Let's get started with prayer as usual. Let's pray. Our Father in heaven, we do pray that You would glorify Your name, that You would exalt the name of Your Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, that You would teach us more and more, day by day, week by week, that we would truly live by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the one who loved His church and gave Himself up for her. We thank You for His perfect righteousness. We also thank you for that glorious promise that He has given to Peter and to the apostles, and that has spanned the ages even to us today, that He will build His church. The gates of hell will not prevail against Her. And we ask you to continue to sustain your people. We know that in many places throughout the world, even now, they suffer. And Lord, we ask that as we study history, that you would give us a renewed appreciation for your preserving grace, for your sovereign hand that has upheld your people against every assault. And we thank you that the promise is for us in Jesus Christ, that whoever believes in Jesus, though he die, yet shall we live. And so, give us greater hope, zeal, love, and encouragement. And bless our study this morning, for we pray in Jesus' name. Amen. Alright, so we're beginning. We've kind of ended some of the preliminary overview of looking at What we're doing, looking at some early church issues, canon, false doctrine, and persecution. And this morning we're going to begin a series, although next week what I'll be doing instead of this Sunday School is I'll be giving you a Presbytery recap, which is what I typically do after a Presbytery meeting. So we'll take a little break next week. But we're going to begin kind of some biographical vignettes of what we call early church fathers. And so Clement, I was going to start with Ignatius, but I realized that there's some real rich doctrine and value to studying Clement of Rome. So we're going to be looking at Clement, we're going to be looking at Ignatius, Polycarp, and several others through the next several weeks. I do not promise that I know exactly how it's going to look or who we're going to cover, but we'll just keep moving and see what happens. So today we're looking at Clement of Rome. Now, if you look at the top of your outline, you'll see Philippians 4.3. And it is a common thought, although it cannot be definitively proven. that the Clement to whom Paul here refers is this same Clement who penned what we're going to be looking at today, his letter to the Corinthians. Now, you do see in Philippians 4.3 that, I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labor with me in the gospel with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers. So again, I can't prove it definitively, but it's suggestive enough, and it fits a nice little text at the head of our our outline today. Now, before we get into this letter that history has passed down to us, that the Lord has preserved for us, I want to ask this question. We use the term early church fathers. You'll see the anti-Nicene fathers, not anti, but anti, A-N-T-E meaning before the Nicene Council. That's what anti-Nicene means, by the way. You'll see the Nicene fathers, and then your post-Nicene fathers. And really, it's a reference to this group of men who the Lord used, really, to continue on, in many respects, the ministry of the church standing upon the foundation that was laid by the apostles and the prophets. But a question arises immediately, is the term apostolic fathers or anti-Nicene, post-Nicene, whatever fathers, is an appropriate expression in light of what the Lord Jesus says in Matthew 23? And I'd like to just briefly touch on this and then we'll move in to Clement because we need to make sure that what we're doing is biblical and if we're challenged on various things that we have a good and biblical answer for them. And so in Matthew 23 verses 9 and 10, Here's what the Lord says, For one is your father, he who is in heaven. Do not be called teachers, for one is your teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant, and whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted. And so, on first reading, and many people have, actually, incidentally, I just received a mailer this past week from a Franklin County Church of Christ minister, which basically says he rejects the term reverend because Jesus says not to call any man teacher. And so the question is, is that a legitimate valid point or not? So what would you say? I'm curious. I don't think I, well, I do have some notes here, but what would you say? What do you think? Is it appropriate to refer to these men as the apostolic fathers? Jeff? Oh, that's a great answer, Jeff. Jeff votes yes. Parrish, did you raise your hand? Do you have, are you just gonna say yes? Okay, so he says there are fathers in the faith. You see a reference to fathers and brothers. Bob? Ah, but are we ignoring what Christ said? So, this is what I want. I was baiting all of you, so it's fine. A little bit of tussle. It's sanctifying. It's great. So, here's the question. Is Jesus simply saying we can never use this term? What is the number one key to reading the Scriptures and understanding them appropriately? Context, context, context, context, context, right? So