The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

[Jimmy C]

AS I recall, I clement is not considered gnostic in any way shape or form - ie Dan Brown was not referencing any of his stuff. I also seem to recall that the book of I clement almost made it into the cannon but the phoenix reference did it in. clements refrencing almost every other NT writing were/are proof to the authenticity of those books when the NT cannon was put together. It has been awhile since I read my early church history.

Clement also predated the Popes - although he was recognized as a leader of the early church. the doctrine of infallibility came MUCH later

 

[Thinkingstuff]

AS I recall, I clement is not considered gnostic in any way shape or form - ie Dan Brown was not referencing any of his stuff. I also seem to recall that the book of I clement almost made it into the cannon but the phoenix reference did it in. clements refrencing almost every other NT writing were/are proof to the authenticity of those books when the NT cannon was put together. It has been awhile since I read my early church history.

Clement also predated the Popes - although he was recognized as a leader of the early church. the doctrine of infallibility came MUCH later

I don't think anyone claimed that Clements letter was gnostic. I was however asking questions to see where a person is coming from. Some people automatically toss out the ECF. I was wondering if this was so. some people believe that the RCC has been plotting since the begining. I was trying to flush this out.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I don't think anyone claimed that Clements letter was gnostic. I was however asking questions to see where a person is coming from. Some people automatically toss out the ECF. I was wondering if this was so. some people believe that the RCC has been plotting since the begining. I was trying to flush this out.

Tossing out the ECF is ridiculous. Why would we do that? Do they also toss out every book written by a Christian other than God-breathed Scripture? I don't understand that reasoning.

If there is someone tossing the ECFs out, I would like to know why.

I am not sure where the idea would come from that the RCC has been "plotting" from the beginning. Sounds as bit conspiratorial to me and superstitious. Was there not a true Church at Rome? Of course there was. Then where did this papacy come from? This thing, the papacy, was introduced into the church from within the church, till it usurped Christ in His Church. This Antichrist stands in the Temple of God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Tossing out the ECF is ridiculous. Why would we do that? Do they also toss out every book written by a Christian other than God-breathed Scripture? I don't understand that reasoning.

If there is someone tossing the ECFs out, I would like to know why.

I am not sure where the idea would come from that the RCC has been "plotting" from the beginning. Sounds as bit conspiratorial to me and superstitious. Was there not a true Church at Rome? Of course there was. Then where did this papacy come from? This thing, the papacy, was introduced into the church from within the church, till it usurped Christ in His Church. This Antichrist stands in the Temple of God.

I enjoy reading the ECF tremendously. Here are some satements I've received from members here. Not exact quotes but meanings are right.

" I don't like the ECF because they weren't saved. They were obviously pushing their own agenda pushing heresies onto the true churches (churches are meant to be pluralistic here.)"

"the true churches grew along side the real churches which if you follow the pamphlet "trail of blood" you can see how the heretical church persecutes the real churches."

"Constantine started the RCC and he is a pagan that forced his paganism into the chruches"

Etc.....

There are more like the early church was sola scriptura! I like to know how. Or that the LXX didn't contain any of the apocryphal books until 400 ad and the earliest apocryphal book was writen in AD 137. On and on and on and on and on and on.

I thought I get some real history but no. None of that confuse us with the facts stuff.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I enjoy reading the ECF tremendously. Here are some satements I've received from members here. Not exact quotes but meanings are right.

" I don't like the ECF because they weren't saved. They were obviously pushing their own agenda pushing heresies onto the true churches (churches are meant to be pluralistic here.)"

"the true churches grew along side the real churches which if you follow the pamphlet "trail of blood" you can see how the heretical church persecutes the real churches."

"Constantine started the RCC and he is a pagan that forced his paganism into the chruches"

Etc.....

There are more like the early church was sola scriptura! I like to know how. Or that the LXX didn't contain any of the apocryphal books until 400 ad and the earliest apocryphal book was writen in AD 137. On and on and on and on and on and on.

I thought I get some real history but no. None of that confuse us with the facts stuff.

People make comments like that because they lack the information or because the information presented them makes them uncomfortable. I can understand that. However, we have nothing to fear from the truth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

People make comments like that because they lack the information or because the information presented them makes them uncomfortable. I can understand that. However, we have nothing to fear from the truth.

No nothing at all. Though you may ruffle a few feathers.

 

[Jon-Marc]

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.

This is the first time I've heard of him.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is the first time I've heard of him.

You wouldn't have unless you started studying church history. Church history is a fastinating topic. But before the NT was settled as to which books would be included in canon there were many christian writings passed around the churches. As you can guess an apostles writings were immediately included if they could verify it. However, other documents were also copied and valued like the letter of Clement, or the letters of Ignatius, or Polycarp etc... There were many christian writings like these and we have some of the copies of them. Many like to review them to see how the early church actually operated rather than include too much speculation.