First Part of BDiv....Continued Next Section....

On Clement of Rome’s First Epistle, A Correction

By M.A. Petillo, BDiv

On the accusation of pantheism he is guiltless but the question is what did Clement of Rome think in light of his language of “apart of Him?”

1. Clement meant the process of holiness in progressive sanctification.

2. Clement referred to being apart of Him as a way to describe holiness.

3. The way to tell is that he ends the sentence in the term “holiness.”

4. The only way to support pantheism from Clement’s writings is to have some kind of preconceived notion. 

5. I think I came to the text of Clement with Rome’s preconceived ill-teaching among their theologians of pantheism (without holding to it myself).

6. I attributed it to Clement because they had emphasis upon my mind of deriving pantheism from ancient sources when I have a fresh look at it; it seems to be clear that Clement did not teach pantheism. 

7. Rather he taught the holiness of God and even perhaps and incarnation of holiness to establish his language “apart of Him.”

On the accusation of a denial of the impeccability of God the question could be asked did Clement teach that a holy God could lie?

1. The language seems hard to understand but it simply means it is impossible for God to lie.

2. Clement speaks about divine truth as the crux of his epistles but I do not believe he means a holy God is a lair.

3. He never gets the gospel wrong like Rome but now perhaps with Clement we can say “away with the Romanists!”

4. The conclusion is that though it seems like the language is sloppy he directly and immediately means the Holy Triune God cannot lie and that it is impossible.

Intensive Educational Requirements Satisfied in the

Following Unknown Undergraduate Degree Program For

An Overall Gospel, Pastoral/Elder/Bishop Ministry

(Awaiting Formal Ordination) In The

Bachelors of Divinity (BDiv.) in

Reformed Baptist Theology

An Official Informal Degree That Is Risen From the Dead

Without Unprivatized Family/Seminary/Research Diploma

In Defiance of Monstrosities of Elite Educators

An Alternative Rigorous Education (A Resurrected Dead

Informal Degree) in a Non-Diploma Mill Status,

Non-Association and Non-Tuition in Goodwill under His Majesty

An Informal Diploma/Degree in Excellent Labor Through

The European Method of Research With Emphasis

 Of Accelerated Education In Accommodations That Rise Above the Standards

With the emphasis in minor of

A Presuppositional & Etymological Approach to Church History,

Biblical Studies and Reformed Orthodoxy

BY THE OUTSTANDING AUTHOR

MICHAEL ANDREW PETILLO,

AA, BS, BA, MA, MA, DTH, DMIN, CERT. APOL

AT THIS TIME 153 BLOG WEB SITES

ADJUNCT PROFESSOR AT PILLAR COLLEGE,

“A BIBLICAL APPROACH TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION”

Dedicated to Mentor/Pastor/Theologian at Large/Elect Angel Affairs

DR. ROBERT CHARLES SPROUL,

LIGONIER MINISTRIES & PASTOR OF ST. ANDREW’S

“THE ONLY MOTIVE IS TO HONOR JESUS

& EXCEL IN THE LOVE OF HIM BY INCREASED LEARNING”

THROUGH THE PAIN-TAKING BOOKS OF 1 TO 10

BOOK: 1 – A Study of Clement of Rome’s First Epistle

BOOK: 2 – A Study of Clement of Rome’s Second Epistle

BOOK: 3 -- 95-Disputations on Psalm Chapter 1 Verse-By-Verse

BOOK: 4 – 95-Dsiputations on Ezekiel Chapter 1 Verse-By-Verse

BOOK: 5 – The Jesus Passion Project & Report, Sections A out of E

BOOK: 6 – 95-Disputations on Each Particular of Ten Commandments

BOOK: 7 – A Study on the Jesus Presence of the Eucharist

BOOK: 8 – A Little Children’s Story on the Little Lion and Lamb

BOOK: 9 – Apologetics on Predestinarian Freedom

BOOK: 10 – 95-Disputations on Civil Goodness and Imputed Righteousness

That is enrolled in the exhaustive learning of

BISHOP AND MARTYR,

ST. JAMES, BROTHER OF JESUS,

 SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

Under the educational scholarship of

St. Peter’s Reformed Baptist Seminary

In Ocean Township, NJ, USA

WITH PAR EXCELLENCE HONORS

BY INTENSIVE STUDIES IN WELL-LEARNED AFFAIRS

(Wed., MARCH 05, 2014 TO Mon., MARCH 17, 2014).

BOOK 1–

A Study of Clement of Rome’s First Epistle

Clement of Rome:  Ecclesiastical Intelligence Gathering on the Plurality of Many Elders:  According to the Canonical Book of Romans in Written Scripture:  A Church Elder Among Many Elders in Preaching Repentance Unto Obedience

A Bible-Centered Objectivism of Sound Presuppositional & Biblical Rationalism in light of the Line-by-Line Historical Study of the Epistles of Clement of Rome to Rightly Overthrow Papal Supremacy Without Illegitimate Prejudice & a Sound Exegetical Recognition of the Ancient Practice of the Biblical, Historical and Ecclesiastical Plurality of Bishops in the Central, Isolated and the Diverse Geological Local Church Under the Supreme Head Jesus Christ in Everyway

The thesis statement for this research project is proposed in this question:  “…Do the Epistles of Clement of Rome in his First & Second Letter support the historical grounds for papal primacy and supremacy that is currently supported by Pope Francis I, the Vatican and the Church of Rome in current days of Western Civilization in Roman publications?  Is it Scriptural orthodoxy in large measure or a lesser degree of heresy in light of our standpoint of the perpetuity of the divine Scriptures?”

By M.A. Petillo,

M.A. His., & D.Min. Pastoral Apol.

Reformed Baptist Historian

Part 1:  Introduction:  What is the ancient usage (i.e., how did the early fathers view it in light of the 66 Books of the completed canon of Scripture) concerning the ecclesiastical scope of the Epistles of Clement of Rome by the Early Church?

In large measure The Epistles of Clement of Rome are not included in the any canon that formally exists among different religions that claim the name of Jesus Christ.  It seems undisputable that Clement as an aged man is mentioned by recognition of Origen in the superintended writings of the Apostle Paul by the Spirit of God (Philippians 4:3; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).  St. Paul knew of Clement in the discipleship of him by the Apostle Peter.  There is one person who claims he was an apostle (Clemens Alexandrinus) but another says he is in apostolic ministry (Jerome).  Clement was alleged to be almost or like an apostle (Rufinus).  It was read by the ancient church (Eusebius) but it is included in the Alexandrine Manuscript by Cyril that was patriarch of Alexandria. 

What shall we say to these things in light of our contention of a completed canon of 66 books?  Should The Epistles of Clement of Rome be recognized in the canon of the divine Word?  We should not include Clement in the canon.  It is because the unanimous, universal and diverse collection of the ancient church.  The collection of the canon save one manuscript collection is good evidence of the superintendence of the reception of the people of God about the precise books of the Christian Scriptures.  The essence of the canon among those of the primitive or ancient church is receiving from a holy God the chosen books for justification by Christ alone and holy living before a holy God. The crux of Clement is reduced to a sound epistle of orthodox theology but to the one it is reduced to some misunderstanding of theology but to the other the illegitimate precedence of Roman popery. 

It is certain that he was not among the twelve in the public ministry of Jesus Christ.  It also appears apparent that he was not among the seventy that were sent with am apostolic ministry of the gospel.  If we harmonize the ancient fathers about him, we may come to the historical conclusion that he was commissioned by the authority of God under the written Word by recognized leaders under a sense of a plurality of elders under the Spirit.  This happens when a chosen Christian male is recognized to pastor.  To sum it up in the final analysis he was a man trained by the best of the best who preached the apostolic gospel.  By no means was he an apostle like St. Peter and St. Paul!  There is no Scriptural evidence that says Clement was ordained as an apostle.  The completion of the New Testament already fixed in the mind of God contains all we need for justification by faith alone and godly Christian living.  It does not mean we cannot learn valuable things in church history. 

Are there doctrines by Clement of Rome that deny Roman teachings?  If there are doctrines that deny Roman teachings, does that not presuppose an alien theology in comparison to Roman theology?  If he presents a theology that is foreign from Romanism in light of tota Scriptura (all of Scripture), should we not come to a biblical-historical methodology that shows a contrary Scriptural rationalism to Romanism that should awaken us to the right prejudice of the written Word?  If there is a holy God, He is concerned with whatsoever is right.   If He is concerned with whatsoever is right, what else would be our methodology be but grounded upon sola Scriptura (Scripture alone)? 

Is there anything else in the world that is God-breathed?  How much more than should our investigation of gathering historical intelligence in ancient history be founded upon the Word of righteousness!  If there is no precedence for a word of righteousness, what is left but wrongdoing, error and dishonor to the name’s sake of Jesus Christ?  If it is alleged that it is a wrong prejudice, what of the clear perpetuity of the all-exclusiveness of the sole supremacy of the divine Scriptures that a little child can apprehend concerning how someone is right with a holy God and a non-meritorious Christian living in His foredetermined gift of His handiwork of the godly honor of Jesus in gospel-thoughts, gospel-words and gospel-deeds?

Part 2:  Section A:  The First Epistle of Clement of Rome in Chapter 1:  Does Clement’s First Epistle in Chapter 1 demonstrate a compatibility with Roman Theology?  Or, does Clement’s First Epistle in Chapter 1 demonstrate an incompatibility with Roman Theology?  In what light are these questions asked?  Are they not asked because of the Church of Rome’s alleged support of papal primacy and supremacy under the Pope(s) of Rome by the alleged historical position of Clement of Rome as an authentic Pope of Rome?  Is there an alleged chance that Clement’s First Epistle in Chapter 1 demonstrates a compatibility with Full Augustinianism & Full Calvinism devoid of Papal power in Clement’s theology that emerged centuries prior to these theological nicknames in Clement’s letter because of the sole precedence of the all-exclusive supremacy of the canonical Scriptures that contains the apostolic gospel of the eternal only-begotten God-man?

The Church of Rome contained the true, divine and apostolic gospel.  This was when the Apostle Paul wrote to the Church of Rome.  The Book of Romans is the God-breathed, written Word.  It was a local church that proclaimed the power of God unto salvation by the very gospel of Incarnate Deity.   He never addresses it to a pope but the people of God.  It speaks of the order of salvation and perfect peace through Jesus Christ.

Clement of Rome was aware of Paul’s writings.  Sometimes churches go astray because they become discontent with God-breathed Scripture.  The heresy is that there must be something else beside the written Word.  A fallen mind becomes discontent with the written Word. 

It is already apparent by Paul’s writing that the Roman culture was of the illegitimate precedence of the degrading passion of homosexual license.  This was not only apparent in Roman society but also among the people of God.  Clement speaks of repentance by the Holy Spirit.  This is consistent with Augustinian monergism.  It refers to faithful repentance by the Holy Ghost and the Word.  What is repentance by the Spirit except understood by the Word?  What is repentance by the Word except an awakening by the Spirit?  Is it not so that God’s Spirit accompanies His Word and God’s Word accompanies His Spirit?  Does Roman alone have the special right of salvation through the priesthood? 

Why does Clement capitalize “…to the Church of God which is at Corinth…?”   Clement no where recognizes himself as infallible.  If the Church of God in Corinth is really a local church, it holds the power of the keys of the gospel to proclaim so sinners are loosed from bondage by the Spirit’s work of accepting and believing the gospel or God hiding the gospel so sinners are bound in bondage?  The apostle Paul left the Church of Rome and the Church of Corinth in the affairs of the gospel but it seems sedition and schism was lurking in the shadows of darkness that was like Egypt where people perished devoid of the Lamb’s blood in the Church of Corinth.

He also does not use chameleon-like language to bend the written Word to fit the idolatry of leadership with the precedence of white robed piles of manure.  Is there a basis for alleging that Roman popery existed at this time of Clement because of the mere precedence of his letter?  If such a case is to be alleged, why does Clement defer to a plurality of bishops in his own preaching ministry by “…being subject to those who had the rule over you?”  Is the plural language of Clement a disregard because of grounds of popery irrespective of the historical grounds that constitute Roman’s establishment of the denial? 

 

These days the Church of Rome does not publicly agree with a marriage license of homosexual marriage.   Yet America the new “Sodom and Gomorrah” of ancient times of our current days has licensed the redefinition of marriage in public.  I call this great nation under my constitutional right to repentance unto obedience in honor of His Majesty, King Jesus.  The hidden practice of the Romanists in homosexual abandonment to sexual immorality has existed for centuries. 

It was and is a hidden lifestyle that reeks of the profound foulness of the spirit of age with the monstrosities that defies mountains of sin and the expanse of space.  If Rome’s hidden practice is consistent with Clement’s godly aged living, where can this be demonstrated?  Doesn’t Clement speak of an infiltration of ungodly people where he specifically teaches a morality of a pure conscience in Chapter 1 verse 7 in his First Epistle? 

If the gospel needs development, where is this found in Clement’s writings in Chapter 1 verse 4 in his First Epistle?  Clement refers to the “…perfect and certain knowledge of the Gospel” by the spiritual quickening of “…the number of the elect might be saved” (Ch. 1 v. 12) in God’s work by His Spirit to write it “…upon the tables of your heart” (Ch. 1 v. 15).  How is this consistent with Rome’s view of theology where she advocates a development of the gospel? 

If there is no development of the gospel but a certain and complete language of the glad tidings of Jesus Christ, how much more the clear intention of the Spirit of God in His written Word that is abandoned because of idolatrous spite!  What else is there in the perpetuity of his First Epistle than an understanding of the intent of Christ in saving the many of all the pre-converted elect by the unity, truth and peace of the gospel (Ch. 1 v. 18) by spiritual rebirth that produces a behavior devoid of the fall to rebellion (Ch. 1 v. 2)?

As a theologian, I believe this sin can be forgiven by the Cross of Jesus Christ: namely, the divine Son of Man propitiates the Father’s wrath and expiates our sin as far as the east is from the west through the Lamb slain.  Yet today’s Romanism is satisfied with life to the hidden degradation of Christian morality that defies the numerous stars and the plethora of the sand of the sea!  It is not satisfied with the all-exclusiveness of the Cross of Jesus Christ. 

What of Clement on the Cross?  He speaks of the shed blood of Jesus with the gift of repentance in Chapter 4 verse 5 of his First Epistle.  Does he add Roman oil in waters of baptismal regeneration?  By no means!   Does he add works of satisfaction to the Cross won by the Virgin Mary and the saints?  If it is alleged, where is it found in his gospel writings in his First Epistle?  Does he add the sacerdotalism of Rome to the Cross (salvation through the Roman priesthood)?  Where is it anywhere in his post-New Testament writings?  I suggest to you that Clement of Rome never endorsed Roman teachings that exist today. 

Roman will acknowledge the so-called centrality of the Cross.   Yet in a disunity of inconsistency, it will take away from it by denouncing double imputation of the divine Lamb (sin imputed to Jesus at His Cross and His unified righteousness imputed to the regenerate sinner) where He sang the Psalm (not merely reciting poetry nor engaging in division between the Father and the Son)! 

Rather Jesus was pinned by divine love through the nails at the Cross of the Redeemer.  He endured the Cross where good old Job spoke of His living Redeemer who turns death backwards by death, appeasement by His shed blood and removing sin as from as the north from the south but Clement knew well that His resurrection unto everlasting life rose up out of death (because it could not hold Him) in His victorious triumphant and bodily resurrection of King Incarnate!

Again, if it is going to be alleged that Clement’s historically supported Roman theology as a pope, where is the substantiation to this claim except a tyrannical popery that speaks in line with a blast of wind in that it maintains the absence of papal supremacy concerning ecclesiology rather than the Scriptural backing of godly elders that proclaimed the apostolic gospel devoid of papal indulgences in Chapter 1 verse 8 in his First Epistle?    

It is doubted by a father that Clement esteems the deity of Jesus Christ.  He certainly mentions the Holy Ghost, but where does the Apostle Paul mention Clement but in Philippians Chapter 4?  Does not St. Paul mention the deity of Jesus Christ in Philippians Chapter 2?  If we assert that Clement of Rome studied under St. Peter and St. Paul we must conclude that his training involved the apostolic teaching of the aseity of Jesus Christ but lacks St. Paul apostolic wisdom because he clearly says in his First Epistle that God can lie but in Titus Chapter 1 Verse 2 the Apostle Paul speaks of refuting those who contradict (Clement teaches God is not infallible and yet Rome has the audacity to claim papal infallibility for all her alleged popes).  The meaning is she would rather have a rebel for a god than the God Who is God for a God: namely, the holy God of the infallible Scriptures.  This is a biblical proof or evidence that is not a blind presumption or to build strife among those who deny the eternal God-man.  Rather it is meant to demonstrate that if there is a Third Person of the Trinity, there must be a Second Person of the Trinity.  Clement does not reduce the Spirit of God in impersonal terms.  Rather he seems to advocate the divine personality of the Holy Ghost.  How can an impersonal force grant the gift of repentance (Ch. 4 v. 9)? 

Part 3:  Section B:  The First Epistle of Clement of Rome in Chapter 2:  Does Clement of Rome’s letter begin to demonstrate the corruptions in the Church of Rome?  What corruptions still remain to this day in the Church of Rome?  Does Clement’s epistle support popery or does it support a lawless church that seems to have an immediate problem with the sole supremacy of the divine Scriptures by the plurality of the governing church authorities?  Is popery an honor or is it the basis and cause of idolatry concerning the building blocks of the sinfulness of sin?  What other right, just, honorable, and true “prejudice” (standpoint of methodology) would organize an investigation than the sole supreme perpetuity of the divine dignity, supernatural integrity, respectable honor and unapproachable character of the divine Scriptures?  

Clement refers to “all honor and enlargement…” but he does not directly refer to the church authorities because he does not refer to a sole supreme pontiff.  Rather Clement’s remarks of edification refer to the Church of Rome’s excellence of the honor of Jesus Christ.  If there is such a thing as honor, what else would it be other than the gospel-honor of Incarnate Gospel? 

Clement refers to his undertaking of the problems of the Church of Corinth with the caring heart of a pastor.  The church people were given the supplies to be under the aid of Clement and the elders at the Church at Corinth.  Does he not refer to the church government that is in the plural but not in the sole supremacy of popery (Ch. 1v. 5)?  The church goers at Rome were people of edification unto practical deeds of civil goodness. 

