Clement and Eternal Conscious Torment

Chris Date (CD) has a video in which he claims that Clement of Rome held to "conditional immortality" (link - if you're interested to hear what he has to say about Clement of Rome, you can jump forward to timestamp 26:00 and listen to 44:09).  

First, note that we refer to the book we refer to as 1 Clement, a letter from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, is traditionally identified as having been written by Clement of Rome, even though Clement may not have written the letter or may not have done so in an individual capacity.   The author of the book avoids using the first person to refer to himself, does not identify himself as Clement in the text of the work, and the letter begins, "The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth...."  Likewise, the postscript of the letter asks that the messengers (who presumably carried the letter) be speedily returned to "us."  Although the author of 1 Clement is traditionally identified as Clement of Rome, I will refer to the author as "the author of 1 Clement." 

At least one other letter has been attributed to Clement of Rome (it's referred to as 2 Clement), but it is by another author.  The mid-second century author of that work does refer to "eternal punishment" (2 Clement 6:7), affirms that the dead will be judged (2 Clement 1:1), uses "death" to refer to something like spiritual death ("our whole life was nothing else but death" 2 Clement 1:6), suggests that the fire of the afterlife will have a hardening effect like fire has on clay with the effect of repentance being impossible there (2 Clement 8:1-3), and identifies the punishment of the damned with "grievous torments in unquenchable fire" (2 Clement 17:7) after quoting from Isaiah 66:24 (2 Clement 17:5).  Naturally, CD does not provide his detailed comments on this work, and he does not need to, since it is not the work of Clement of Rome.  I merely mention it as a minor aside against the false and ridiculous notion that the doctrine of eternal conscious torment should be associated with Augustine, centuries later despite being the understanding of Christians before then.

Returning to 1 Clement, the full text of the epistle in the original Greek and parallel English can be found at the following link (link to full text of 1 Clement).  

While Hell is not the central focus of the letter, the author of 1 Clement, does touch on the subject a little.

XI. Διὰ φιλοξενίαν καὶ εὐσέβειαν Λὼτ ἐσώθη ἐκ Σοδόμων, τῆς περιχώρου πάσης κριθείσης διὰ πυρὸς καὶ θείου, πρόδηλον ποιήσας ὁ δεσπότης ὅτι τοὺς ἐλπίζοντας ἐπ’ αὐτὸν οὐκ ἐγκαταλείπει, τοὺς δὲ ἑτεροκλινεῖς ὑπάρχοντας εἰς κόλασιν καὶ αἰκισμὸν τίθησιν. 2. Συνεξελθούσης γὰρ αὐτῷ τῆς γυναικὸς ἑτερογνώμονος ὑπαρχούσης καὶ οὐκ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ, εἰς τοῦτο σημεῖον ἐτέθη, ὥστε γενέσθαι αὐτὴν στήλην ἁλὸς ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης, εἰς τὸ γνωστὸν εἶναι πᾶσιν ὅτι οἱ δίψυχοι καὶ οἱ διστάζοντες περὶ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεως εἰς κρίμα καὶ εἰς σημείωσιν πάσαις ταῖς γενεαῖς γίνονται.

11. For his hospitality and godliness Lot was saved from Sodom, when all the country round about was judged by fire and brimstone; the Master having thus fore shown that He forsaketh not them which set their hope on Him, but appointeth unto punishment and torment them which swerve aside. [2.] For when his wife had gone forth with him, being otherwise minded and not in accord, she was appointed for a sign hereunto, so that she became a pillar of salt unto this day, that it might be known unto all men that they which are double-minded and they which doubt concerning the power of God are set for a judgment and for a token unto all the generations.

The author of 1 Clement argues that God has appointed unbelievers to "κόλασιν καὶ αἰκισμὸν" (punishment and torture).  Even if we were to accept annihilationist claims that kolasin can refer to a death penalty, as such (and that seems to be a stretch at best), aikismon is not similarly ambiguous: it means torture not death.  Moreover, the author of 1 Clement links these punishments and tortures with the fire and brimstone (πυρὸς καὶ θείου) that was put on Sodom.  

Furthermore, the author of 1 Clement suggests a perpetuity to the judgment by saying that the judgment will be "unto all generations" like Lot's wife who "unto this day" is a pillar of salt. 

Because CD has convinced himself to reduce the punishment of Sodom to annihilation, he fails to account for the "torment" aspect of the comment.  Indeed, eternal conscious torment fits much better both with "punishment" and "torment."  Likewise, while one can certainly appreciate that the memory of a death can serve as a reminder, the ongoing existence of Lot's wife as a pillar of salt suggests an emphasis on the damned continuing to exist in some form so that they serve a similar memorial function. 

What remains to be said?  The author of 1 Clement does not explicitly say that the torment will last forever.  So, if someone wants to claim that 1 Clement does not rule out the idea that the torment might end some day, I think it's fair to acknowledge that 1 Clement does not directly address this topic.

That said, because the author of 1 Clement focuses on the punishments and torture of the wicked, 1 Clement is not consistent with the annihilationist focus on cessation of being as the reward of the wicked.

CD argues from 1 Clement 9 that capital punishment (a term the author of 1 Clement never uses) awaits the wicked.  That section reads as follows:

IX. Διὸ ὑπακούσωμεν τῇ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ καὶ ἐνδόξῳ βουλήσει αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἱκέται γενόμενοι τοῦ ἐλέους καὶ τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ προσπέσωμεν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωμεν ἐπὶ τοὺς οἰκτιρμοὺς αὐτοῦ, ἀπολιπόντες τὴν ματαιοπονίαν τήν τε ἔριν καὶ τὸ εἰς θάνατον ἄγον ζῆλος. 2. Ἀτενίσωμεν εἰς τοὺς τελείως λειτουργήσαντας τῇ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ. 3. Λάβωμεν Ἐνώχ, ὃς ἐν ὑπακοῇ δίκαιος εὑρεθεὶς μετετέθη, καὶ οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῦ θάνατος. 4. Νῶε πιστὸς εὑρεθεὶς διὰ τῆς λειτουργίας αὐτοῦ παλιγγενεσίαν κόσμῳ ἐκήρυξεν, καὶ διέσωσεν δι’ αὐτοῦ ὁ δεσπότης τὰ εἰσελθόντα ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ ζῷα εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν.

9. Wherefore let us be obedient unto His excellent and glorious will; and presenting ourselves as suppliants of His mercy and goodness, let us fall down before Him and betake ourselves unto His compassions, forsaking the vain toil and the strife and the jealousy which leadeth unto death. [2.] Let us fix our eyes on them that ministered perfectly unto His excellent glory. [3.] Let us set before us Enoch, who being found righteous in obedience was translated, and his death was not found. [4.] Noah, being found faithful, by his ministration preached regeneration unto the world, and through him the Master saved the living creatures that entered into the ark in concord.

CD is not wrong that the author of 1 Clement has in mind death as a consequence of sin.  However, the death that the author of 1 Clement uses as an illustration is the ordinary death that we all eventually face, and that even Noah himself eventually faced.  Thus, "capital punishment" as a description is a spin too far.

CD argues that the author of 1 Clement uses "death" in simply the ordinary way.  This is inaccurate.  First, the author of 1 Clement uses "death" in a way that also seems to refer to spiritual death in his quotation of "death into the world" (1 Clement 3).  Moreover, this usage is particularly relevant, because it links jealousy with death: "seeing that they have conceived an unrighteous and ungodly jealousy, through which also death entered into the world" (ζῆλον ἄδικον καὶ ἀσεβῆ ἀνειληφότας, δι’ οὗ καὶ «θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον».  1 Clement 3)  This word for jealousy is, of course, the same Greek word used in 1 Clement 9.

