed by a bishop. Monarchial bishops are not part of the equation in the text itself of Clement. If we stick to the text itself, it says nothing about them having to be bishops.

Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There is a distinction being made here as well see in Clement. They were appointed by the Apostles in some cases. After that, men of repute with the consent of the church. It says nothing about those men of repute having to be a bishop appointed by a bishop. Monarchial bishops are not part of the equation in the text itself of Clement. If we stick to the text itself, it says nothing about them having to be bishops.

Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church

Again, Amen. :thumbs:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Paul mentions him and one can speculate that he is connected with him. Just like Paul wrote Corinth.
Early church and liturgy is an entirely different topic but quite interesting. One has to take into account Paul's writings in his letter to the Corinthians. The earliest description of a worship service has the following elements as given by Justyn Martyr
The read scripture as long as time permitted
The President (pastor) of the congregation said prayers to the best of his ability; ie not a scripted liturgical response
He spoke.
The took the Lord's Supper.
Pretty plain.

What about the Didache? There is some discussion that this may have been written as early as 50 AD. Taken with Clements letter it gives something to think about. Another thing that strikes me about Clements letter is:

So, let us be done with these berren and vapid fancies, and turn instead to the honorable holy Rule of our Tradition, so that we can find what is good and pleasing and acceptable in the site of him who made us....

What is this "Rule of our Tradition"?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

There is a distinction being made here as well see in Clement. They were appointed by the Apostles in some cases. After that, men of repute with the consent of the church. It says nothing about those men of repute having to be a bishop appointed by a bishop. Monarchial bishops are not part of the equation in the text itself of Clement. If we stick to the text itself, it says nothing about them having to be bishops.

Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church

But it doesn't say these "other men of repute" were not other already appointed bishops/presbyters, either. (After all, the qualifications in the Scriptures for one to be a bishop/presbyter can be summed up in the necessity for a man to be of good repute.) We know that from other sources historically that other bishops were involved in ordaining new bishops/presybters, along with the consent of the congregations. At any rate, one cannot prove from First Clement alone that the approval of other previously appointed bishops (in one's one church or in neighboring communities) was generally unnecessary for the appointment of new bishops/presbyters. A counter example is Titus, not himself an Apostle, given the authority by Paul appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5) (likewise with Timothy)

 

[Matt Black]

Not in any sense that we now think of that. I am not sure what you mean by clerical presidency. The Apostles appointed people; no one denies that because we know Paul did. We also know that AFTER that, it was up to the individual church and congregation to decide:
Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church

Clerical presidency:

1Clem 40:1
Forasmuch then as these things are manifest beforehand, and we have
searched into the depths of the Divine knowledge, we ought to do all
things in order, as many as the Master hath commanded us to perform
at their appointed seasons.

1Clem 40:2
Now the offerings and ministrations He commanded to be performed with
care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at fixed times
and seasons.

1Clem 40:3
And where and by whom He would have them performed, He Himself fixed
by His supreme will: that all things being done with piety according
to His good pleasure might be acceptable to His will.

1Clem 40:4
They therefore that make their offerings at the appointed seasons are
acceptable and blessed: for while they follow the institutions of
the Master they cannot go wrong.

1Clem 40:5
For unto the high priest his proper services have been assigned, and
to the priests their proper office is appointed, and upon the levites
their proper ministrations are laid. The layman is bound by the
layman's ordinances.

1Clem 41:1
Let each of you, brethren, in his own order give thanks unto God,
maintaining a good conscience and not transgressing the appointed
rule of his service, but acting with all seemliness.

Apostolic Succession:

1Clem 42:1
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

1Clem 42:2
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

1Clem 42:3
Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured
through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in
the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went
forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

1Clem 42:4
So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their
firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops
and deacons unto them that should believe.

1Clem 42:5
And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written
concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus
saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their
bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.

1Clem 44:1
And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name of the bishop's office.

1Clem 44:2
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were
appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the
flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all
modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these
men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What about the Didache? There is some discussion that this may have been written as early as 50 AD. Taken with Clements letter it gives something to think about. Another thing that strikes me about Clements letter is:

What is this "Rule of our Tradition"?

The Rule of our Tradition is the Scripture.

 

[BRIANH]

But it doesn't say these "other men of repute" were not other already appointed bishops/presbyters, either. (After all, the qualifications in the Scriptures for one to be a bishop/presbyter can be summed up in the necessity for a man to be of good repute.) We know that from other sources historically that other bishops were involved in ordaining new bishops/presybters, along with the consent of the congregations. At any rate, one cannot prove from First Clement alone that the approval of other previously appointed bishops (in one's one church or in neighboring communities) was generally unnecessary for the appointment of new bishops/presbyters. A counter example is Titus, not himself an Apostle, given the authority by Paul appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5) (likewise with Timothy)

What other early sources do we know that other bishops had to ordain? Curious...
I feel like you overstated your case and if you say the men of repute COULD BE presbyters already we agree of course. It does not prove Apostolic Succession; if anything it asserts elder rule and congregationalism.

 

[BRIANH]

Clerical presidency:




Apostolic Succession:

Matt Clement in no way, shape, or form is saying we have a high priest in the NT in the form of a clerical presidency. It is always leadership in the plural form for the NT offices in Clement. He is comparing and drawing support from the OT offices but not contending they are exact.

 

[BRIANH]

What about the Didache? There is some discussion that this may have been written as early as 50 AD. Taken with Clements letter it gives something to think about. Another thing that strikes me about Clements letter is:

What is this "Rule of our Tradition"?

As a Protestant I love the Didache. Baptism by immersion unless there is no water present to do it in; certainly not the case now.
The Lord's supper has nothing about it to remind anyone of Catholic or Orthodox views on a Real Presence. In fact, it suggests it was a meal which I contend the Church conflated the Agape Meal (described by Paul I believe and the Didache) into a short ceremony called the Eucharist but still maintained its use of the Agape Meal into the 4th century..but I digress

I would give this quote as well which supports Clement

Appoint for yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord,