Tuesday, February 6, 2024

Errol Vincent Amey on the Soteriology of 1 Clement

The following post is from my friend Errol Vincen Amey, “On the Reformationist Misunderstanding of Justification in Clement of Rome,” Early Church History Study Group, Facebook, December 8, 2017

 

When pressed to find a historical witness for their Scriptural interpretation of sola fide, Reformers' go-to source has long been Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians, penned in circa 96. Here is an example from a Reformed patristic scholar in 1858:

 

“Clement is the only one of the apostolic fathers, except perhaps Polycarp, who shows some conception of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. ‘All (the saints of the Old Testament),’ says he, ‘became great and glorious, not through themselves, nor by their works, nor by their righteousness, but by the will of God. Thus we also, who are called by the will of God in Christ Jesus, are righteous not of ourselves, neither through our wisdom, nor through our understanding, nor through our piety, nor through our works, which we have wrought in purity of heart, but by faith, by which the almighty God justified all these from the beginning; to whom be glory to all eternity.’ ['1 Clement' 32] And then Clement, precisely like Paul in Romans 6, derives sanctification from justification, and continues: ‘What, then, should we do, beloved brethren? Should we be slothful in good works and neglect love? By no means! But with zeal and courage we will hasten to fulfil every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all things himself rejoices in his works.’ [1 Clement' 33]”

(Philip Schaff, 'History of the Christian Church' 2:644)

 

Notice how Schaff cites not only chapter 32, but also 33, the latter of which has become largely forgotten by modern proponents of the Reformed position, as has as chapter 34 as well. Let us consider a fuller treatment of this context:

 

“What, then, shall we do, [cf. Romans 6:1] brothers? Shall we slacken from doing good and abandon charity? May the Lord never allow this to happen to us, but let us be diligent to accomplish every good work [Titus 3:1] with earnestness and zeal. For the Creator and Lord of the universe Himself takes joy in His works. . . . Let us consider that all the saints have been adorned with good works; and the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with good works, rejoiced. Holding this pattern, then, let us follow out His will without hesitation; let us do the work of justice with all our strength.

 

“The good laborer receives the bread of his labor with confidence; the lazy and careless one does not look his employer in the face. We must, therefore, be zealous in doing good; for all things are from Him. He warns us: [Isaiah 40:10; 62:11; Proverbs 24:12; Revelation 22:12] ‘Behold the Lord comes, and his reward is before his face, to pay each man according to his work.’ He therefore urges us who believe in Him with all our heart not to be lazy or careless in any good work. [Titus 3:1]”

(Clement of Rome, ca. 96, 'To the Corinthians' 33:1-2,7-8; 34:1-4, in 'Fathers of the Church' 1:35-36)

 

Also neglected is the treatment of justification from only two chapters earlier:

“let us with humble minds put on the livery of concord, be self-restrained, keep ourselves free from all backbiting and slanderous talk; and let us seek justification by actions, and not just words.”

(Clement of Rome, ca. 96, 'First Clement' 30:3, in 'Ancient Christian Writers' 1:27)

 

And hence Schaff went on to say the following:

 

“But notwithstanding its prevailing Pauline character, this epistle lowers somewhat the free evangelical tone of the Gentile apostle’s theology, softens its anti-Judaistic sternness, and blends it with the Jewish-Christian counterpart of St. James, showing that the conflict between the Pauline and Petrine views was substantially settled at the end of the first century in the Roman church, and also in that of Corinth.”

(Ibid., pg. 645)

 

Later, in 1920, another Reformed patristic scholar, Rudolf Knopf, would go on to identify Clement's blending of Paul and James as nothing less than synergism, as opposed to sola fide. We see this in a critique of his work, by a Catholic patristic scholar:

 

“Knopf tales this occasion to contrast the Apostle's ‘Solafidismus’ with Clement's ‘Synergismus’; with what right, the reader may judge for himself.”

(James A. Kliest, 'Ancient Christian Writers' 1:110)

 

Indeed, if one attempts to superimpose a monergistic understanding of justification as a singular event onto Clement's statement in chapter 32, they will unavoidably run into conflict with the immediate context of the surrounding chapters which cast justification as a process with not only a current application, but furthermore as something which transpires in the future as well. Therefore, synergism is the only cohesive understanding of Clement's letter as a whole, given Clement's clear declaration of mankind's involvement in their later justification. This is certainly how the successors of Clement would have understood his teaching on the matter. Let us consider the following example:

 

“while the salvation of believers depends upon two things, their understanding of the faith and the perfection of their works, it is the element of faith . . . that is taken as the first step in salvation, whereas second place is given to perfection of works”

(Origen, ca. 240, 'Commentary on The Song of Songs' 3:12, in 'Ancient Christian Writers' 26:228)

 

And specifically on justification:

 

“we must keep in mind that we are judged at the divine tribunal not on our faith alone as if we did not have to answer for our conduct (cf. James 2.24), nor on our conduct alone as if our faith were not subject to examination. It is from the correctness of both that we are justified; it is from the noncorrectness of both that we are punished for both. But there are some who will not be punished for both but for one of the two; some will be punished for defective faith, but not for an incorrect life, while others will not be punished for their faith but will be punished for a life lived contrary to right reason. . . . If then we wish to be saved, let us not, in our commitment to the faith, be negligent of our practical conduct, nor, conversely, be overconfident of our conduct. It is from both that we know, understand, believe, and will have our reward and beatitude, or their opposite”

(Origen, ca. 246, 'Dialogue with Heraclides' 8-9, in 'Ancient Christian Writers' 54:64)

 

This process of justification is thus recognized by modern patristic scholars:

 

“Justification begins here on earth and is interior but will have its fulfillment only in Heaven, after the resurrection, which will see the destruction also of ‘the last enemy . . . death’ (1 Cor 15:26). For we have been saved (Tit 3:5), but ‘in hope’ (Rom 8:24); adopted (Gal 4:5), but we are waiting for adoption (Rom 8:23); renewed (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:5; Eph 4:23), but we must renew ourselves day by day (2 Cor 4:15); regenerated (Tit 3:5), but we are waiting for the regeneration (Mt 19:28).

 

“Justification, therefore, is a large and complex notion which includes the present and the future”

(Agostino Trapè, 'Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity' 2:490-491, ellipsis in original)

 

Origen himself appealed to Clement's letter on numerous occasions, and identified him as the same Clement who was a fellow-worker with the Apostle Paul (cf. 'Commentary on John' 6:36; Philippians 4:3). Such was the celebration of Clement's letter among all of the early Christians. The brevity of this article will not allow for an exhaustive treatment of this point, suffice it to return to Schaff; you will recall his earlier statement that, “Clement is the only one of the apostolic fathers, except perhaps Polycarp, who shows some conception of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith,” which thought he would elsewhere elucidate in the same work:

“If any one expects to find in this period, or in any of the church fathers, Augustin himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, as the ‘articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae,’ [article by which the church stands and falls] he will be greatly disappointed. . . . Paul's doctrine of justification, except perhaps in Clement of Rome, who joins it with the doctrine of James, is left very much out of view, and awaits the age of the Reformation to be more thoroughly established and understood. The fathers lay chief stress on sanctification and good works”

(Ibid., pp. 588-589)

 

Remember this, reader, the next time a Calvinist appeals to Clement.