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.