The people of the Church of Corinth became proud.  The end result was divisions, disunity and disorder.  Clement refers to division at the Church of Corinth.  Do we not see in today’s Romanism that Pope Francis I; certainly tolerates atheism instead of using the Scriptural rationalism to respond with biblical precedence?  Do we not see the Vatican correct Pope Francis I on matters of de facto dogma?  Please tell us, does the Vatican control the Pope or the Pope control the Vatican?  Whom are we to believe?  Are we to believe the compromise of Christian morality with homosexuals?  Is not the compromise like Clement’s rebuke of the Church of Corinth that echoes in our minds “…But every one follows his own wicked lusts: having taken up an unjust and wicked envy, by which death first entered into the world…” (Ch. 2 v. 5)?  Do we not also read initially that today’s Rome has “…forsaken the fear of God; nor walketh by the rule of God’s commandments nor liveth as is fitting in Christ…” (Ch. 1 v. 4)?

Clement refers to envy at the Church of Corinth (Ch. 1 v. 2).  Do we not see this in Romanism these very days when the envy of money has captivated their souls of an outward appearance of loving thy neighbor without regard for the practice of restitution in a plague of people like the scattered stars in the heavens? 

Clement refers to strife at Church of Corinth (Ch. 1 v. 2).  If the papal arguments are right in an ultimate sense and ultimately binding on the conscience due to popery, why are the people of Romanism disregarding their teachings in a great emphasis?  If there was obedience to a tyrant, does that mean the obedience is right?  Obedience to a spiritual tyrant is like those captive to Satan. 

If sedition is treason to Jesus Christ as the sole Head of the Church in everyway, what has changed in Romanism these very days that denies the uniqueness of Christ by a concept foreign to Clement regarding a “priest” as an altra Christus (another Christ)?  Clement does not write as a pope or a Roman priest but as an pastor unto theological, biblical and edificational living.  If persecution against is rare in our time, why does Clement mention it here as “persecution” (Ch. 2 v. 2)?  Surely those of strife will cause the disunity of persecution. 

If disorder was at the Church of Corinth in Clement’s discovery with a pastor’s heart, why are there orders to this day that contradict each other in Romanism these very days?  If war is commonplace to Corinth, is it any different in the concept of the Roman priests unlawfully and without cause raping children with hands that turn beard into Jesus Christ (Ch 2 v. 2)?  If captivity is so far from Rome during these dark days, why is everyone who is bound to Rome in adhering to Roman dogma about the truth of the gospel bound in their sins under Satan’s captivity with no regard to the truth of imputation? 

Clement refers to a take over in the Church of Corinth by those of no renown, no reputation, no wisdom, and the young against the aged.  Do we not see ordinary men take the place of God in popery where Joseph of the Old Testament contradicts that someone can be in the place of God?  What gives the popes the right to establish dogma outside of the perpetuity of the written Scriptures?  Are we to suppose the foolish determine the core dogmas of Christianity? 

Is it not like the king of the Old Testament who disregarded the wisdom of the aged but recognized the foolishness of youth?  There is a sense where the aged should carry wisdom, but we are also called to not despise the youth as an example (1 Tim. 4:12). 

Do we not see in Rome on this very day that she holds precious dogmas of no reputation touching church history and biblical precedence with no regard for the apostolic Scriptures in the handed-down gospel according the “happy [and] perfect and certain knowledge of the Gospel…” and the “…righteousness and peace” of Jesus Christ (Ch. 1 v. 4) but in a “…forsaken fear of God” (Ch. 2. v. 4)?

Do we not see what Clement says these very days about the 21^st century Church of Rome though applied to Corinth but relevant to the current Rome that she follows her “…own wicked lusts” (Ch. 2 v. 5) by individual priests who are not isolated cases but a large spectrum of evil molesters that come in the shadows of hidden places that has “…taken up an unjust and wicked envy, by which death first entered into the world” (Ch. 2 v. 5)?

Part 3:  Section C:  The First Epistle of Clement of Rome in Chapter 3:  Does Clement of Rome teach a single popery in regard to himself?  Or, does Clement of Rome bring central emphasis to Rome’s dogmatic teaching of popery in anyway?  Does he support the plurality of elders, pastors and bishops (interchangeable terms) in the local church?  Does he say that the death of the holy Apostles is redemptive in equalness to Jesus Christ in some sense where the Virgin Mary and the saints win satisfaction for justification?

Clement of Rome mentions the historical figures of Cain and Adel.  This was close to 4000 BC but subsequently after the historical fall of Adam.  He uses the ancient account of the Book of Genesis.  He does not regard them as myth, but lessons of true sacred history.  He is faithful to the Book of Genesis Chapter 4 and the Book of Hebrews Chapter 11.  Many biblical historians will be atheists or agnostics to the biblical record because of the prejudice of the idolatry of unbelief.  Faith is not grounded in truthlessness but it is the very essence of truth.  If there is no such thing as truth, there is no meaningfulness to a sacred history.  What if the investigation of the historical encounter demonstrates genuine history with a whatsoever is right standpoint? 

Clement rebukes the people of God at Corinth for the strife of envy but also the disorder of the people of God.  I do not suppose that Clement refers to Moses and David as a type of a pope but he was more of a type of Jesus.  We are called to obey the PILLARS OF THE CHURCH.  Peter (martyred in Rome), James (martyred in Jerusalem) and John (persecuted unto exile but lived to a old age) held up the Scriptures but also knew on the biblical grounds to worship a true Triune God on the sole foundation, pillar and basis of kneeling on the written Word to lift up the Master, Majesty and Mighty God (Jesus Christ) because they “…taught the whole world righteousness…” (Ch 3 v. 14).  Does Clement say the single pillar of the church?  If there is a single pillar that represents himself, where is this documented or demonstrated? 

Should we suppose it is represented in Clement’s epistle standing by itself without regard for substantiation about historical precedence of the facts of sacred history?  To suppose this is a blind leap because history demands a meticulous gathering of facts to understand the past.  If we understand church history as if Clement understood himself to be a pope, why does he not emphasize the Apostle Peter as the first pope as alleged? 

Clement speaks of St. Peter and St. Paul that underwent great sufferings but entered glory.  He never says St. Peter is the pope like Rome says today.  Do I speak from an illigetmate historical position?  If this is alleged, I challenge Roman historians to demonstrate to the contrary.  If St. Peter was the leader above leaders, why is the Apostle Paul called “…a most eminent pattern of patience unto all ages” (Ch. 3 v. 15)?  If it was said of St. Peter, would there not be a fuse to argue the grounds of papal forgeries? 

How are we determining whatsoever is right but except we should turn and rest on the divine Scripture alone to determine our arts and science?  If this is an a recipe of anarchy, why would Clement mention the righteousness of the superintended words of the Spirit of God that teach us about the sound words of divine truth in any field to arrive at the genuine understanding of whatsoever is right?  Is theology simply what we make it to determine what we want in other fields?  By no means!  Rather theology is determined by God’s Spirit in His Word that determines our etymology (the study of knowing) in historical facts, gathering intelligence and interpreting history because who else knows perfectly?  What if we start with the theological subject that covers all due to a holy Triune God whose divine handiwork, supernatural architect and beauty of holiness in providing meaning to all things is in His foredetermined fingerprints in the display of historical documents that teach us about etymology?

Does Clement speak of St. Peter exclusively as the first pope?  Does he not recognize the “…Holy Apostles were joined a very great number of others, who having through envy undergone in like manner many pains and torments, have left a glorious example to us…” (Ch. 3 v. 16)?  In other words, why mention an equal legacy that underwent death by “a very great number of others” by “in like manner many pains and torments?”  Where is the redemptive ground anywhere in Clement’s epistle to substantiate or demonstrate Rome’s anachronistic (out of place) interpretation of satisfaction won by the Virgin Mary and the saints?  If Rome’s view today is so ancient, why is it absent on the very subject of Clement’s recognition of the martyrdom of the saints? 

Clement mentions both men and women who were persecuted that underwent great suffering (Ch. 3 vs. 17-18).  There is strife this very day regarding those who are discontent with biblical rationalism (Reformed Theology).  It is by the envy of the disorder of an illegitimate comfort.  It has nothing to do with the divine truth of God.  Rather its great emphasis is a disorderly comfort built on the strife of discontented divine truth that “overturned” (Ch. 3 v. 19) in defiance with the persecution of genuine godliness in the Incarnate Master and “rooted out great nations from off the earth” (Ch. 3 v. 19) in rebellion against His Majesty.   Historically, those of the true God have Jesus in their hearts.  If Jesus is enthroned in the heart that rolled away the stone of the solid rock of rebellion, why would anyone want to go back to a life of the strife of envy and a life of rebellion unto a war against a holy Triune God of superlative innocence?

Part 4:  Section D:  The First Epistle of Clement of Rome in Chapter 4:  Is there ecclesiastical establishment by Clement for a plurality of elders instead of Rome’s dogmatic decree of Roman popery?  What evidence is there for Roman supremacy of papal power by the meaning of the words of Clement?  Does this epistle of Clement provide biblical support for a plurality of elders such as Peter, James and John?  Or, does Clement’s epistle support a kind of perpetuity of Roman popery in the early days of the growth of the Christian church?  Should we abandon the historical meaning of words to embrace the Roman episcopate just because it is the Roman pontiff with no regard for the objective hermeneutic of Clement’s First Epistle concerning this subject of supreme authority, the solidarity of numerous elders and the Augustinian doctrine of Full Calvinism without subjective bias but with historical etymology in biblical precedence?

Is Clement writing as a supreme pope?  What does the writing in his epistle demonstrate before us?  Is there etymology (the matter of knowing) in the words of church history?  What is the basis to say there is no etymology in the letter of Clement about the integrity of the plurality of bishops in a local church?  Do we have reason to ask regarding Clement’s letter about the alleged doctrine of Roman popery as a reasonable historical question? 