Moreover, jealousy is what the author of 1 Clement identifies as a critical problem in Corinth.  Thus, jealousy is discussed in 1 Clement 3, and then repeatedly in 1 Clement 4, 5, and 6.  The author of 1 Clement comes back to jealousy in 1 Clement 9, 14, 43 and 45.  Finally, the author of 1 Clement brings up jealousy one last time in the conclusion at 1 Clement 63.

Perhaps even more significantly than the jealousy-death connection in general, the author of 1 Clement states at 1 Clement 4: "Jealousy caused Joseph to be persecuted even unto death, and to come even unto bondage." (Ζῆλος ἐποίησεν Ἰωσὴφ μέχρι θανάτου διωχθῆναι καὶ μέχρι δουλείας εἰσελθεῖν.)  

We know, and it seems fair to assume the author of 1 Clement knew, that Joseph was not literally persecuted to physical death, but instead to an imprisonment.  In case you are wondering, it's not because a different Greek word for death is used: it's the same Greek word for death.  

CD presents six other examples of this word use in the text, which falsely suggests that the author of 1 Clement only uses the word in one particular way. 

Moreover, the translation CD provided for 1 Clement 51 seems inaccurate and misleading in the context of our discussion.

LI. Ὅσα οὖν παρεπέσαμεν καὶ ἐποιήσαμεν διά τινας παρεμπτώσεις τοῦ ἀντικειμένου, ἀξιώσωμεν ἀφεθῆναι ἡμῖν· καὶ ἐκεῖνοι δέ, οἵτινες ἀρχηγοὶ στάσεως καὶ διχοστασίας ἐγενήθησαν, ὀφείλουσιν τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ἐλπίδος σκοπεῖν. 2. Οἱ γὰρ μετὰ φόβου καὶ ἀγάπης πολιτευόμενοι ἑαυτοὺς θέλουσιν μᾶλλον αἰκίαις περιπίπτειν ἢ τοὺς πλησίον· μᾶλλον δὲ ἑαυτῶν κατάγνωσιν φέρουσιν ἢ τῆς παραδεδομένης ἡμῖν καλῶς καὶ δικαίως ὁμοφωνίας. 3. Καλὸν γὰρ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐξομολογεῖσθαι περὶ τῶν παραπτωμάτων ἢ σκληρῦναι τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, καθὼς ἐσκληρύνθη ἡ καρδία τῶν στασιασάντων πρὸς τὸν θεράποντα τοῦ Θεοῦ Μωϋσῆν, ὧν τὸ κρίμα πρόδηλον ἐγενήθη. 4. «Κατέβησαν γὰρ εἰς ᾅδου ζῶντες», καὶ «θάνατος ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς». 5. Φαραὼ καὶ ἡ στρατιὰ αὐτοῦ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἡγούμενοι Αἰγύπτου, «τά τε ἅρματα καὶ οἱ ἀναβάται» αὐτῶν οὐ δι’ ἄλλην τινὰ αἰτίαν ἐβυθίσθησαν εἰς θάλασσαν ἐρυθρὰν καὶ ἀπώλοντο, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ σκληρυνθῆναι αὐτῶν τὰς ἀσυνέτους καρδίας μετὰ τὸ γενέσθαι τὰ σημεῖα καὶ τὰ τέρατα ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ διὰ τοῦ θεράποντος τοῦ Θεοῦ Μωϋσέως.

51. For all our transgressions which we have committed through any of the wiles of the adversary, let us entreat that we may obtain forgiveness. Yea and they also, who set themselves up as leaders of faction and division, ought to look to the common ground of hope. [2.] For such as walk in fear and love desire that they themselves should fall into suffering rather than their neighbors; and they pronounce condemnation against themselves rather than against the harmony which hath been handed down to us nobly and righteously. [3.] For it is good for a man to make confession of his trespasses rather than to harden his heart, as the heart of those was hardened who made sedition against Moses the servant of God; [4.] whose condemnation was clearly manifest, for they went down to hades alive, and Death shall be their shepherd. [5.] Pharaoh and his host and all the rulers of Egypt, their chariots and their horsemen, were overwhelmed in the depths of the Red Sea, and perished for none other reason but because their foolish hearts were hardened after that the signs and the wonders had been wrought in the land of Egypt by the hand of Moses the servant of God.

Rather than "death shall be their shepherd," CD provides "and death swallowed them up," and omits "alive" from "into hell."  When he mentions this same section a few minutes later, to claim that "alive" has a uniform meaning in 1 Clement, he asserts that they go there to die, which is not what the text says.  

The author of 1 Clement is referring the rebellion of Korah described in Numbers 16, and particularly quoting from Numbers 16:30, which says that "they go down quick (i.e. alive) into the pit (i.e. hell)" (LXX: καταβήσονται ζῶντες εἰς ᾅδου), and from Psalm 49:14 (LXX Psalm 48:15, θάνατος ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς - [NETS] death shall be their shepherd ), which is about the sons of Korah.

If anything, the judgment of Korah is suggestive of the eternal conscious torment view.  The shepherding of those in Hades by the personification of Death is one that treats the dead as, in some sense, alive.

I will point out that "Death shall feed upon them" is another interpretation of the underlying Psalm.  The difference is similar to the difference between feeding someone and feeding upon someone.  Nevertheless, I agree with Lightfoot's translation of 1 Clement, which agrees with the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) translation of Psalm 48:15. 

Regarding 1 Clement 11, CD argues that "torture" is not a good translation of aikismos, because aikismos can also just refer to "bad treatment." Even if aikismos can more broadly include other kinds of bad treatment, the context is the reason it gets translated as "torture" or the like.  Moreover, if the meaning is even softer than "torture," this would only further undermine, not support, the denial that the author of 1 Clement held the eternal conscious torment view.  In any event, I disagree with CD's criticism of the translation.

I don't know of anyone who has translated it merely "bad treatment." Instead, here are some of the translations in addition to Lightfoot's translation (1869).

• William Burton (1647) translated: "punishment and plagues" (link at XIV in Burton's sectioning of the text)
• William Wake (1719) translated: "punishment and correction" (link) 
• Temple Chevallier (1833) translated: "punishment and correction" (link)
• John Keith (1897) included in Schaff's edition: "punishment and torture" (link)
• Kevin Edgecomb (2006) translated: "punishment and torments" (link)
• Adolf von Harnack (English ed. and trans. Jacob Cerone) (2021) translated: "punishment and torment" (p. 15)

Incidentally, I criticize the translation 1 Clement 51 that CD provided, but I don't know what translation CD is using.  I think the original language text of the epistle does not support his reading, though, regardless of his translation choice.

CD makes an argument that because the author of 1 Clement sees immortality and life as a gift from God for the righteous, that this implies that he does not think that the wicked will live forever in hell.  This is one of what I would refer to as the fundamental errors of CD's method of argumentation.  He provides a reductionist interpretation of life and death, and then imposes that interpretation onto certain texts.

CD argues that the author of 1 Clement takes the position that only believers will be resurrected.  On the other hand, this would not make a 1 Clement a holder of the conditional immortality position for which CD usually advocates, since that position affirms a general resurrection.  More bluntly, this reductionism misses the fact that for 1 Clement the resurrection that matters is the resurrection to life, not the resurrection to torment.

Moreover, 1 Clement's way of considering life, death, and resurrection does not follow CD's reductionism, as evidenced by 1 Clement 24, where the resurrection is compared to our daily sleeping and waking and to the growth cycle of plants.  Further evidence is provided in 1 Clement 25 where the author relates the myth of the Phoenix.  In the case of 1 Clement 24, the author of 1 Clement is following gospel metaphors for death, but - of course - these are metaphors.

I further criticism I have is that CD tends to spin 1 Clement and then treat the spin as though it was what 1 Clement says.  For example, around 39:00 to 39:15, CD repeatedly emphatically says that the author says "only ..." when, at most, CD would be justified in saying that the author of 1 Clement "only says" or "implies that only ...."  There are about 17 uses of "only" in the English of 1 Clement, the majority of those are "not only" and none of them is in the context of any of the above-discussed issues, except that the Phoenix is the "only one of its kind," despite its unusual 500 year cycle of life. 

According to CD, if Clement (and Ignatius) denied the general resurrection, they would still be "conditionalists" because of their denial of continued union of body and soul of the wicked.  This is because the "conditionalist" movement is being defined negatively, as a rejection of the eternal conscious torment position.

CD suggests to his listeners to claim that Clement and Ignatius are "indisputably conditionalists," which is a dramatic oversell of his conclusion.  We will address Ignatius in another post.  For now, suffice to say that there is no strong reason to deny that Clement held to the same view as the author of 2 Clement or other early Christian writers, who believed that what awaits the lost is an eternity of torment.

Bryan Cross on Trent and 1 Clement

Bryan Cross wrote:

The Tridentine bishops were quite aware of 1 Clement, and did not consider, for example, Canon 9 or Canon 24 (of Session 6) to be contrary to St. Clement’s teaching on justification.

I have asked Bryan what his evidence of this is.  My guess is that he just made this up. After all, the council of Trent ended 1563, and the discovery of the text of 1 Clement was made in 1627, when Cyril Lucar gave Codex Alexandrinus to Charles I (see Thomas Herron's, "Clement and the Early Church of Rome," p. 4).

If Bryan provides some evidence to me, I'll happily post it up here, so that the reader can compare it to what Herron says.

I can't say what Bryan imagines in his own head, only that I'm not aware of any factual basis for his assertion.  A lot of folks in Rome's communion imagine that the Tridentine fathers were eminent scholars who were intimately familiar with the fathers and were basing their views on a comprehensive understanding and appreciation of those works.  That wasn't the case. 

-TurretinFan

 UPDATE: Bryan responded:

My mistake. I was going from memory. It was St. Hilary (along with some other Church Fathers) who was discussed during the Sixth Session. The point still stands, however, that the Tridentine bishops were well aware of Church Fathers who wrote about justification by faith.

So, the point wasn't really about the Tridentine Fathers thinking that 1 Clement was consistent with their teaching? Interesting.  But what about the new claim?


Jedin states:

The Carmelite Vincent de Leone put the Fathers on their guard against a condemnation of the sola fide formula without supplementing it with an accurate explanation of its meaning, on the ground that it is also found, though in another sense, in the writings of many Fathers, for instance in those of St. Hilary of Poitiers, and in those of some other Catholic theologians.

Hubert Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, Volume 2, p. 245.

Is that the basis for Bryan's statement: “The point still stands, however, that the Tridentine bishops were well aware of Church Fathers who wrote about justification by faith”? Or is there something that shows a greater discussion and/or awareness on the part of the Tridentine fathers than that?  I have asked Bryan.  We will have to see what he's basing his new statement on.

Clement of Rome and Bryan Cross - Justification by Faith Alone or Faith and Works?

I'm glad that my friend Lane Keister recently highlighted the point that 1 Clement teaches justification by faith alone. The author of 1 Clement (whether Clement is the author or the scribe is an open question) does clearly indicate that justification is by faith alone, and by faith to the exclusion of works of holiness.

The contemporary Roman response to this (and Bryan Cross's response is illustrative of this category) is the same as their response to Paul's similar clear teaching to the Romans (the ancient Romans) and the Galatians. That response is to attempt to divide justification up into parts, suggesting that initial justification could be by faith alone in some sense, while suggesting that final justification is by faith and works.

There are major and minor problems associated with this response. First, neither Paul nor the author of 1 Clement make this distinction. Second, Paul in Galatians denies this tactic: "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:3)

Next, notice that in their responses, Rome's advocates invariably go to places where the author doesn't mention justification. Bryan, to take an example, goes to Romans 5:5 and 1 Clement 12, 49, 50, 10 and 31, none of which mention justification.

The author of Clement does actually refer to the word justification in another place, and one in which he speaks about justification by works. The naive reader may be wondering whether Bryan has just overlooked this passage. No, there's a good reason that Bryan does not go there. In that place, the author is using the term justification the way James does:

Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. “For God,” saith [the Scripture], “resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. For [the Scripture] saith, “He that speaketh much, shall also hear much in answer. And does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteous? Blessed is he that is born of woman, who liveth but a short time: be not given to much speaking.” Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for God hateth those that commend themselves. Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers. Boldness, and arrogance, and audacity belong to those that are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness to such as are blessed by Him.

(1 Clement 30)

In that place, the author of Clement is describing justification in the eyes of others. The author suggests that we should seek to be justified by our deeds as opposed to our words - much like the man in James who claims to have faith, but doesn't show it by works.

But let's turn to the passages that Bryan cites. First, let's look at Chapter 12. Bryan cites the first line, but let's look at the whole thing:

On account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved. For when spies were sent by Joshua, the son of Nun, to Jericho, the king of the country ascertained that they were come to spy out their land, and sent men to seize them, in order that, when taken, they might be put to death. But the hospitable Rahab receiving them, concealed them on the roof of her house under some stalks of flax. And when the men sent by the king arrived and said “There came men unto thee who are to spy out our land; bring them forth, for so the king commands,” she answered them, “The two men whom ye seek came unto me, but quickly departed again and are gone,” thus not discovering the spies to them. Then she said to the men, “I know assuredly that the Lord your God hath given you this city, for the fear and dread of you have fallen on its inhabitants. When therefore ye shall have taken it, keep ye me and the house of my father in safety.” And they said to her, “It shall be as thou hast spoken to us. As soon, therefore, as thou knowest that we are at hand, thou shall gather all thy family under thy roof, and they shall be preserved, but all that are found outside of thy dwelling shall perish.” Moreover, they gave her a sign to this effect, that she should hang forth from her house a scarlet thread. And thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord to all them that believe and hope in God. Ye see, beloved, that there was not only faith, but prophecy, in this woman.

The first point to note is that the author of Clement is describing the instrument of Rahab's salvation from the destruction of Jericho. He's not saying she was justified from her sins by a combination of faith and something else. Interestingly, this would seem to be Rahab's initial act. So, if hospitality is a good work added to faith, then this would mean that her initial justification was not by faith alone. What an absurd result, even on Roman terms!

But note the spiritual lesson that the author of Clement derives. He actually states that she illustrates that redemption flows from the blood of Christ to all who "believe and hope in God." When he comes to applying her physical salvation to spiritual salvation, her works are not in the picture - just her faith and hope in God. Yes, she places the thread in the window, but that thread for Clement illustrates Christ's blood, not her deeds.

The second passage that Bryan goes to (twice, actually) is chapter 49 to which we will append chapter 50, since it was also excerpted and is a related thought:

(49)Let him who has love in Christ keep the commandments of Christ. Who can describe the [blessed] bond of the love of God? What man is able to tell the excellence of its beauty, as it ought to be told? The height to which love exalts is unspeakable. Love unites us to God. Love covers a multitude of sins. Love beareth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing base, nothing arrogant in love. Love admits of no schisms: love gives rise to no seditions: love does all things in harmony. By love have all the elect of God been made perfect; without love nothing is well-pleasing to God. In love has the Lord taken us to Himself. On account of the Love he bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.
(50) Ye see, beloved, how great and wonderful a thing is love, and that there is no declaring its perfection. Who is fit to be found in it, except such as God has vouchsafed to render so? Let us pray, therefore, and implore of His mercy, that we may live blameless in love, free from all human partialities for one above another. All the generations from Adam even unto this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ. For it is written, “Enter into thy secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away; and I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves.” Blessed are we, beloved, if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love; that so through love our sins may be forgiven us. For it is written, “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not impute to him, and in whose mouth there is no guile.” This blessedness cometh upon those who have been chosen by God through Jesus Christ our Lord; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Chapter 49 is a long praise of love and an exhortation for those who have love in Christ to obey the commandments of God. It is not an admonition to them to seek justification through observation of the commandments of God. Chapter 50, by contrast, is a suggestion to beg for love from God. While we are exhorted to love "so that through love our sins may be forgiven us," notice that it does not say "through our love." Notice as well that the author does not attribute the blessedness to the man who is most careful to keep the commandments, but rather to those chosen by God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Continuing in the order that Bryan picked, let's jump back to chapter 10:

Abraham, styled “the friend,” was found faithful, inasmuch as he rendered obedience to the words of God. He, in the exercise of obedience, went out from his own country, and from his kindred, and from his father’s house, in order that, by forsaking a small territory, and a weak family, and an insignificant house, he might inherit the promises of God. For God said to him, “Get thee out from thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, into the land which I shall show thee. And I will make thee a great nation, and will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shall be blessed. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” And again, on his departing from Lot, God said to him. “Lift up thine eyes, and look from the place where thou now art, northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, [so that] if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.” And again [the Scripture] saith, “God brought forth Abram, and spake unto him, Look up now to heaven, and count the stars if thou be able to number them; so shall thy seed be. And Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” On account of his faith and hospitality, a son was given him in his old age; and in the exercise of obedience, he offered him as a sacrifice to God on one of the mountains which He showed him.

Notice that the author of Clement describes here how Abraham is recognized as faithful. He is recognized as faithful by his obedience. Moreover, a reward was given him for his faith and hospitality, but that reward was not justification, not is it eternal life, but a son in his old age.

Then following Bryan's hopping and skipping through 1 Clement, we come to chapter 31:

Let us cleave then to His blessing, and consider what are the means of possessing it. Let us think over the things which have taken place from the beginning. For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac, with perfect confidence, as if knowing what was to happen, cheerfully yielded himself as a sacrifice. Jacob, through reason of his brother, went forth with humility from his own land, and came to Laban and served him; and there was given to him the sceptre of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Bryan seems to suppose that Abraham's blessing referenced here is either justification or eternal life, but that's not what 1 Clement says. Indeed, the blessings mentioned by Clement are largely temporal blessings. Abraham gets a son in his old age and Jacob gets a huge family. We see that it is not justification or eternal life that is in view, but other blessings when we look at the next chapter, chapter 32, which completes the thought:

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Notice how this chapter coming immediately on the heels of 31 undermines Bryan's claims. Notice that even when it comes to these great gifts, the author of Clement says it was not "for their own sake, or for their own works," taking back with one hand what he seemed to Bryan to give with the other hand. Moreover, it is at this very juncture that the author indicates that our justification is by faith alone.

It is remarkable how in his post Bryan tries to suggest that the question is about whether the author of Clement is talking about dead faith or not ("The question is this: Is he talking about about living faith (i.e. faith informed by the virtue of agape), or is he talking about dead faith (i.e. faith where there is not the virtue of agape)?"). One really wonders if Bryan seriously thinks that our position is that the author of Clement is suggesting that dead faith justifies. Of course, what Bryan means by "dead faith" and what we and James mean by "dead faith" are two different things. In Bryan's attempt to re-frame the question away from justification by faith, he has simply added an additional layer of imposed meaning on the author of Clement. The author does not here distinguish between "dead" and "living" faith - and certainly does not do so in the sense that Bryan's argument requires.

Moreover Bryan's argument relies on a mis-framing of the real question. The real question is not whether the author of 1 Clement viewed love as a virtue or as good works. After all, while Trent did argue that Faith must be accompanied by both Love and Hope (Chapter VII), Trent also positively stated that men are justified through the works that they do:
Chapter X:

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity."

And this erroneous understanding of James' epistle is irreformably made part of Rome's dogma in at least two canons:
On Justification:
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

What Rome anathematizes, we embrace - for it is the apostolic teaching of justification by faith alone apart from works. That's the real question - not the question of whether love is properly a virtue.

- TurretinFan

Justification by Faith Alone - An Affirmative Rebuttal

I am still waiting to conduct my debate on Justification by Faith alone. I appreciate the comments left on my proposed Affirmative Constructive, but I thought I would share an Affirmative Rebuttal as well. The constructive sets forth the truth of Sola Fide from Scripture. The rebuttal addresses the historical question: if this is true, why didn't anyone realize it before? The answer is that while the Reformers may have better systematized, organized, and rendered consistent the doctrines known under the umbrella of "sola fide," or justification by faith alone, they were not in uncharted territory. That is not to say that the church fathers were consistent or that they all taught the same thing. Nevertheless, the idea of justification by faith alone certainly wasn't new to the Reformers. Chrysostom (349-407): Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it. For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, On the Second Epistle of St. Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians, Homily 2, §8. What is interesting about the above is that Chrysostom is denying the necessity of baptism for justification. He's saying that good works provide confidence but that nevertheless one can be justified by faith alone. Chrysostom (349-407): That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor. Upon this head accordingly Paul has discoursed at length in his Epistle to the Romans, and here again at length. “This is a faithful saying,” he says, “and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” As the Jews were chiefly attracted by this, he persuades them not to give heed to the law, since they could not attain salvation by it without faith. Against this he contends; for it seemed to them incredible, that a man who had mis-spent all his former life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his faith alone. On this account he says, “It is a saying to be believed.” But some not only disbelieved but even objected, as the Greeks do now. “Let us then do evil, that good may come.” This was the consequence they drew in derision of our faith, from his words, “Where sin abounded grace did much more abound.” NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on First Timothy, Homily 4, 1 Timothy 1:15, 16. One reason to include the quotation above is the fact that it refers to salvation by faith alone, and this is explicitly contrasted with good works. Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) on Matthew 9: “This was forgiven by Christ through faith, because the Law could not yield, for faith alone justifies.” Latin text: Et remissum est ab eo, quod lex laxare non poterat; fides enim sola justificat. Sancti Hilarii In Evangelium Matthaei Commentarius, Caput VIII, §6, PL 9:961. The above is pretty self explanatory. Basil of Caesarea (329-379): [As the Apostle says,] Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, [I say that] Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, [and] redemption, that, as it is written, “he who boasts, let him boast in the Lord.” [For] this is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been, δεδικαιωμένον, perfect passive participle, accusative, masculine of δικαιόω) justified solely by faith in Christ. See Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, p. 505. (bracketed words added to Chemnitz’ translation) Greek text: Λέγει δὲ ὁ Ἀπόστολος• Ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω, λέγω ὅτι Χριστὸς ἡμῖν ἐγενήθη σοφία ἀπὸ Θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις• ἵνα καθὼς γέγραπται, Ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. Αὕτη γὰρ δὴ ἡ τελεία καὶ ὁλόκληρος καύχησις ἐν Θεῳ, ὅτε μήτε ἐπὶ δικαιοσύνῃ τις ἐπαίρεται τῇ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ´ ἔγνω μὲν ἐνδεῆ ὄντα ἑαυτὸν δικαιοσύνης ἀληθοῦς, πίστει δὲ μόνῃ τῇ εἰς Χριστὸν δεδικαιωμένον. Homilia XX, Homilia De Humilitate, §3, PG 31:529. In context, Basil appealed to the example of the Apostle Paul as a regenerate man. Like the examples from Chrysostom above, this quotation both speaks of justification solely by faith and contrasts that with works. Pseudo-Jerome (fl. 5th century) on Romans 10:3: God justifies by faith alone. Latin text: Deus ex sola fide justificat: In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D (I will update when I have further opportunity, but this book is now attributed by scholars to Pelagius.  That work was edited over time, and I'm not sure whether this passage is part of Pelagius' original or a later edit.  I believe the former.). The above speaks for itself, but note that the exact phrase "sola fide" is found. Jerome (347-420): He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever. Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 61. Latin text: Qui enim tota mente in Christo confidit, etiamsi, ut homo lapsus, mortuus fuerit in peccato, fide sua vivit in perpetuum. Epistola CXIX, Ad Minervium et Alexandrum Monachos, §7, PL 22:973. The above is an example of Jerome contrasting justification by faith with works. Pseudo-Oecumenius (Late 7th or Early 8th Century), commenting on James 2:23: Abraham is the image of someone who is justified by faith alone, since what he believed was credited to him as righteousness. But he is also approved because of his works, since he offered up his son Isaac on the altar. Of course he did not do this work by itself; in doing it, he remained firmly anchored in his faith, believing that through Isaac his seed would be multiplied until it was as numerous as the stars. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 33. See PG 119:481. Notice how here Pseudo-Oecumenius addresses Abraham's justification. He affirms that Abraham is justified by faith alone, but then explains that the works provide him with approval because of their connection to his faith. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:6, ‘righteousness apart from works’: Paul backs this up by the example of the prophet David, who says that those are blessed of whom God has decreed that, without work or any keeping of the law, they are justified before God by faith alone. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 113. Latin Text: Hoc ipsum munit exemplo prophetae. Beatitudinem hominis, cui Deus accepto fert justitiam sine operibus. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus, ut sine labore et aliqua observatione, sola fide justificentur apud Deum. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:83. Here Ambrosiaster explicitly denies justification by works, even while explicitly affirming justification by faith alone. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:24: They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 101. Latin Text: Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicem reddentes, sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:79. This is similar to the previous one. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:27: Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast basing themselves on the law and claiming to be of the race of Abraham, seeing that no one is justified before God except by faith. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 103. Latin Text: Ubi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? factorum? Non, sed per legem fidei. Reddita ratione, ad eos loquitur, qui agunt sub lege, quod sine causa glorientur, blandientes sibi de lege, et propter quod genus sint Abrahae, videntes non justificari hominem apud Deum, nisi per fidem. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:80. Again, Ambrosiaster is affirming justification by faith alone. Here, he's providing the angle that there is no alternative way of being justified. It's not like some people are justified by faith, and others are justified by works. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:5: How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 112. Latin Text: Hoc dicit, quia sine operibus legis credenti impio, id est gentili, in Christum, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam, sicut et Abrahae. Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera legis justificari se putant justificatione Abrahae; cum videant Abraham non per opera legis, sed sola fide justificatum? Non ergo opus est lex, quando impius per solam fidem justificatur apud Deum. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:82-83. I realize that some of Rome's apologists will try to wriggle out of the quotation above by emphasizing the distinction between the works of the Mosaic law and works in general. Nevertheless, Ambrosiaster makes it clear that faith alone justifies. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 2:12: For if the law is given not for the righteous but for the unrighteous, whoever does not sin is a friend of the law. For him faith alone is the way by which he is made perfect. For others mere avoidance of evil will not gain them any advantage with God unless they also believe in God, so that they may be righteous on both counts. For the one righteousness is temporal; the other is eternal. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 65. Latin Text: Si enim justo non est lex posita, sed injustis; qui non peccat, amicus legis est. Huic sola fides deest, per quam fiat perfectus quia nihil illi proderit apud Deum abstinere a contrariis, nisi fidem in Deum acceperit, ut sit justus per utraque; quia illa temporis justitia est, haec aeternitatis. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:67. The above closes out the attempted room of those who treat "the law" as simply a reference to the Mosaic law. Notice how Ambrosiaster connects the law and "avoidance of evil," which is a general description of works. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), wrote while commenting upon 1 Cor. 1:4b: God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VII: 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 6. Latin Text: Datam dicit gratiam a Deo in Christo Jesu, quae gratia sic data est in Christo Jesu; quia hoc constitutum est a Deo, ut qui credit in Christum, salvus sit sine opere: sola fide gratis accipit remissionem peccatorum. In Epistolam B. Pauli Ad Corinthios Primam, PL 17:185. The above quotation puts a final nail in the coffin for any attempted Romanist wriggling, in that here Ambrosiaster makes it explicit that a person can be saved without works. Chrysostom (349-407): God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent. Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 134. See also John Chrysostom. F. Field, ed. Interpretatio omnium Epistolarum Paulinarum per Homilias Facta (Oxford J. H. Parker, 1845-1862), 2:160. Here Chrysostom explains that faith justifies and faith produces works, but still insists that works do not justify us. Chrysostom (349-407): For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light. NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 8, Rom. 4:1, 2. This is a powerful statement for justification by faith alone. Chrysostom is arguing that even for those with works in addition to faith, those works do not justify them. Clement of Rome: Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32. The above conclusion provides a final testimony for sola fide. Yes, he does not use the term "faith alone," but he specifically rules out works. - TurretinFan

Update: Thanks to the gentleman from Energetic Procession, who pointed out that that the Jerome quotation from PL 30 is actually not Jerome.  PL 30 does indicate that the works therein are suppositious, which ought to have warned me.  I don't see any other places where I made the same error on this blog, but I'm happy to correct things as the situations warrant. 

Formal Sufficiency of Scripture: Early Christian Writers (Guest Series)

Formal Sufficiency of Scripture
Stated and Examined from Scripture and the Fathers, with scholarly confirmation regarding the Fathers' views.

In an introduction section (link), we discussed the nature of formal sufficiency that we, the Reformed, affirm. In the next section (link), we saw Scripture's own testimony to its own sufficiency. If we were simply establishing the Reformed position, that would be completely sufficient. It would not be necessary to add anything to that.

Nevertheless, our challenger from the Roman side has requested some patristic confirmation. Frankly, we are not sanguine about the possibility that he'll actually carefully read and consider the evidence that we present, yet perhaps these evidences will be sufficient to help establish that our insight into Scripture is not a novel insight.

Thus, in this section, we will focus on some early Christian writers and identify what they had to say about the Scriptures. One logical place to start is with Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr (wrote after 151)(ANF 1):

And I replied, “I would not bring forward these proofs, Trypho, by which I am aware those who worship these [idols] and such like are condemned, but such [proofs] as no one could find any objection to. They will appear strange to you, although you read them every day; so that even from this fact we understand that, because of your wickedness, God has withheld from you the ability to discern the wisdom of His Scriptures; yet [there are] some exceptions, to whom, according to the grace of His long-suffering, as Isaiah said, He has left a seed of salvation, lest your race be utterly destroyed, like Sodom and Gomorrah. Pay attention, therefore, to what I shall record out of the holy Scriptures, which do not need to be expounded, but only listened to.

ANF: Vol. I, Dialogue of Justin, Chapter 55.

There are a couple of key points to notice in this quotation from Justin. First, Justin recognizes the need for God to enlighten the mind of the hearer. He suggests that God withheld wisdom from Trypho, but Justin still insists that the testimony of Scripture is so clear that it can simply be listened to. When you compare that to our presentation in the introduction section, and when you look at the Scriptural testimony, you see that Justin's words seem to be consistent with both.

Moving on from Justin, we can consider Irenaeus. Irenaeus offers the following testimony to the perspicuity of Holy Scripture.

Irenaeus (130 - c. 200)(ANF 1):

A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures. And therefore the parables ought not to be adapted to ambiguous expressions. For, if this be not done, both he who explains them will do so without danger, and the parables will receive a like interpretation from all, and the body of truth remains entire, with a harmonious adaptation of its members, and without any collision [of its several parts]. But to apply expressions which are not clear or evident to interpretations of the parables, such as every one discovers for himself as inclination leads him, [is absurd.] For in this way no one will possess the rule of truth; but in accordance with the number of persons who explain the parables will be found the various systems of truth, in mutual opposition to each other, and setting forth antagonistic doctrines, like the questions current among the Gentile philosophers.

ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, 2:27:1.

