The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

[ReformedBaptist]

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? :laugh:
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

 

[Jon-Marc]

Who is Clement? There's no such writer in my Bible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Who is Clement? There's no such writer in my Bible.

You wrote the bible? Wow. Cool. :laugh:

 

[Jon-Marc]

You wrote the bible? Wow. Cool. :laugh:

The ones I own are mine--just as my car is mine.

 

[Pipedude]

Clement is cool. Unlike most of the early church fathers, he actually sounds like Scripture. The others, for all their piety and usefulness, sound woefully inferior.

Now, about that apostolic succession passage, I've seen different translations. How does yours read?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The ones I own are mine--just as my car is mine.

You made your car? How cool can you get? :laugh:

Of course I'm teasing. I don't the the OP was saying Clement was in the bible. He is a bishop of Rome in possibly aroud AD 90. Corinth hadn't changed too much since Paul wrote his letter to them. They were demonstrating similar problems and Clement wrote to them to cut the nonsense. The thing about Clement's letter is it sounds a lot like Paul himself writing it. You can definately see Paul's influence. Especially since Clement quotes him.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Clement is cool. Unlike most of the early church fathers, he actually sounds like Scripture. The others, for all their piety and usefulness, sound woefully inferior.

Now, about that apostolic succession passage, I've seen different translations. How does yours read?

I don't have it with me. My copy is the one in the large church fathers set from Hendrickson. Not sure if that is on the net or not.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You made your car? How cool can you get? :laugh:

Of course I'm teasing. I don't the the OP was saying Clement was in the bible. He is a bishop of Rome in possibly aroud AD 90. Corinth hadn't changed too much since Paul wrote his letter to them. They were demonstrating similar problems and Clement wrote to them to cut the nonsense. The thing about Clement's letter is it sounds a lot like Paul himself writing it. You can definately see Paul's influence. Especially since Clement quotes him.

I got the same impression. It is def. Pauline. I also saw alot of the teaching of Hebrews in it. At least that's my impression.

To the comment about this letter not being in the Bible, of course its not. I see it no different than writings by Christians. Just this one is ancient.

 

[rdwhite]

I for one, would like to read Paul's letter to the church of Laodicea. I wonder why the catholic church has never tried to fabricate that one?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I for one, would like to read Paul's letter to the church of Laodicea. I wonder why the catholic church has never tried to fabricate that one?

Are you, sir, insinuating that the Roman Catholic church fabricated the letter of Clement to the Corinthians? Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church fabricated the Didache, all of Ignatius letters, the apologies of Justin Martyr, Ireanaeaus against Heresies, the Martyrdom of Polycarp and a slew of others? Are you in fact saying that the Roman Catholic Church has been working a conspiracy from the dawn of Christianity to this very day? If you are you're not alone. Dan Brown agrees with you. But I have another question for you. How can you trust the NT? I mean after all Clement was around during some of the writing of the NT. Who's to say that this Roman Catholic conspiracy did not affect which 27 books were canon? I mean doesn't Jude sound strange with its quotes from 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses? No one can verify who wrote Hebrews (catholic plot?) Or what about Pauls letters very similar to Clement. Maybe Clement wrote as Paul and Paul didn't really write them at all. It was a Catholic whom you may have problems with (the bishop of Alexandria) who first listed the books of the NT that we now have. Athenasius. Hmmmm?

 

[rdwhite]

Hang on there Mr. Thinkingstuff, I never insinuated or said anything that you claim in your questions. It is however verifiable that the babylonian whore has fabricated documents and I am curious why they did not fabricate a letter from Paul to the church at Laodicea since it is mentioned in scripture. Maybe they were smart enough to realize that it could actually be found one day and hence expose them.:laugh:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Hang on there Mr. Thinkingstuff, I never insinuated or said anything that you claim in your questions. It is however verifiable that the babylonian whore has fabricated documents and I am curious why they did not fabricate a letter from Paul to the church at Laodicea since it is mentioned in scripture. Maybe they were smart enough to realize that it could actually be found one day and hence expose them.:laugh:

Babylonian Whore? You honestly believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon that the Apocalypse of John speaks of? I honestly don't know what to say about that but that was a common title from the time of the reformation and is carried to the present through Jack Chick. I disagree with the sentement however.

Now did the RCC fabricate the documents or did practitioners fabricate documents outside the authority of their church? Which documents are you talking about? Why do you think the RCC is in the habit of fabricating documents? Just curious.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Babylonian Whore? You honestly believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon that the Apocalypse of John speaks of? I honestly don't know what to say about that but that was a common title from the time of the reformation and is carried to the present through Jack Chick. I disagree with the sentement however.

Now did the RCC fabricate the documents or did practitioners fabricate documents outside the authority of their church? Which documents are you talking about? Why do you think the RCC is in the habit of fabricating documents? Just curious.

You compared the Reformation with Jack Chick :laugh:

Actually, the Reformation hasn't stopped.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You compared the Reformation with Jack Chick :laugh:

Actually, the Reformation hasn't stopped.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

That sounds like a quote.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

That sounds like a quote.

Yup. It is.

 

[webdog]

Yup. It is.

I think his point was a link is needed, or at the least quotations and the author stated, else it is considered to be plagiarism.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I think his point was a link is needed, or at the least quotations and the author stated, else it is considered to be plagiarism.

My bad, wasn't trying to represent the ideas as my own.

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc26.html

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Of the Church, Chapter 26 article 4.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My bad, wasn't trying to represent the ideas as my own.

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc26.html

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Of the Church, Chapter 26 article 4.

Thanks. I won't go so far as to say the RCC is the Whore of Babylon but there are things that give me pause. I will contend that there are Catholics who will enjoy the Lord's supper with us despite the things that give me pause.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Thanks. I won't go so far as to say the RCC is the Whore of Babylon but there are things that give me pause. I will contend that there are Catholics who will enjoy the Lord's supper with us despite the things that give me pause.

Notice that the confession refers to the pope. When you dig deeper to the commentary of the Reformers on the matter they referred to Antichrist as the pope and the papacy, and not individual Roman Catholics per se.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Notice that the confession refers to the pope. When you dig deeper to the commentary of the Reformers on the matter they referred to Antichrist as the pope and the papacy, and not individual Roman Catholics per se.

Well, there were popes that did very bad things. But I get your point.