Matthew 23, what is Jesus doing? Jesus is beginning His tirade, His godly tirade, bringing down condemnation upon whom? upon the Jews, and particularly the scribes and the Pharisees. And if you go back and look earlier in Matthew 23, the context where Jesus is saying, call no man father, call no man your teacher, is a context that says this, verse 4, for they bind heavy burdens hard to bear. They lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men, They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at the feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, Rabbi, Rabbi." So what he's saying is there's this lust, there's this ambition among these false teachers. They want to be recognized. They want to be esteemed. They want those titles of honor. Now, that doesn't mean we are to never use titles of honor. And here's why I've mentioned for you a few other scriptures. In 1 Corinthians 4.15, Paul says to them that you have many instructors in Christ, but not many fathers. Implication being, I'm your father in the faith. Now, is that biblical? Is he contradicting, is he ignoring the Lord? He refers to Timothy as a true son in the faith, Titus as well. Hebrews 1.1 begins by saying that in past times, God spoke to our fathers. The fifth commandment tells you to honor father and mother. So is the title itself the thing that Jesus is forbidding or is it the misuse of that title? And I would argue that it is very clearly the second. And I would additionally add the thing about saying, call no man teacher. Paul himself says about himself, Ephesians 4, that Jesus, well this isn't about himself specifically, Jesus gave some to be apostles, prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers. Additionally, this is what Paul says about himself in 1 Timothy 2. He says, I was appointed a preacher and an apostle. I'm speaking the truth in Christ and not lying. I am a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Jesus is here condemning the man-pleasing, ambitious Jewish leaders. He is condemning and forbidding striving after position and honor, not showing honor to others. He is forbidding placing men in the position of God or men in the position of Christ, not forbidding honoring those who faithfully serve the Lord. William Hendrickson commenting on this says, to state a fact is one thing. To yearn for distinctions and honors above one fellow man, and unrelated to the glory that is due to Christ, is something different. It is the latter that Jesus is here condemning. Matthew Poole, correlating to this, says that what Jesus is forbidding is two things here. He's forbidding affectation of such titles. That means a lust or desire for such titles, hunting after them. and then also the exercise of an absolute mastership or a paternal absolute power. And so it is not inappropriate to refer to someone who has been instructive for the sake of Christ as a father in the faith. It is entirely inappropriate, like the Roman Catholic Church, to refer to pontiffs and leaders as holy father. It's not appropriate because what they're doing is they're actually standing in the place of and actually usurping the position and honor of the Lord to whom and only to whom that honor is warranted. This is also, Paul says, imitate me as I imitate Christ. And this is the point. He didn't say imitate me. He says, follow me only insofar as I am faithfully ministering Christ. And this is getting to the temptation of trusting in men, of exalting men, and following after men. Do you have a question? I would agree with you more heartily if Jesus said, do not ask to be called father. He doesn't say that. He says, do not call anyone father. OK, well, there's a distinction there. There is, and what I'm saying is context is key here, and the point is, and we can talk about it later, that's fine, but you've got to reckon with the other arguments I've given. It's very clear that people actually in the Scriptures are referred to, and Paul refers to himself, as a father in the faith. And so either we have Jesus and Paul contradicting one another, Or there's a view, or there is a way to understand that Jesus is getting to the abuse of things. And sometimes that's the way the Lord teaches, is he sets forth things that are abuses, and he speaks about them in absolute terms. It's the same thing by saying, but you know, do not swear by anything. Now, does that mean there are no oaths? No, it does not, actually. It means that we should only swear rightly. And so that's where we need to make sure that we're careful as we understand the Word of God. But also, we do need to ask this question so we're not just walking blindly in man's tradition. Is it appropriate to call men father in this respect? I would argue it is. Calvin, typically a good last word, and we're going to move on here. He says, the true meaning of this text, Matthew 23, 9 in particular, is that the honor of a father is falsely ascribed to men. when it obscures the glory of God. Now this is done whenever a mortal man viewed apart from God is accounted a father, since all the degrees of relationship depend upon God alone, through Christ, and are held together in such a manner that, strictly speaking, God alone is the father of us all. It would be wrong for us to look at the apostolic fathers, call them apostolic fathers, and then follow them even where they err. That would be wrong. where actually, and we're going to find that church fathers do err. That's a brief introduction there. We've got to move on so we can get through the body of our study this morning. But I thought that was a helpful lead-in to talking about this situation of church history. Now, let me give you a few introductory comments about this letter. This letter was indisputably written to the church in Corinth. It is dated very early. Most commonly, the consensus is it's dated about A.D. 95, and so this is one of the earliest documents that we actually have in Christian literature. It's right about a contemporary, and I'll actually be mentioning this this morning in the sermon, because it is really relative to what we'll be talking about. It's contemporarily dated to the Didache, which is the teaching of the apostles, not written by the apostles. It's kind of like a summary of Christian instruction, kind of like an early book of discipline, early form of government kind of thing. Anyway, this is a letter that's very, very old, and yet there's no name written on it. And so the letter itself opens the church of Rome to the church which is in Corinth. And so tradition, again, has passed this down to us. And by tradition, I just mean history as it's been preserved. But what we find is that there are differing arguments about who wrote this. Was it Clement himself as the pastor of the church at Rome, which is possible? Was Clement more of the clerk of session, perhaps, or a secretary? Because remember, not everybody in this age is writing and has access to those kinds of materials. But what we do know indisputably, and again we don't even know that the Clement to whom this is attributed is the Clement in Philippians 4.3, yet what we do have is a very early and wholesome document that teaches us some wonderful things about the early church. Here's something also that the introduction that I was reading to this letter and then I read the letter itself, here's what it says. The epistle before us thus appears to have been read in numerous churches as being almost on level with canonical writings. Almost. We're going to get to that later. Its place in the Alexandrian manuscripts immediately after the inspired books is in harmony with the position thus assigned to it in the primitive church. And what actually, what that's talking about is that as early churches, they were, Taylor talked about this in his Believing Bibliology class, It was Christians primarily who moved away from scrolls and began to build codices, that means books with spines on them and bindings, because it was easier, smaller, and more durable. And what we're told here is that in Alexandrian manuscripts, that means more Eastern manuscripts of the scriptures, affixed to the back of it, kind of like we have an index or a concordance or maps in the back of our Bibles. In the back of it would be this letter to the Corinthian Church from the Church of Rome, which shows that the Church itself recognized it was important, but also recognized it was distinct from the Scripture, which we'll see from the internal witness of the letter itself. And so with that, it's a remarkable text that we have. And we're going to learn a lot of things. However, it's not flawless. And one of the reasons that we recognize the church didn't recognize it as canonical is because it does contain some problems. And just a few of them. Here is perhaps the oldest reference to Rahab's scarlet cord being a picture that the redemption would come through the shedding of Christ's blood. He does mention that as he's given an example of Old Testament believers. Another problem with it is that there is an appeal to prove the veracity of the doctrine of resurrection, he actually appeals and waxes somewhat long and eloquent about the phoenix, this mythological bird that would die and then it would burn up and then it would kind of resurrect itself, and so he does appeal to that. Finally, there is, as we'll talk about later on, a misapplication of a passage from the Old Testament, where he uses the Septuagint's translation of Isaiah 60, verse 17, in order to prove a really good point, but he proves a good point from the wrong text. And so there is some internal inconsistency which we don't have a problem with because we're not making the claim that it's scripture. Now one of the reasons this is important for you to get a hold of that there are early documents, there are Gnostic epistles, there are other things, there are apocryphal writings. The church knew about them, the church read them, sometimes the church profited by them. Clement in this letter actually makes reference to the apocryphal book of Judith. And yet, some of the arguments that can come against the veracity and the infallibility of Scripture is they argue because these other texts exist, they were just thrown out of the Bible. But if you remember what we talked about in our study on canonicity, that's not what was happening. It's the voice of God speaking through the Scriptures recognized by His Church as the Lord Jesus, by His Spirit, sovereignly preserved His writing, the Scriptures. One other thing that's very interesting about this letter, and it doesn't really fit in the systematization that I did later, so I want to mention it now, is actually something it teaches us about Paul. And so if it was written in AD 95 by Clement, Clement would have been someone personally familiar with the Apostle Paul, if he's the one in Philippians chapter 4. But this is something that he writes. Listen, this is a remarkable statement about Paul. First of all, in Romans 15, 27 and 28, Paul writes to the church at Rome, remember, from whom this letter was written. Paul says this, "...it pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister them in material things." Talking about the blessings that Gentiles should be giving back to Jewish brethren. "...Therefore, when I have performed this and have sealed to them this fruit, I shall go by way of you to Spain." And in Romans 15, he mentions his desire to go to Spain twice, which at that time would have been the westernmost frontier of the Roman kingdom. Westernmost because you can't get past it because there's an ocean over there. Now here's what this letter says. In paragraph 5, and I'm using paragraph numbers from the document I was reading, It says this about Paul, after preaching in both the East and West, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world and come to the extreme limit of the West and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus, he was removed from the world and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience. And that extreme limit of the West would be Spain. And so this is the basis of the idea of the belief, historically speaking, that Paul actually did minister. He was released from his imprisonment that we read about at the end of Acts 28 for a time, and actually did get all the way to Spain and minister the gospel there, which is a remarkable thing. I'll get into the early church relationships later on, but I want to get into some of the doctrine of this letter, which is encouraging and interesting. And so let's first talk about the occasion. Why was this letter written? Well, the letter was written because of sedition in the church. There was a good old-fashioned, old-timey firing of the ministers and apparently throwing out some of the elders as well. This is how the letter begins. It's a very typical greeting for a Christian letter, formal communication from one church to another. And one thing that's interesting, if you ever get a chance, it's only about 20 pages. You could read this in an hour. If you read it, you do see the doctrine of Romans embedded in this letter from the church at Rome to the church in Corinth, which shouldn't really surprise you, but it does encourage you because it sees, you see, God blesses His Word through the ages. He says this, owing dear brethren to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, referring probably, potentially, to the Domitian persecution, if this was written in 1895. He says, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us. and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elective God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, and your vulnerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury. Very frank, very forthright, there is a problem that has begun in the church in Corinth. And so, this is a letter from one church to another that was actually, it seems, is a response to a church asking for insight and asking for help. And I'm going to come back to that element of inter-church relations later on. Again, the letter says, so worthless men rose up against the honored, those of no reputation against such as were renowned, the foolish against the wise, the young against those advanced in years. For this reason, righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as everyone abandons the fear of God and has become blind in his faith, neither walks in the ordinances of his, that is Christ's appointment, nor acts apart becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts, resuming the practice of an unrighteous and ungodly envy by which death itself entered the world. Again, very, very direct language talking about the great sin of schism in the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. And so the occasion for this is sedition. And the way sedition manifested itself in paragraph 44 of the letter, it is through the overthrow of apostolic established ministry. Now, I'm going to talk more about apostolic foundation as opposed to succession, or the right way of understanding apostolic succession later, but let me just read you one section that describes the particular situation that was happening in the Church of Corinth. He writes, we are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, that is, those ministers appointed by apostles, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, they cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." And so the judgment of the Church of Rome is that the Church of Corinth had risen up and had ejected, cast out, we would say modern-day deposed or fired, legitimate ministers who had faithfully carried out their task as pastors in the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. And so this is the occasion for this letter. Any questions or comments thus