Like Justin, Irenaeus acknowledges that a sound mind is a gift from God, and Irenaeus further explains that there are clear and unambiguous teachings in Scripture. He similarly places understanding of these Scriptures within the provenance of individual men who daily study the Word.

Here's another example from Irenaeus:

Irenaeus (130 - c. 200)(ANF 1):

According to this course of procedure, therefore, man would always be inquiring but never finding, because he has rejected the very method of discovery. And when the Bridegroom comes, he who has his lamp untrimmed, and not burning with the brightness of a steady light, is classed among those who obscure the interpretations of the parables, forsaking Him who by His plain announcements freely imparts gifts to all who come to Him, and is excluded from His marriage-chamber. Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it,—those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own. For that there is nothing whatever openly, expressly, and without controversy said in any part of Scripture respecting the Father conceived of by those who hold a contrary opinion, they themselves testify, when they maintain that the Saviour privately taught these same things not to all, but to certain only of His disciples who could comprehend them, and who understood what was intended by Him through means of arguments, enigmas, and parables.

ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, 2:27:2.

This is similar to the last two quotations. It also shows that Irenaeus believed that the Scriptures could be understood by everyone, although some people handcuff themselves.

Moreover, Irenaeus informs us that the notion of a “living voice” being needed to the interpretation of Holy Scripture originated with Gnostic heretics.

Irenaeus (130 - c. 200)(ANF 1):

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book 3:2:1.

What's interesting about this point that Irenaeus raises is that he is directly addressing the error of those who try to argue that although Scripture may have the teachings, they are too ambiguous to be extracted simply by reading the Scripture, and that consequently tradition is needed.

This provides a good chance to turn to the testimonies of the ancients regarding the perspicuity of Holy Scripture.

Irenaeus (130 - c. 200)(ANF 1):

And in every Epistle the apostle [i.e. Paul] plainly testifies, that through the flesh of our Lord, and through His blood, we have been saved.

ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book 5:14:3.

Irenaeus' comments are pretty self-explanatory. We see a similar idea in Theophilus of Antioch.

Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 115–168 or 181)(ANF 2):

Therefore, do not be skeptical, but believe; for I myself also used to disbelieve that this would take place, but now, having taken these things into consideration, I believe. At the same time, I met with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who also by the Spirit of God foretold the things that have already happened, just as they came to pass, and the things now occurring as they are now happening, and things future in the order in which they shall be accomplished. Admitting, therefore, the proof which events happening as predicted afford, I do not disbelieve, but I believe, obedient to God, whom, if you please, do you also submit to, believing Him, lest if now you continue unbelieving, you be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented with eternal punishments; which punishments, when they had been foretold by the prophets, the later-born poets and philosophers stole from the holy Scriptures, to make their doctrines worthy of credit. Yet these also have spoken beforehand of the punishments that are to light upon the profane and unbelieving, in order that none be left without a witness, or be able to say, “We have not heard, neither have we known.” But do you also, if you please, give reverential attention to the prophetic Scriptures, and they will make your way plainer for escaping the eternal punishments, and obtaining the eternal prizes of God. For He who gave the mouth for speech, and formed the ear to hear, and made the eye to see, will examine all things, and will judge righteous judgment, rendering merited awards to each. To those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek immortality, He will give life everlasting, joy, peace, rest, and abundance of good things, which neither hath eye seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men. Since you said, “Show me thy God,” this is my God, and I counsel you to fear Him and to trust Him.

ANF: Vol. II, Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter 14.

Notice how Theophilus not only explains his own personal story about coming to faith through reading the Scriptures, but also claims that the Scriptures will make things plain for others. This is the same role of illumination we discussed in the previous sections of this series.

And that's not all Theophilus has to say:

Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 115–168 or 181) (ANF 2):

Likewise spoke the other prophets of the truth. And why should I recount the multitude of prophets, who are numerous, and said ten thousand things consistently and harmoniously? For those who desire it, can, by reading what they uttered, accurately understand the truth, and no longer be carried away by opinion and profitless labour. These, then, whom we have already mentioned, were prophets among the Hebrews,—illiterate, and shepherds, and uneducated.

Original Greek:
ὁμοίως εἶπον καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ τῆς ἀληθείας προφῆται. Καὶ τί μοι τὸ πλῆθος καταλέγειν τῶν προφητῶν, πολλῶν ὄντων καὶ μυρία φίλα καὶ σύμφωνα εἰρηκότων; οἱ γὰρ βουλόμενοι δύνανται ἐντυχόντες τοῖς διʼ αὐτῶν εἰρημένοις ἀκριβῶς γνῶναι τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ μὴ παράγεσθαι ὑπὸ διανοίας καὶ ματαιοπονίας. οὗτοι οὖν οὓς προειρήκαμεν προφῆται ἐγένοντο ἐν Ἑβραίοις, ἀγράμματοι καὶ ποιμένες καὶ ἰδιῶται.

Ad Autolycum, Liber II, §35, PG 6:1109; ANF: Vol. II, Theophilus to Autolycus, Book II, Chapter 35.

Notice again how Theophilus views the Scriptures as something that can readily be understood through simply reading them.

Other early Christian writings that have sometimes been dated as early as the 1st or 2nd century also give a similar picture.

1 Clement has been dated by some as early as the the late 90's and as late as A.D. 140 or later. Also, the authorship of the book is uncertain. Thus, this is not necessarily the writing of a church father, but it is an early Christian writing.

1 Clement 45:1-3

(Lightfoot Translation)
Be ye contentious, brethren, and jealous about the things that pertain unto salvation. Ye have searched the scriptures, which are true, which were given through the Holy Ghost; and ye know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them.

Alternative translation (Roberts Translation): Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.

Greek: Φιλόνεικοί ἐστε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ ζηλωταὶ περὶ τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς συτηρίαν ἐγκεκύφατε εἰς τὰς γραηάς, ρὰς γραγάς, τὰς ἀληθεῖς, τὰς [διὰ] τοῦ ὰγίου ἐπίστασθε ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄδικον οὐδὲ παραπεποιημένον γέγραπται ἐν αὐταῖς.

This is less explicit than some of the passages above, but it is clear that the author of 1 Clement thinks that his readers will be familiar with Scripture and that they will obtain their information about salvation from those entirely trustworthy books.

1 Clement 53:1

(Lightfoot Translation)
For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance.

Alternative translation (Roberts Translation): Ye understand, beloved, you understand well the Sacred Scriptures, and you have looked very earnestly into the oracles of God. Call then these things to your remembrance.

Greek: Ἐπίστασθε γὰρ καὶ καλῶς ἐπίσταθε τὰς ὶερὰς γραφὰς, καὶ ἐγκεκύφατε εἰς τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς ἀνάμνησιν αῧν ταῦτα γράφομεν.

Similarly, as in the previous instance, the author of 1 Clement assumes familiarity with Scripture and does not claim to write so much to instruct as simply to remind.

A similar remark can be found in a letter ascribed to Polycarp (whether it is actually Polycarp's work is probably less certain, but it is a fairly early Christian writing):

Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 12:

(Roberts Translation - ANF 1)
For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted.

(Lightfoot Translation)
For I am persuaded that ye are well trained in the sacred writings, and nothing is hidden from you. But to myself this is not granted.

(Lake Translation)
For I am persuaded that ye are well trained in the sacred writings, and nothing is hidden from you. But to myself this is not granted.

Latin (the original Greek was not preserved, to my knowledge):
Confido enim vos bene exercitatos esse in sacris literis, et nihil vos latet; mihi autem non est concessum.

And there is more from Polycarp:

Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 3

(Roberts Translation - ANF 1)
These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not because I take anything upon myself, but because ye have invited me to do so. For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and stedfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive. And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbour, " is the mother of us all." For if any one be inwardly possessed of these graces, he hath fulfilled ths command of righteousness, since he that hath love is far from all sin.