It is sin to ask questions for controversy sake, but what if we ask it in the sense of a rational objectivism?  What else is a rational objectivism than that which is based on etymological certainty because it is no less based on the historical grounds of the internal evidence of Clement’s epistle through the external grounds of the Holy Scriptures that sets divine parameters on all matters of faith and Christian living that God requires us to know for the complete writings (where none can approach to add their writings due to the incomparable Word)?

Is it not seen that Clement uses the phrase “…we write unto you” (Ch. 4 v. 1)?  In what way does this Chapter begin?  In what subject does the plurality of the bishops of Rome write to the Church of Corinth?  The plurality of bishops wrote under Clement in the matter of “…not only for your instruction, but also for our own remembrance” (Ch. 4 v. 1)?  Why does he say “for our own remembrance?” 

It is much like the Apostle Peter’s example where they would keep in remembrance the sound words of God-breathed Scripture.  Should we revere the words of the Popes like Clement?  Let us run for our lives from the papal annunciations because it is without the exaltation of humility but the uplifting of the idolatry in rebellion against His Majesty, the King of kings, Jesus Christ.  Does Jesus hold the preeminence in Clement concerning all things? 

Yet how far is this from the Popes who disregard the preeminence of Jesus in all things.  Do you doubt this?  What of their positions, titles of deity and doctrine amiss from the infallible Word?  The mindless in pleasure of a blind comfort in a deceived comfort that is amiss in the opportunist pleasure of the supreme authority of darkness that only stands condemned in a blind excitement of a miserable hopelessness that is so deluded that it is only explained by a mind of eternal damnation covered with flames that immerse the spiritual blackness of Roman priests even by recognition of the garments of outward affair.

Do they write with a plurality of supreme popes as seen today?  By no means!  It’s almost a novel concept but there were various Popes at one time in history before, but I suppose it is true that every priest in a sense is his own pope nowadays in practice due to the implementation of the pleasure of idolatry!   Or, do they write with no exalted titles of deity (Holy Father) but in humble terms (Ch. 7 v. 1)?  It is worthy to have sound instruction before our remembrance. 

The divine Scripture are transformed by Clement to reflect the unaddable Scripture.  Clement regards himself, not above the people of God, but “…we are all in the same lists…” (Ch. 4 v. 2)?  In what sense is Clement writing this?  He writes not as Holy Father but as a fellow Christian.  He does not say like the Romanist priests that they are another Christ.  Does he say “I am Christ” like the priests who are seen as saints?  Rather he writes as a humble slave of Jesus Christ without taking upon himself deity.  Do you suppose that such a man as John Huss (the Bohemian Reformer) also wrote like Clement to convict a schismatic Roman church of the disunity, strife and falsehood of their rebellious “gospel?”  Does not Clement say “…and the same combat is prepared for us all” (Ch. 4 v. 2)?  Clement exhorts the people of God to “…lay aside all vain and empty cares” (Ch. 4. v. 3) but we see Rome advocating a papal gospel that is not the gospel of Scripture.  Rome is the essence of the vanity of atheistic religiosity, agnostic certainty and syncertistic foolishness that masquerades against a “glorious and venerable rule of our holy calling” (Ch. 4 v. 3).

Clement is concerned not with made man doctrine.  Rather he is concerned with whatsoever is right in sight of our Head, Jesus Christ (Ch. 4 v. 4).  Does Clement add the satisfaction won by the Virgin Mary and the saints in verse 5 of Chapter 4?  I ask: where is this doctrine of the excess of merit of the saints?  It is alleged that it is the ancient teaching of the apostles.  If it is the ancient teaching of the apostles, where does Clement mention it when he speaks of all-exclusive but divine satisfaction of the Lamb of God slain through the steadfast “blood of Christ” (Ch. 4 v. 5) that was “shed for our salvation, [that] has obtained the grace of repentance for all the world” (Ch. 4 v. 5)? 

Are we not blinded by the explicit words of Clement of Rome?  What else does he exalt but the preeminence of the redemptive Cross of Jesus Christ?  Are we so far from the Cross that fallen rebels add to the simplicity of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world?  Does repentance comes from imputation of faith?  By no means!  Where does the grace of repentance come from?  What?  Is it the work of Roman priests?  By no means!  It is the work of the will of the Spirit of God for it alone in accompanying the Word produces the grace of repentance, but through whom does Clement procure this grace of repentance?  Is it not through Jesus and Jesus alone?  Is it not the Father’s design through His Son’s most bitter passion by the Holy Ghost?  He calls the Church at Corinth to repentance (Ch. 4 v. 6) because it means to “turn to him.”  O how sinners find everyway to abuse the simplicity of the gospel of repentance!  Does Clement say go to the Roman confessional for forgiveness and cleansing?  I demand to know where my subjectivism lies if not in the clarity of the objective words of history that dies the Roman popery that has spiritually enslaved millions!

Noah preached contrite repentance, but if Noah could not remit sin in the confessional, how could an immoral practicing Roman priest (Ch. 4 v. 7)?  Clement here says that some repented at the preaching of Noah.  He sounds like an optimist but I suppose Noah preached to his eight family members who alone heard the awakened word of repentance by the Spirit and Word.  Does Noah’s oral tradition of repenting contradict the written hand-down Scripture? 

What if the oral tradition is the transformed word in it preached?  Jonah preached confessional repentance to the Ninevites where God had them respond in faithful repentance unto an awakened reformation but the Ninevites would rebel under the prophet Nahum that were consumed under God’s wrath.  Clement acknowledges the repentance of their sins, but he mentions an appeasement by their prayers to God. 

Does Clement mean appeasement devoid of redemptive suffering through Jesus alone?  Or, does he mean the prayers of appeasement in addition to the propitiation of Jesus Christ at His Cross?  It would refer largely to Moses, I suppose, because he interceded before God.  Rome would have us believe it is meritorious.  That is, something that a sinner does to cooperate with a holy God by their own satisfaction added to Jesus Christ and His Cross.  Yet Clement concedes not with a sinner’s merit but with “the grace of God” (Ch. 4 v. 9) “by the Holy Spirit of repentance” (Ch. 4 v. 9). 

If it is of the grace of God it is not a sinner’s merit, but if it’s not a sinner’s merit it is the grace of God by his precious blood that has obtained salvation (Ch. 4 v. 5).  If Jesus obtained the grace of God by His merit, is it not the grace of the gift of the Spirit?  What else does Clement say except the work of God not man?  Does he not speak of the repentance of the elect “…that all his beloved should come to repentance” (Ch. 4 v. 15)?  We see Clement’s exalted words of obedience won by the Church of Rome or the words of Scripture? 

How about obedience won to a particular Pope just because he alleges it in Pharisaical robes?  If it is not Pharisaical robes, where is the Roman priests’ from the Church of Rome to absolve these poor sinners?  What do we see in weighing the historical evidence?  Do we not see Clement calling the people of God to repentance like John Huss, Martin Luther and John Calvin where they were accused of illegitimately praying directly to God?  What else do we see in Clement’s writing then direct repentance to a holy Triune God in Chapter 4 verses 10, 11, 12, and 13?  Where does he get the command of repentance?  It is in tota Scriptura (all of Scripture) but apart from the Church alone (sola ecclesia). 

Surely he most have lost his marbles in the Reformational doctrine of direct repentance to God!  Yet we see not the overthrow of the Reformation doctrine of particular repentance.  Rather we see the very establishment of the Reformed doctrine of repentance unto remission where Rome has caused the confusion of an idolatrous tyranny that if left unchanged would cause eternal harm in outer darkness with sin excused by absolution in the Roman confessional yet answerable before King Jesus because He alone is the High Priest!

Part 5:  Section E:  The First Epistle of Clement of Rome in Chapter 5:  Does Clement of Rome use oral tradition in the Roman teaching in his First Epistle?  Or, does he use the sole supremacy of the divine Scripture?  Does he teach the Roman view of baptismal regeneration?  Does he teach a denial of imputed righteousness as Rome to this very day?  Is it not apparent that a holy God speaks of the blessing of Abraham by the foredetermined promise of his descendents by the gift of the Spirit in his obedience?

Clement refers to obedience to a holy Triune God’s “…excellent and glorious will” (Ch. 5 v. 1).  What is meant by this phrase in his First Epistle?  It is simply meant by the outcome of Chapter 5 that he refers to the biblical precedence of Scriptural examples.  In other words, his great essential emphasis is founded in sola Scriptura where obedience is the crux of the message of the gospel.  We are called to obey the gospel but those who do not obey the gospel will perish.  Clement speaks of the mercy of God (Ch. 5 v. 1) “found righteous” (Ch. 5 v. 2) by “regeneration to the world” (Ch. 5 v. 3) who is “called God’s friend” (Ch. 5 v. 4).  Does he say regeneration is by the Roman oil of water baptism?  If such is alleged, where is this theological evidence in his epistle?  If baptismal regeneration is apostolic, where is it on the very term that is supposed to constitute Rome’s alleged teaching?  Clement refers to the “world” but I suppose we could conclude it refers to the Gentiles.  What else is from regeneration than a foredetermined demonstration of Ephesians 2:10 by “obedience he went out of his own country” (Ch. 5 v. 5) to be blessed “in thee [Abraham] shall all families of the earth shall be blessed” (Ch. 5 v. 8) because he numbers all of the many of the family in an innumerable multitude of the elect from every tribe, tongue, people and nation (Ch. 5 v. 10) but by what way was he right with a holy God? 