(Lightfoot Translation)
These things, brethren, I write unto you concerning righteousness, not because I laid this charge upon myself, but because ye invited me. For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you taught face to face with the men of that day the word which concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent, wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you, which is the mother of us all, while hope followeth after and love goeth before--love toward God and Christ and toward our neighbor. For if any man be occupied with these, he hath fulfilled the commandment of righteousness; for he that hath love is far from all sin.

(Lake Translation)
These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not at my own instance, but because you first invited me. For neither am I, nor is any other like me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he was among you in the presence of the men of that time taught accurately and stedfastly the word of truth, and also when he was absent wrote letters to you, from the study of which you will be able to build yourselves up into the faith given you; "which is the mother of us all" when faith follows, and love of God and Christ and neighbour goes before. For if one be in this company he has fulfilled the command of righteousness, for he who has love is far from all sin.

Greek:
Ταῦτα, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐμαυτῷ ἐπιτρέψας γράφω ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ἀλλ' ἐπεὶ ὑμεῖς προεπεκαλέσασθέ με. Oὔτε γὰρ ἐγὼ οὔτε ἄλλος ὅμοιος ἐμοὶ δύναται κατακολουθῆσαι τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου, ὃς γενόμενος ἐν ὑμῖν κατὰ πρόσωπον τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων ἐδίδαξεν ἀκριβῶς καὶ βεβαίως τὸν περὶ ἀληθείας λόγον, ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολάς, εἰς ἃς ἐὰν ἐγκύπτητε, δυνηθήσεσθε οἰκοδομεῖσθαι εἰς τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑμῖν πίστιν. ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν, ἐπακολουθούσης τῆς ἐλπίδος, προαγούσης τῆς ἀγάπης τῆς εἰς θεὸν καὶ Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὸν πλησίον. ἐὰν γάρ τις τούτων ἐντὸς ᾖ, πεπλήρωκεν ἐντολὴν δικαιοσύνης· ὁ γὰρ ἔχων ἀγάπην μακράν ἐστιν πάσης ἁμαρτίας.

Notice that he not only praises the wisdom of Paul, but he affirms that Paul's letter to the Philippians is "the means of building up in" the faith that Paul had delivered to them by preaching to them.

The following selections are taken from Ignatius letters. These letters are thought to be authentic, and quite early, but their existence in long and short forms suggests significant tampering. The date of the tampering is not very clear. So, I would not suggest that we should assume that these letters can be definitively dated to the first two centuries, but many folks certainly would date them that early. In general, the short recension is what we would expect to be more likely the authentic original where the long and short differ.

Ignatius to Philadelphians (Long recension only), Chapter IV (ANF 1):

Fathers, "bring up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; "31 and teach them the holy Scriptures, and also trades, that they may not indulge in idleness. Now [the Scripture] says, "A righteous father educates [his children] well; his heart shall rejoice in a wise son."

The interesting thing about the preceding quotation is that Ignatius expects parents to be teaching their children the Scriptures. That may not say much directly to the topic of perspicuity, but it does suggest that the Scriptures are something that a child is capable of understanding - and that parents are competent to teach their children from the Scriptures.

Ignatius to Philadelphians, Chapter VIII (ANF 1):

(short) And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified.

(long) I therefore exhort you that ye do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. For I have heard some saying, If I do not find the Gospel in the archives, I will not believe it. To such persons I say that my archives are Jesus Christ, to disobey whom is manifest destruction. My authentic archives are His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which bears on these things, by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified. He who disbelieves the Gospel disbelieves everything along with it. For the archives ought not to be preferred to the Spirit. "It is hard to kick against the pricks;" it is hard to disbelieve Christ; it is hard to reject the preaching of the apostles.

The main point to observe here is that Ignatius seems to be addressing folks who are challenging the Gospel on the basis that it is not fully supported by the Old Testament Scriptures. Ignatius doesn't correct this essentially sola Scriptura view, but instead insists on the equal authority of the New Testament. I realize, of course, that Ignatius' words above can be explained differently. I'm simply showing that they can be reasonably understood within the milieu of other early writings and, of course, the Scriptures themselves.

Ignatius to Magnesians (long only) Chapter IX (Roberts translation):

If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me;" and again, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am;" how shall we be able to live without Him? The prophets were His servants, and foresaw Him by the Spirit, and waited for Him as their Teacher, and expected Him as their Lord and Saviour, saying, "He will come and save us."

Again, this testimony only touches quite obliquely on the issue of the perspicuity of Scripture. I really only have included it for the sake of completeness. It does show that Ignatius (or the author of this long version, if not Ignatius himself) viewed Christianity as an extension of the same book-taught religion as existed before the Incarnation. This then has implications for perspicuity, for the Old Testament Scriptures were less clear than the New, and yet people who were conversant with the Old Testament Scriptures expected Christ's coming with hope.

Tatian (c. 160) Chapter 29 - Account Of Tatian’s Conversion:

Wherefore, having seen these things, and moreover also having been admitted to the mysteries, and having everywhere examined the religious rites performed by the effeminate and the pathic, and having found among the Romans their Latiarian Jupiter delighting in human gore and the blood of slaughtered men, and Artemis not far from the great city sanctioning acts of the same kind, and one demon here and another there instigating to the perpetration of evil, — retiring by myself, I sought how I might be able to discover the truth. And, while I was giving my most earnest attention to the matter, I happened to meet with certain barbaric writings, too old to be compared with the opinions of the Greeks, and too divine to be compared with their errors; and I was led to put faith in these [i.e. the Scriptures] by the unpretending cast of the language, the inartificial character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed of future events, the excellent quality of the precepts, and the declaration of the government of the universe as centered in one Being. And, my soul being taught of God, I discern that the former class of writings lead to condemnation, but that these put an end to the slavery that is in the world, and rescue us from a multiplicity of rulers and ten thousand tyrants, while they give us, not indeed what we had not before received, but what we had received but were prevented by error from retaining.

Greek:
Ταῦτʼ οὖν ἰδών, ἔτι δὲ καὶ μυστηρίων μεταλαβὼν καὶ τὰς παρὰ πᾶσι θρησκείας δοκιμάσας διὰ θηλυδριῶν καὶ ἀνδρογύνων συνισταμένας, εὑρὼν δὲ παρὰ μὲν Ῥωμαίοις τὸν κατʼ αὐτοὺς Λατιάριον Δία λύθροις ἀνθρώπων καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνδροκτασιῶν αἵμασι τερπόμενον, Ἄρτεμιν δὲ οὐ μακρὰν τῆς Μεγάλης πόλεως τῶν αὐτῶν πράξεων ἐπανῃρημένην τὸ εἶδος ἄλλον τε ἀλλαχῆ δαίμονα κακοπραγίας ἐπαναστάσεις πραγματευόμενον, κατʼ ἐμαυτὸν γενόμενος ἐζήτουν ὅτῳ τρόπῳ τἀληθὲς ἐξευρεῖν δύνωμαι. περινοοῦντι δέ μοι τὰ σπουδαῖα συνέβη γραφαῖς τισιν ἐντυχεῖν βαρβαρικαῖς, πρεσβυτέραις μὲν ὡς πρὸς τὰ Ἑλλήνων δόγματα, θειοτέραις δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων πλάνην· Καί μοι πεισθῆναι ταύταις συνέβη διά τε τῶν λέξεων τὸ ἄτυφον καὶ τῶν εἰπόντων τὸ ἀνεπιτήδευτον καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ποιήσεως τὸ εὐκατάληπτον καὶ τῶν μελλόντων τὸ προγνωστικὸν καὶ τῶν παραγγελμάτων τὸ ἐξαίσιον καὶ τῶν ὅλων τὸ μοναρχικόν. θεοδιδάκτου δέ μου γενομένης τῆς ψυχῆς συνῆκα ὅτι τὰ μὲν καταδίκης ἔχει τρόπον, τὰ δὲ ὅτι λύει τὴν ἐν κόσμῳ δουλείαν καὶ ἀρχόντων μὲν πολλῶν καὶ μυρίων ἡμᾶς ἀποσπᾷ τυράννων, δίδωσι δὲ ἡμῖν οὐχ ὅπερ μὴ ἐλάβομεν, ἀλλʼ ὅπερ λαβόντες ὑπὸ τῆς πλάνης ἔχειν ἐκωλύθημεν.