Does Clement say by infusion of righteousness in justification/sanctification?  Does he combine both?  It is very curious if Rome teaching of an infusion of righteousness is supposed to be the ancient teaching, why does Clement use the word “counted” that is interchangeable with “reckoned” or most importantly, “imputed” or “accounted”?  Does Clement not say the very crux of the gospel “And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.”  Where did belief come from?  Clement is consistent: namely, repentance does not come apart from faith and faith does not come apart from repentance.  But where does it come from?  He is clear: namely, the Holy Ghost! 

Does it come at confirmation where all are confirmed as empty souls?   By no means but by the Spirit of God!  This verse is from the Old & New Testament.  Did Clement mistranslate it?  If alleged, where are the grounds for such an assertion?  We see him say repentance is a grace of the Holy Spirit, but how much more faith?  If he also speaks of the free shed blood of Jesus Christ, do we not see the gift of His imputed righteousness by the word “counted” by the Holy Ghost of the grace of repentance?  How else does imputation happen but by the spiritual application of the Spirit of God in spiritual rebirth (Ch 1 v. 12, 15; Ch. 4 v. 9)?

Could it be that imputation of Jesus’ righteousness be the most ancient and primitive teaching of the apostolic gospel?  What is stopping a faithful Christian to obey this core essential of the gospel?  If fallen sinners want to dishonor the all-exclusive supremacy of the biblical foundation that sets the stage for imputed righteousness, but seen in Clement’s writing very early in church history, what should we say?  We should respectfully tell our astray neighbors to keep the bunk of their false theology to themselves, but proclaim the centrality and supremacy of the preeminent reckoned righteousness of Jesus Christ “through faith and hospitality” (Ch. 5 v. 12).  In other words, if we reflect the accounted righteousness of Christ it could lead to limitless civil goodness if reflected with the energy of oranges that is really a gift of His precious Hand that never adds to the matchless righteousness of Jesus Christ as the Apostle Paul states in Philippians 3:9!

Part 6:  Section F:  The First Epistle of Clement of Rome in Chapter 6:  Do we find in Clement’s letter conditional salvation or preservation of the saints (eternal security)?  Do we find that faith is imputed?  Or, is faith is free gift of grace that is undoable by the Holy Ghost?  Are there different ways to be forgiven like papal indulgences (not an abandoned practice but still kindled today) other than the shed blood of the Cross by its own nature of all-exclusivity?

Clement speaks of those a holy Triune God will “…not forsake those that trust in him…” (Ch. 6 v. 2).  He calls the people of God to hospitality and godliness: namely, hospitality is about warm kindness but godliness is about holy repentance (Ch. 6 v. 1).  He speaks of those who never believed that were “destroyed by fire and brimstone” (Ch. 6 v. 1).  Yet he speaks of those who possess true faith who were simply engaging in besetting sin in “the disobedient to punishment and correction” (Ch. 6 v. 2). 

There is obedience unto rebellion that is not a true obedience but a real disobedience like Lot’s wife (Ch. 6 v. 3).  Clement refers to those who “are prepared for condemnation” (Ch. 6 v. 4).  He no doubt refers to the double coin of election and reprobation, because if one is sentenced to hell, surely one is sentenced to heaven.  Should we suppose that Clement misstated this doctrine that is alleged to begin with Full Calvinism?  Upon what basis do we neglect the writings of Clement?  Is it to hide the most despised doctrine of reprobation while sinners feel they are justified by death?  Or, should we suppose that God elected some for something they have done?  If this is alleged, why is repentance called a grace of the Holy Ghost that is redeemed by the shed blood of Christ (all free by grace, repentance, the Holy Ghost and the precious blood of Jesus)?

In what way was Rahab redeemed?  Was it not with the scarlet rope?  It was a sign of the Lamb’s blood that brought “redemption to all that believe and hope in God” (Ch. 6 v. 10).  How does faithful repentance happen according to Clement?  It is by the grace of the Holy Ghost.  Are those who are by nature faithless, having not the Spirit of God, redeemed?  No, for Clement says only those who believe are redeemed.  Is it not by God’s choice because how else does the grace of repentance of the Holy Ghost get exercised, begin or start?  Is it not clear Clement also supports justification by faith alone unto works (see Ephesians 2:8-10), because does he not say “…how there was not only faith, but prophecy too in this woman” (Ch. 6 v. 10)?

Parts 7-8:  Sections G-H:  The First Epistle of Clement of Rome in Chapter 7-8:  Does the double humility of Clement demonstrate a non-papal position?  Does Clement refer to an oral tradition devoid of the written Word but one alongside each other?  Or, does Clement support the sole infallible Scriptures in edification to the people of God at Corinth?  Does Clement cite oral tradition at all and with the selfsame reverence of Scripture as Rome claims today? 

Clement refers to humility but we see the popes boast of papal power (Ch. 7 v. 1).  Is it not strange that Clement does not refer to some sort of oral tradition?  If it is alleged, that Clement supports an oral tradition, I challenge anyone to lay the grounds for such a position!  The reason there is no oral tradition but his command to “…let us do what is written.” (Ch. 7 v. 1) is because oral tradition the way Rome understands it is a tradition that nullifies the divine Word.  Rome cancels out the Scriptures alone because of the idolatry of authority. 

Clement speaks of the divine Word as the Holy Spirit speaking (Ch. 7 v. 2).  God’s written Word is God-speaking.  The true oral tradition is transforming the divine Scriptures in a verbal manner without adding new doctrine to the inerrant Scriptures.  The simplicity of the Word proclaimed is the death nail to Rome.  She does not have the Scriptures as the supreme and central sword of conviction.  He speaks of “above all, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, which he spake concerning equity and long suffering, saying…” (Ch. 7 v. 3). 

He speaks of mercy, forgiveness, the golden rule; hypocritical judgment, kindness, and measure back what is right.  Is this a new command by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?  By no means!  Clement just sums up the Master’s commands in a paragraph, because it is found in the New Testament Gospels.  He speaks of “by this command, and by these rules…” (Ch. 7 v. 5).  Commands come from the divine Word because the divine Word carries the full weight of what are the words of God.  If the Word was not God-speaking, what divine authority would it have over the lives of the people of God?  God preserved a supernatural and written record that Clement used concerning application of God’s commands (Ch. 7 v. 7-9). 

Clement refers to what is written (Ch. 7 v. 10) by the immediate concepts of Jesus Christ and His Apostles.  He speaks of the wrath of God “…And again he saith” (Ch. 7 v. 11).  He used applications of the commands (Ch. 7 v. 12-14), but says “And again” (Ch. 7 v. 15) and he says “And again he saith” (Ch. 7 v. 16).  He quotes different lines of Scripture but harmonizes them together.  Clement was aware of the infallible unity of God’s divine truth in the written Word.  He understands the wicked because of the revealing wisdom of the Scripture (Ch. 7 v. 17).  He ends Chapter 7 with a divine word of the Old Testament.  Does Clement give commands devoid of Scripture?  Certainly not!  He provides the divine Scripture as the sole basis for instruction on whatsoever is right, because the Holy Word is about whatsoever is right.  Whatsoever is right is about whatsoever glory God is after: namely, a right glory unto a right justice or a right glory unto a right mercy and all for the sake of Name.

Chapter 8 of Clement’s First Epistle speaks of those who do not “…exalt themselves over the flock.”  (Ch. 8 v. 1).  Is this not a refutation of someone claiming to be a pope?  Doesn’t Clement’s standpoint of a plurality of bishops illustrate a position of humility?  Is it not devoid of popery for the Bishop of Bishops in referring to Jesus Christ alone?  Does “the Holy Ghost had before spoken concerning him” refer to a church tradition?  By no means!  Does not the written Word say “For thus saith, Lord” (Ch. 8 v. 2)?  He speaks of the divine Word of our Scriptural report (Ch. 8 v. 2). 

Clement does not refer to oral tradition.  Rather he refers to the Old Testament Suffering Servant (Ch. 8 v. 4-15).  He speaks of a “pattern…given to us” (Ch. 8 v. 16).  What is the pattern but the divine Scriptures?  What else is the “preaching of Christ” than the divine Scripture (Ch. 8 v. 17)?  He speaks of the prophets in the Old Testament Scriptures (Ch. 9 v. 18).  The Scripture refers to Abraham as a friend of God but he gets this from the preserved Word.  He had a copy of the written Scriptures where he was in church history, but I am also sure he would profoundly memorize the Word due to it sticks to the consciousness.  He speaks of Job as “…it is this written…” (Ch. 8 v. 20).  He speaks of the “…oracle of God was delivered to him out of the bush…” and again a standpoint of aseity (Ch. 8 v. 22).  He refers again to “And again he saith…” (Ch. 8 v. 23). 

He speaks of the Holy Scriptures in regards to David (Ch. 8 v. 24).  He speaks of the Old Testament Scriptures in great direct statements (Ch. 8 v. 25-40), but it specifically refers to Psalm Chapter 51 where St. David of Old Testament History prays to a holy God to pardon his great sin.  Is it not strange that Clement does not mention the alleged ancient Roman confessional?  Why does he adopt the Reformation doctrine of repentance unto remission again?  Why were men like John Huss burned to death because of the capital offense of praying directly to God? 

Clement does not support daily sacrifices but a contrite heart.  Where are we to suppose that the sacrifice of the Mass is embraced by Clement?  If it is so essential to the forgiveness of sins and daily Christian living, why does Clement neglect to mention this alleged ancient practice?  Are we to suppose it was a development of doctrine but upon what grounds?  Does he not preach the centrality and supremacy of the divine Scriptures over the practice of Rome’s Mass?  Such historical interpretation of a development that is the process of truth is tyranny over sacred history where it grabs the fallen minds of men into submission to anachronistic authority.

Parts 9-10-11-12-13:  Sections I-J-K-L-M:  The First Epistle of Clement of Rome in Chapter 9-10-11-12-13:  Does Roman Catholic theology have substantiated grounds for the use of Clement of Rome’s preaching in his First Epistle in Chapters 9-13 in established support of their papal dogmas by the perpetuity of his gospel message in the general Christian faith?  Is there a just basis for Clement’s denial of papal approbation but the clear support of Reformation doctrine in the crux of Clement’s approbation of the gospel of the Word?

Clement refers to the humility and godly fear of the record of the people of God in the recorded Word (Ch. 9 v. 1).  Clement acknowledges William Tyndale’s affirmation to have the written Word in the hands of “…generations before us better; even as many as have received his holy oracles with fear and truth” (Ch. 9 v. 2).  He speaks of examples that are only referenced in the written Scriptures (Ch. 9 v. 2).  He speaks of experiential peace before the Father among the people of God (Ch. 9 v. 3).  He speaks not of a Deist (God is not involved) but Clement speaks of “the heavens moving by his appointment, are subject to him in peace” (Ch. 9 v. 5).  Clement also speaks of “day and night accomplish the courses that he has allotted unto them…” (Ch. 9 v. 6).  This is the Reformation doctrine of meticulous foredetermination in God’s control of all things in the design of His Hand that points to the Triune Creator of all things.

Clement speaks of “…the courses that he has appointed to them in concord” (Ch. 9 v. 7) and the earth, man and beast “yield its food plentifully in due season” (Ch. 9 v. 8) that “…was ordered by him” (Ch. 9 v. 8) but God also keep the floods “…by his command” (Ch. 9 v. 9) that “…the conflux of the vast sea, being brought together by his order into its several collections, passes not the bounds that he has set to it…” (Ch. 9 v. 10).  Does this reflect Rome’s theology?  Roman theologians would advocate a pantheism of all things (God is apart of His creation), but does Clement seem to advocate this known and ancient heresy?  If a holy Triune God controls all things in peace as He wills, how can He be apart of His fallen creation?  I am afraid Clement does commit the heresy of pantheism later on in his writings that does separate him from orthodoxy; however, in large measure he does a good job in biblical orthodoxy (Ch. 14 v. 1).  Yet does he mean that we live and move and have our being with the Holy One?  He would use sloppy language that seems clearly heresy.  With some Deists (God is removed from creation as it naturally goes along), should we conclude this from Clement’s writings?  By no means!  Clement advocates an active holy God who is removed from it but a holy Triune King who particularly operates all things.

He speaks of order of the universe that “…are governed by the same commands of their great master” (Ch. 9 v. 12).   Who is the great master?  The Great Master is our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ.  Clement speaks of spring, summer, autumn and winter that “give place peaceably to each other” (Ch. 9 v. 13).  He speaks of the quarters of the winds without offense to each other (Ch. 9 v. 14) and “ever-flowing fountains, made both for pleasure and health” (Ch. 9 v. 15).  Clement understands the peace of “…the smallest creatures” (Ch. 9 v. 16) to abide in peace with one another.  In passing, does this not also support a post-millennial hope of the togetherness of the lion and lamb of peace in a metaphorical teaching of the gospel of peace among the elect sons and daughters of Adam?  Clement says God is good to all but especially to those “…who flee to His mercy through our Lord Jesus Christ; to whom be glory and majesty for ever and ever.  Amen” (Ch. 9 v. 18).  Those awakened flee to mercy and obtain it forever.  Amen.

Lessons on Christian obedience from Clement of Rome (a 25-Gospel disputation for the 21^st century Roman leadership to live godly lives in the hidden, secret and abandoned moments of God’s omnipresent Triune Holiness where He beholds all things, whether honoring to His Majesty or dishonoring to His Majesty):

1.      Clement consistently refers to the beloved as the elect of God.

2.      We are to live as a blessing to God and others.

3.      The way of condemnation is a masquerade of blessings.

4.      He says we are called to walk worthy of God.

5.      Clement says there should be unity in what is good and pleasing in God’s everywhere sight because He holds the Power of Being.

6.      The Son walks between the lampstands.

7.      The Spirit kindles the light of the candle of our hearts.

8.      The Spirit searches the deepest things of God and knows all things.

9.      The eternal Son is near to us in His incarnation.

10.  The Father and Spirit are near to us in His presence all over the place.

11.  All of our thoughts and reasonings are not hid from Him but open like an open book that beholds everything down to the “atom” of thought.

12.  Clement says we should not do contrary to His blessed will.

13.  He says honor God above a few foolish men (reprobates).

14.  Clement is reversing “few are chosen” to “few are damned.”

15.  This does not suppose a universalism but an optimistic eschatology.

16.  We are called to reverence our Lord Jesus Christ in His shed blood.

17.  We are to be in the discipline and fear of the Lord.

18.  Wives are called to do good.

19.  We are called to be pure in behavior (conversation): namely, what constitutes purity if it’s not by the purity of behavior (a denial of immorality)?

20.  Clement instructs us to “a sincere affection by their silence” (Ch. 10 v. 9).

21.  He calls the people to silence because of disunity (Are there some in Roman leadership that does not engage in homosexual terrorism? What if those teach those that do, to stop and live in light of ultimate Jesus goodness?)

22.  Clement says charity for all without respect of persons.

23.  Instruct children in Christ.

24.  God is the searcher of thoughts and counsels.

25.  Clement says our lives are not in our hands in the ultimate sense but a holy God takes breath and gives breath at His good pleasure.

Clement refers to the supernatural support for his writings (Ch. 11 v. 1).  Does he not refer to the divine completeness of the sufficiency of Scripture by “all things must be confirmed by the faith which is in Christ” (Ch. 11 v. 1)?  What else is the faith which is in Christ in all things than the God-breathed Scripture that enables the Christian workmen to be established for every good work?  Is it not the case that Scripture is mentioned by Clement of Rome “by the Holy Ghost” (Ch. 11 v.1)?  If Scripture is complete by the Holy Ghost, is that not a denial of papal supremacy but the supremacy of the sole precedence of the infallible authority of the written Word? 

Lessons on the Christian faith from Clement of Rome (Ch. 11 vs. 2-20):

a.       Clement calls children in the fear of the Lord.

b.      Lover of good days is a tongue contrary to evil.

c.       Do you speak guile?  By no means; no craftiness!

d.      Live contrary to evil and pursue good.

e.       Engage in words of peace and work at it.

f.       God hears the words of the righteous.

g.       Will God judge today’s Rome to blot them out?

h.      The victims of Rome cry out to God in order to be delivered.

i.        Clement says much trouble lay with the wicked.

j.        He says mercy encompasses God’s people.

k.      The Father is all-merciful and beneficent in compassion.

l.        Clement calls upon people to come with a simple mind.

m.    He says let us not waver.

n.      Clement says no doubt in our hearts for the excellence of Jesus.

o.      Jesus grants His children glorious gifts.

p.      If Jesus grants His excellence of glorious gifts in our hearts, what else would spiritual awakening be but monergistic rebirth and the sanctifying grace of the work of the Spirit of God in progressive sanctification (the process of holiness)?

q.      Clement speaks of concepts written by the Apostles in Scripture.

r.        The aged become discontent with divine Scripture.

s.       How does a Christian come to maturity without possessing positional truth in reflection of practical truth?  

t.        The will of God is grounded in divine truth.

u.      The Scriptures bear witness that Jesus will come in His Second Coming.

v.      The Bible teaches us a future bodily resurrection of the just and unjust.

w.     Joseph Ratzinger who resigned as pope denies the resurrection at the Last Day (according to Pastor David F. Elmer, a Reformed Presbyterian elder and also referenced in Point Y in this following listing of Clement Points in sacred history/church history).

x.      Clement speaks of the bodily resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

y.      The resurrection is alleged by some to have happened even in our day among the cults of schisms against Reformed Orthodoxy, where they will speak to the dead, supposing the corpse is alive, but Clement says to set it before our eyes (the last resurrection is in the future as an undisclosed, secret and concealed time at the bodily, public and particular Second Coming of Jesus Christ at the Last Day).

z.       The day and night demonstrate a resurrection to us.

aa.   Clement refers to the great power of providence.

Lessons from Clement of Rome on the bodily resurrection in advance proofs (Ch. 12: vs. 1-17):

1.      Clement calls the last resurrection wonderful.

2.      He speaks of a bird called “Phoenix” but the bird seems to be a metaphor (perhaps) to the literal history of eternity of the future resurrection (vs. 2-5).  Is it possible he refers to it in a literal sense in the bird analogy?  It seems he means it to provide meaning for the resurrection but he seems to engage in a bit of hyperbole in speaking of the resurrection of birds in five hundred years without intending to bring doubt upon the resurrection of the just and unjust.