Oratio Adversus Graecos, Caput 29, PG 6:865, 868; translation in ANF: Vol. II, Tatian’s Address to the Greeks, Chapter 29.

Notice that Tatian attributes clarity to Scripture but simultaneously attributes his conversion to the direct work of the Holy Spirit in his heart, teaching him.

This look at the earliest period shows us some of the views of some of the earliest Christian writers, but in the coming segment or segments, we will look at some of the next generation of Christian writers, as we enter the 3rd century and beyond.

Pastor King Responds to Taylor Marshall Again

Pastor David King had previously posted a response to Taylor Marshall (link to response). The response covered a variety of issues, including centrally the papacy. Taylor Marshall has set forth his counter-arguments here (link to Taylor Marshall's response).

The following is Pastor David King's reply.

---

There is further proof that militates against the claims of Taylor Marshall regarding the clergy of the Roman church, of which Clement was a member. Here is the evidence of: (1) the work of Peter Lampe and (2) the witness of a member of the Roman church around the mid-second century, whom the early church document designates as Hermas.

Peter Lampe:

It was useful to assign to someone in Rome the work connected with eternal communication. Hermas knows such a person by the name of Clement. In The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.4.3, Hermas prepares two copies of his small book and sends (πέμπω, within the city) one of them to Clement, who forwards it “to the cities outside, for he is entrusted with that task” (πέμψει Κλήμης εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις, ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται).

It is important to note that Hermas’s “minister of external affairs” is not a monarchical bishop. In the second next sentence, Hermas describes how he circulates his little book within the city. He makes it known “to this city together with the presbyters who preside over the church” (εἰς ταύτην τὴν πόλιν μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προϊσταμένων τῆς ἐκκλησίας). A plurality of presbyters leads Roman Christianity. This Christianity, conscious of spiritual fellowship with the city, is summed up under the concept “ecclesia,” but that changes nothing in regard to the plurality of those presiding over it. In Vis. 3.9.7, Hermas also calls them προηγούμενοι or πρωτοκαθεδρίται.

See Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) p. 398.

In their introduction, the editor (or editors) of The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, state with respect to The Shepherd of Hermas that

when read on its own terms, it stands as an important witness to the state of Christianity in Rome in the mid-second century. Expressing a Jewish-Christian theological perspective by means of imagery, analogies, and parallels drawn from Roman society and culture, the Shepherd reflects the efforts of its author(s) to deal with questions and issues—for example, postbaptismal sin and repentance, and the behavior of the rich and their relationship to the poor within the church—of great significance and concern to him and that part of the Christian community in Rome to which he belonged.

See J. B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, eds. And trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, 2nd Edition, The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.4.3 (Grand Rapids: Babke Book House, 1992), p. 329.

Hermas:

Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city, along with the elders (i.e., presbyters, πρεσβυτέρων) who preside over the church.

See J. B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, eds. And trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, 2nd Edition, The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.4.3 (Grand Rapids: Babke Book House, 1992), pp. 345-347.

Greek text:

Γράψεις οὖν δύο βιβλαρίδια καὶ πέμψεις ἓν Κλήμεντι καὶ ἓν Γραπτῇ. πέμψει οὖν Κλήμης εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις, ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται. Γραπτὴ δὲ νουθετήσει τὰς χήρας καὶ τοὺς ὀρφανούς. σὺ δὲ ἀναγνώσῃ εἰς ταύτην τὴν πόλιν μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προϊσταμένων τῆς ἐκκλησίας.

Sancti Hermae Pastor, Liber I, Visio II, Caput IV, §3, PG 2:900.

Mr. Marshall’s contention for the term “high priest” being a synonymous designation for a monarchical bishop over the Roman Church in the time of Clement is asserted over and against the repeated reference, throughout this epistle, to the plurality of presbyters/bishops who together ruled over this congregation. And if the later witness of Hermas (in the mid-second century) tells us anything, it tells us in explicit terms that the Roman church was governed by the elders/presbyters (πρεσβυτέρων) whom he said “preside over the church.” Given his assertion that “Presbyterian polity is unbiblical,” he would have to confess that the Roman church, as Hermas described it, was “unbiblical.”

Some Early Christian Writings on Justification

Clement of Rome on Justification:

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever.

- Clement of Rome, (his, not Paul's) 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 32

Ignatius on Justification:

But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified.

- Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians, Chapter VIII (Short Version)

To such persons I say that my archives are Jesus Christ, to disobey whom is manifest destruction. My authentic archives are His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which bears on these things, by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified.

- Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians, Chapter VIII (Long Version)

Mathetes on Justification:

But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!

- Mathetes, Letter to Diognetus, Chapter 9

Justin Martyr on Justification:

For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham. For when Abraham himself was in uncircumcision, he was justified and blessed by reason of the faith which he reposed in God, as the Scripture tells. Moreover, the Scriptures and the facts themselves compel us to admit that He received circumcision for a sign, and not for righteousness.

- Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 23

Irenaeus on Justification:

And again, confirming his former words, he says, “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham.”47304730 Gal. iii. 6, etc. Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any 562 inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 32, Section 2

For the Lord is the good man of the house, who rules the entire house of His Father; and who delivers a law suited both for slaves and those who are as yet undisciplined; and gives fitting precepts to those that are free, and have been justified by faith, as well as throws His own inheritance open to those that are sons.

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 9, Section 1

And that man was not justified by these things, but that they were given as a sign to the people, this fact shows,— that Abraham himself, without circumcision and without observance of Sabbaths, “believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.” Then, again, Lot, without circumcision, was brought out from Sodom, receiving salvation from God. So also did Noah, pleasing God, although he was uncircumcised, receive the dimensions [of the ark], of the world of the second race [of men]. Enoch, too, pleasing God, without circumcision, discharged the office of God’s legate to the angels although he was a man, and was translated, and is preserved until now as a witness of the just judgment of God, because the angels when they had transgressed fell to the earth for judgment, but the man who pleased [God] was translated for salvation. Moreover, all the rest of the multitude of those righteous men who lived before Abraham, and of those patriarchs who preceded Moses, were justified independently of the things above mentioned, and without the law of Moses. As also Moses himself says to the people in Deuteronomy: “The Lord thy God formed a covenant in Horeb. The Lord formed not this covenant with your fathers, but for you.”

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 16, Section 2

The Lord, therefore, was not unknown to Abraham, whose day he desired to see; nor, again, was the Lord’s Father, for he had learned from the Word of the Lord, and believed Him; wherefore it was accounted to him by the Lord for righteousness. For faith towards God justifies a man; and therefore he said, “I will stretch forth my hand to the most high God, who made the heaven and the earth.”

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 5, Section 5

For “all men come short of the glory of God,”41834183 Rom. iii. 23. [Another testimony to the mercy of God in the judgment of the unevangelized. There must have been some reason for the secrecy with which “that presbyter’s” name is guarded. Irenæus may have scrupled to draw the wrath of the Gnostics upon any name but his own.] and are not justified of themselves, but by the advent of the Lord,—they who earnestly direct their eyes towards His light.

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 27, Section 2

And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man [Editor's footnote: That is, as Harvey observes, the natural man, as described in Rom. ii. 27.] is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them, is shown from His words. “For,” He remarks, “it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 13, Section 1

-TurretinFan