3.      He speaks of an assurance of good faith for the resurrection of the just.  In passing, I was spiritually raised from the dead in the later summer of 2004 (to contrary monstrosities in the later summer of 1994 due to man’s approbation but God’s hatred), but gained assurance of salvation and convinced of election in the early days of January of 2005.  One day I will have a glorified body to counter this body of death, but it will be a body of future glorification in the glory of the proliferation and domination of the divine righteousness of Jesus Christ alone by the proliferation and domination of the application of the Holy Ghost through the Son by the Spirit in a body of deathlessness unto everlasting bliss.

4.      He speaks to the Scripture (vs. 7-9) by saying “having therefore this hope.”

5.      He speaks of the Scriptural record of “all his promises.”

6.      He says God can lie, but later he speaks of truth.  Is this a translation issue of Clement where he seems to say a sinless God can lie?  It does not seem likely.  To Clement, does a holy God sin?  It seems that he makes the theological blooper of “God can do all” including sin, but there is something a superlatively holy God cannot do by nature: namely, it is to sin.  If a holy God, created a rock bigger than Himself it could constitute sin, because the God of the Bible cannot by nature violate His nature (why? Because by nature He is thrice holy in changelessness), but is it right for a holy God to do something against holy-grounded aseity (eternal self-existence) by nature?  By no means!  He would never go against Himself because He is perfect, sinless and impeccable.  If He went against Himself, He would not be God.  The God who goes against himself is not truly God by nature but a façade but those who suppose a holy God goes against Himself have not considered the end of the story: namely, what happens at the Book of Revelation at Chapter 22?  A holy God wins!  This is because a superlative holy God foredetermined all things unto justice or mercy because He is always concerned about glorifying Himself due to the fact that He is always right and if He is always right, what else could the Bible be about but the Father’s Son (Jesus Christ) by the gift of the Spirit in descending to His people with a tulip in His mouth to bring peace to a people at war with a holy God?

7.      Does the Cross of Jesus mean He went against Himself when He establishes justice, righteousness, mercy, forgiveness and cleansing for His elect?  He did not become sin at the Cross as a literal sense of a sinner, because God by nature cannot change touching a immutable holiness and yet sin was applied to the Savior to bear the burden of the untouchable punishment of the Father due to justice in divine satisfaction to pacify the Father in appeasement in behalf sinners who possess not righteousness but filthy rages?  The sin was applied to the eternal Son so He became sin but not a sinner; namely, this was enough for the Father to accept the particular atonement in substitution for God’s elect people.

8.      Does Jesus lie at the Cross but on establish the grounds of double imputation: namely, the sin of the sinner is imputed to Jesus Christ and the divine and unified righteousness is imputed to the regenerate sinner?  Why?  Because God does whatsoever is right due to the elect are of the glory from Jesus Christ unto His mercy in a glorious glory of Jesus and Jesus alone in His divine work of His life and death by the Spirit of God and the Word of God.  Clement seems to entrust Himself to a lying God, but the Bible knows nothing of a God who lies, because it is the same error as atheism.   How?  Atheism says “we have meaning and yet there no meaning to anything.”  Imagine if there is meaning in meaninglessness?   If there is, that about settles it!  In what way?  It’s pointless/meaningless!  It is against the law of non-contradiction, because why should I put up with this meaningless argument if ultimately everything is meaningless?  In the same way, why should I pay attention to Clement’s exhortation if his God is a liar? Are we interested in truth or error?  If God is a liar, there is no certainty in anything but the Word refers to itself as perfect (self-authentication).  Away with this God of lies!  O Clement, tell me, what is a God of truth if he lies?  Away with this low of view of God!  The God of the Bible is sinless aseity; hence, He is immaculate.  This may very well be when Rome began to add to the unaddable Scriptures by lies because God does all things!  As a theologian and historian, I would not doubt the nature of man regarding his lawless abuse of power.  Those of the Roman Empire against Polycarp (a Christian who stood against pagan atheism against the gods of Rome) would say “away with the atheists!” but I say “away with the Romanists!”

9.      Does Clement support that a holy God can lie?  It seems he believes in divine truth but I doubt it is what he means (that God can lie) because he is deeply concerned about truth in setting them words of divine revelation to edify the people of God.  If he really thinks, God can lie; it is a lethal position, because in all he has said, there is question over all of it.  What was Clement thinking in writing this?  A holy Triune God can do all impossible things but without sin and without lying.  Without doubt, however, Rome has lied to their people by false dogma with also a deceit of goodness that is not native to their fallen nature (Romans Chapter 3ff).   It is possible to embrace a false teaching while under the apostles because Judas Iscariot committed heresy in doing evil that good may come; that is, it is possible even in the bodily presence of Jesus to make errors and teach them like St. Peter rebuking Jesus about His Cross.   Clement loses his consistency but adopts a meaningless teaching that destroys everything he says.

10.  Titus Chapter 1 Verse 2 speaks of a God who cannot lie in the same Chapter who refers to the qualifications of a bishop in order to refute those who contradict.  

11.  He speaks of the word of His power.

12.  Clement speaks of the Reformed doctrine of foredetermination.

13.  He speaks of nothing hid from his counsel.

14.  Clement speaks of God’s handiwork of creation.

Lessons from Clement of Rome on wrath due to habitual sinning (Ch. 13 vs. 1-8):

a.       The God of the Bible knows all.  Hence let us live unto holiness.

b.      We are not called to run away from Him.

c.       Clement speaks of Psalm 139 and quotes the authority of Scripture.

d.      Again, does Clement go to another source claiming to be equal to Scripture like oral tradition alleged by Rome?  By no means!

e.       He speaks of holiness of heart and pure and holy hands to God.

f.       He speaks of the Father’s design of election unto holiness.

g.       It seems Clement’s theology is predestinarian but this flies in the face of Rome for Clement says we partake of His election.

h.      He speaks of the real history of the Bible and the number of angels.  He never disputes the Bible as myth or understands angels to be worshiped.

Parts 14-23: Sections N-O-P-Q-R-S-T-U-V-W:  The First Epistle of Clement of Rome in Chapters 14-23:  Does Clement of Rome teach Reformed orthodoxy?  Does he teach any unorthodoxy theology, Roman theology or a Christian demonstration as meritorious to be right with a holy God?  (This ends his first epistle).

Chapter 14:  Does he teach justification by Christ alone for how someone is right with a holy God?

1.      It seems Clement advocates pantheism but he could refer to partaking of God’s holiness to be holy but it is unorthodox, sloppy and unclear language of being “apart of the Holy One” (Ch. 14 v. 1).  Some speak of holiness as an incarnation, but it is a dangerous language to endorse.  I would like to give Clement the benefit of the doubt here, but I suppose Rome has attributed pantheism to him due to their claims of it among their Roman theologians that have led them astray.  It reminds me of how the Scripture can led people to destruction but the fathers are esteemed highly above God sometimes and His Word, and yet it is the very fuel that fuels the destruction of religious people because of an out of place subjectivity of discontentment with the plainness of Scripture and endorsement of unclear language made into everyone’s argument of stubborn, obscure liberty unto the clearness of positions of idolatry that led many to God’s displeasure.

2.      In our holiness we do not become apart of God but we are holy instruments of His will.

3.      We are called to flee from the following things:

4.      All evil-speaking against one another

5.      All filthy conversation

6.      All impure embraces

7.      All drunkenness

8.      All youthful lusts

9.      All abominable concupiscence (Rome denies its sin)

10.  All detestable adultery

11.  All execrable pride

12.  Clement refers to “For God, saith he…” and he mentions the written Word that it came from a holy God.

13.  We are to hold fast to His people given His grace.

14.  Clement says let us:

15.  Be on concord

16.  Be humble

17.  Be temperate

18.  Be free from whispering and detraction

19.  Be justified by our actions

20.  Be justified by our words

21.  He calls us to be silent.

22.  We ought to praise God not ourselves.

23.  Do not commend ourselves but God.

24.  Measure good actions from other back to them.

25.  The accursed is rashness, arrogance, and confidence.

26.  The blessed are equity, humility, and mildness.

27.  Lay hold of God’s blessing but he does not say it is merit.

28.  He speaks of attaining it but it seems it’s not merit.

29.  If attainment means merit, though unclear it means an anti-gospel view.

30.  If it is merit he speaks of here, it is an alien teaching of the gospel.

31.  Should we say of Clement like Paul said to Peter “You stand condemned” for adding to the gospel?  Perhaps it is warranted if it can be demonstrated in his writing that attainment means merit because merit belongs to Jesus alone.

32.  Verses 12-13 speaks of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but neglects imputation but speaks more of the practical living of these Old Testament patriarchs.  

33.  Clement speaks of the “gift” in verses 14-17 and it seems to be Jesus.

34.  He denies works of satisfaction but only through His will (v. 19).

35.  He speaks of faith alone in Christ alone in verse 20-21:

36.  Rome speaks unclearly about faith alone in papal announcements but likely to be a faith alone that is not a faith alone.

37.  And yet in their papal writings denounce it due to acknowledged chameleon-theology.

38.  Here faith alone through Christ alone seems to shape Clement’s theology

39.  In terms of his theology at this moment in his epistle, it seems to indicate, that he teaches that we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone without the addition of the merits of the saints or sacerdotalism.

40.  It seems if it is Christ alone it is no other way but imputation but its not that he denies that somewhere else in explicit terms but emphasizes it more here than any place, because infusion cannot give us a final standing before the Father because Clement speaks “but through His will” (v. 19).

Chapter 15 (rhetorical questions): 

1.      Is it not clear that this chapter is about practical righteousness where he does not seem to contradict justification by faith alone in Christ alone unto good works (a non-meritorious but fixed demonstration) but to “work the work of righteousness” after Ephesians 2:10 in the singing of God over His children who had faith in the greatness of the “Gift” of His Hand that is Jesus because he speaks of the fixed outcome of the division of the water and earth “upon the foundation of his own will” (v. 4)?

2.      If it is based on the grounds of the Father’s will, what else would be the greatness of the Father’s plan save Jesus Christ? 

3.      Does he speak of Jesus as an example in the sense to participate in His merits, but how could this be the just conclusion if he emphasizes the crux of Christ alone in how someone is right with the Father but surely he states the emphasis of Christ as our example to do good but “not justified by ourselves” (v. 20)?

Chapter 16 (rhetorical questions):   

1.      Doesn’t Clement of Rome emphasis the good of well-doing, but is this not the clear case of the Reformation in Luther’s “A Treatise of Good Works?”

2.      Will those of imputed unified merit of Christ alone be judged in the sense to make sense of the good and bad deeds before Judge Jesus?  Yes, there is a sense where our good and bad deeds will be disclosed, but in the final outcome we will be acquitted through Christ alone.

3.      Why should we do good?  It is a command “faith unto good works.”

4.      We will be judged by our Savior/Defense Attorney but allowed into heaven based on Christ alone but do not excuse His commands based on imputation but make much of them because what else is imputation in a shattered reflection in practical living but limitless good?

Chapter 17 (rhetorical questions):

1.      If Clement says life-grounded immorality, bright-righteousness, truth-based, complete assurance, faith-founded confidence and holy-temperance is a blessed and wonderful and beloved gifts of God, how could we understand them as something earned unless we use an anachronistic redefinition of Clement’s writings and force Rome’s novel doctrine of availing merit of the Virgin Mary and the saints added to Christ?

2.      Does verse 6 support self-will of preservation of the saints?  It would seem that if God’s gift brings us to immorality, how could it be us but more of a great emphasis of His power in and through us “This is the way, beloved, in which we may find our Savior, even Jesus Christ the high-priest of all our offerings, the defender and helper of our weakness” (v. 15).

3.      Is it consistent to say Clement’s view of offerings refers to cooperation of sinners that add merit to Jesus Christ?  It seems that he says we are not justified by ourselves, so the offerings he speaks of seem to be good works and prayers in a non-meritorious demonstration “And all this has God subjected to our understandings?” (v. 3).

Chapter 18 (rhetorical questions):

1.      Doesn’t Rome confuse grace with merit?  Let me demonstrate my assertion-like question.  She says sinners can participate in the satisfaction won by the Virgin Mary and the saints.  It is not justification by Christ alone (Clement says it is justification by Christ alone demonstrated above).  Without this, a sinner would perish, because He alone is worthy (see Acts 4:12).

2.      Is it necessary according to biblical justification by faith alone by the imputation of Christ alone to alleged a preparation of God’s gifts that are anachronistically replaced and redefined regarding the sole supremacy of Christ alone by the merits of sinners who can only merit hell due to their sinnerhood as those who appear before the Father in a shattered image who bear not the robes of Jesus alone by imputation but the robes of a sentence to the place of hell prepared for the devil and his angels?

Chapter 19 (rhetorical questions):

1.      Does Clement emphasize St. Peter as pope?  If he does, where it is in the clear approbation of the Apostles?  Someone may ask, why does he not mention Judas as someone who betrayed Jesus?  Clement is emphasizing more of the good of their ministry.  Overall the Apostles would be a good team of biblical ministry “in righteousness, and their ministers in faith” (v. 6).  Doesn’t the rod of the twelve tribes speak of the twelve who are those who prevent the sheep from the wolves and yet there was a wolf among them (Judas Iscariot)?

2.      Hasn’t Rome engaged in contentions forewarned by Clement in a schismatic break from the power unto salvation in the gospel of faith alone in Christ according to the Book of Romans?

3.      Clement speaks of “other chosen and approved men” (v. 17) but haven’t we seen that if Clement is the one mentioned by St. Paul that such men can error regarding the practical in preaching sound doctrine while having the positional without a consistent reflection of it in the experiential?

4.      Doesn’t the Apostle Paul teach us to test all men by his selfsame example in Acts 17:11; that is, if the church should commend all ministers of the gospel, do we not have the biblical responsibility to investigate what is being said in light of the blameless, matchless and inerrant Word? 

5.      Is innocence proven by post-apostle ministries by virtue of being closest to the apostles in years or with great emphasis in the written Word the tests all things to arrive at innocence of the ministry at hand or to arrive at indictment of the ministry at hand?

Chapter 20 (rhetorical questions):

1.      Does Clement rely on those appointed?  Does he not say “Look into the Holy Scriptures, which are the true words of the Holy Ghost. Ye know that there is nothing unjust or counterfeit written in them” (v. 2)?

2.      Is not clear that Rome’s hidden life is of the perverse devoid of Clement’s phrase of “the innocent and righteous” (v. 14)?

3.      Does Clement say “we have one Pope” in preaching the unity of God, Christ and one calling of God (v. 16)?  Where does Clement refer the oneness of our baptism?  He does not refer to baptism to awaken sinners but the calling of the Spirit of repentance.

4.      Does he isolate Peter as the pope but does he also refer to Apollos (v. 21) and the Apostles (v. 22)?

5.      Does Clement use the exalted word “eminent” to Peter but why not if he is the Pope?  Is it not clear that he uses it twice of other men (v. 21-22)?

6.      Why does Clement speak of a leadership of humility and not of “his own advantage” (v. 31)?  Is not Clement speaking of the leadership of Diotrephes in that a leadership of preeminence  is a false leadership but a leadership of the humble-minded is consistent with the slave of all to imitate the impeccable Christ (3 John Chapter 1)?

Chapter 21 (rhetorical questions):

1.      Doesn’t Clement of Rome speak of substitutionary and particular atonement (v. 7)?

2.      Is it not clear that Clement of Rome speaks of the blessedness of double imputation (v. 14)?  It is alleged that the word did not appear until the 16^th century.  Where is the proof of that in light of Clement’s Reformed theology?  If he was a true Romanists would he not regard imputation a legal fiction?  Why does he regard the blessedness of imputation of a real actuality?

3.      Does Clement not speak of the blessing of being chosen by God through Christ in a predestinarian election unto the mercy of the glory of Jesus Christ?

Chapter 22 (rhetorical questions):

1. Is it not clear that Clement refer to direct confession of sin to a holy God (v. 8)?
2. Doesn’t Moses call God for forgiveness of their sins (v. 13)?

Chapter 23 (rhetorical questions):

1. Isn’t the pope approved in rebellion unto a casted out way of ministry by the Apostle Paul’s gospel?
2. Wouldn’t it be better to be found pleasing in His sight with a little ministry yet in His approbation?

Chapter 24 (rhetorical questions):

1. Is it not the case that Clement speaks of God’s calling devoid of baptism (v. 4)?
2. Does he not refer to Jesus Christ as from everlasting to everlasting (v. 4) (there are those who say he denies the deity of Jesus Christ)?

BOOK: 2 –

A Study of Clement of Rome’s Second Epistle

By Dr. Mike Petillo & Reformed Baptist Historian

Chapter 1 (rhetorical questions):

1. Those who deny that Clement referred to Jesus as God are refuted by v. 1.  What else can be determined by his writing on “think of Jesus Christ as of God” (v. 1)?
2. Does he not speak of “nothing else but death” (v. 7)?  Where is his teaching of a meritorious demonstration?  It is not to be found.
3. If the Virgin Mary is our hope, why does he say “no hope of salvation, but only through him” (v. 9)?
4. Is not Clement’s teaching reflecting Romans 9:11, 16 where he says “For he called us who were not; and was pleased from nothing to give us being” (v. 10)?

Chapter 2 (rhetorical questions):

1. If Clement says Christ saves that which is lost, why doesn’t he add the excess merit of the Virgin Mary and the saints (v. 7)?
2. If he believed in universal atonement, why does he say “he saved many” (v. 7)?
3. Is not Clement’s evidence of a true follower of Jesus in v. 11-15 found in the outcome in v. 10?

Chapter 3 (rhetorical questions):

1. If the place of hell was made up later on as alleged by some, why does Clement refer to it (v. 2, 8, 13)?
2. Doesn’t Clement refute excess merit in v. 8?
3. Here Clement mentions “keep our baptism holy and undefiled” (v.9).  It does not refer to baptismal regeneration, but could refer to a baptism of death to enter “the kingdom of God.”  If he refers to baptismal regeneration which is unclear, he would be mistaken.  Jesus spoke of a baptism of death that he must undergo in the Gospels, but if St. Peter added circumcision to the Cross in Galatians Chapter 2 in error what shall we say of Clement who may have added baptism to His Advocate but it seems unlikely for he speaks next of the “combat [that] is at hand” (v. 10) and he speaks of the crown of glory (v. 11)?
4. Why does Clement refer to immediate repentance devoid of the Roman confessional (v. 15)?
5. If there is no more repentance after death by Clement’s theology, what say you, O Romanist, about the doctrine of purgatory (v. 16)?

Chapter 4 (rhetorical questions):

1. Doesn’t Clement refer to the public Second Coming of Jesus (v. 15) and do what is right in the sight of a holy God (v. 14)?

Chapter 5 (rhetorical questions):

1. Doesn’t Clement in a difficult way speak of there is no male nor female in Christ (v. 6)?  Sadly, doesn’t Rome deny that the “two shall be one” (v. 1) in secret?