far? Sir? Do we have any specifics on why these men were cast out? Um, well, actually, I mean, it's paragraph three, what I read earlier, wicked and worthless men rose up. I mean, no, we don't have specific. No, we don't have, we only have the letter from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth. We don't know if, if, you know, I don't know. We don't know if somebody. preached a particularly difficult sermon or something like that. But there is a mention of the spirit of Corinth later on that I hope I'll find and be able to get to you. It's very interesting. So let's talk a little bit. So that's the occasion. Now what I want to do is, as you see in your outline there, I want to pull out some lessons we can learn from the letter. I'm not going to give you a summary of it other than this. Basically, there's an introduction and statement of the problem. There is a long and elaborate and multi-illustrated appeal to humility, which would make sense. There is then some discussion on the resurrection. And then it continues on to this, and then toward the end, really a direct indictment and condemnation of the sin. And that's one of the things I just read in paragraph 44 of the sins that were happening in Corinth, which then appeals to humility and repentance. Did you raise your hand? Okay. A couple of comments from this letter about Scripture. It's very interesting. The letter itself is absolutely saturated in the Word of God. These are one of the ways that historians and theologians, or historical theologians, look back and think about, okay, how do we see, from so many years removed, the development of the recognition of the canon? And this being an early letter, what you find is many, many times the writer is referring to passages that we call the Old Testament or the New Testament as sacred scripture. So there's a recognition of that. He cites or alludes to no less than 18 of the 39 Old Testament books. Is it 39? Yeah, 39 Old Testament books and 16 of the 27 New Testament books. Now I say cite or allude because remember we don't have like verses. We don't have Philippians 1 verse 6 yet. That was something added later. What you also find is that there are these very long citations of scripture within the letter. Now why do you think the writer from the church in Rome would include long chunks of scripture in his letter? Any ideas? Brian? They might not have a copy of it. Now, likely, established churches like Corinth or Rome would have had, at the very least, Old Testament scrolls. But it's not guaranteed. But particularly, you see the longest citations in this letter from Isaiah, especially almost the entire servant song from Isaiah 53. You have a long citation from several of the Psalms, Psalm 51, Psalm 34. I want to come back to Psalm 34 later. It's very interesting in terms of the letters Christology. And then long citations from the book of Job. Now with that being said, as it's citing from scripture, it also self-consciously distinguishes itself from scripture, the letter itself. It makes no claim to be canonical. First of all, as also New Testament letters did, it was appealing to the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament. So that doesn't prove it in and of itself. But listen to what he says in paragraph 47. He says this, take up the epistle of the blessed apostle Paul. Actually, Bob, this is getting back to what I told you earlier about, I'd get to the particulars of the spirit of Corinth. Listen to what he says. Take up the epistle of the blessed apostle Paul. What did he write to you at that time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, Cephas, and Apollos." And this is talking about 1 Corinthians 1, 2, and 3, where he says, there are divisions among you. You know, were you baptized in the Paul? Were you baptized in the Cephas? You know, I'm a Paul, I'm Apollos, I'm of Christ. This is the problem. And it looks like this is a problem that wasn't entirely mortified and dealt with in the church that is at Corinth. And so there's a party spirit. But what you notice is that the writer of the letter from Rome to Corinth says, Paul wrote that by the inspiration of the Spirit. He recognized that 1 Corinthians is Holy Scripture, and he makes no similar claims about what he himself is writing. So he's recognizing that he's standing on the shoulders of the Apostle, seeking to expound and unpack apostolic doctrine, but he makes no claim to apostolic authority in that respect. Later on, he says in this section, he says, but that inclination from one above another entailed less guilt upon you in as much as your partialities were then shown towards apostles already of high reputation and towards a man whom they had approved. What he's saying is, so there was division back then, but it wasn't so bad because at least you were esteeming apostles and Apollos, one who was esteemed by the apostles. But he says, But now reflect who those are that have perverted you, and lessened the renown of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of, as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should on account of one or two persons engage in sedition against its presbyters. So that's as specific as I can get to you. But one or two people, and this is a good lesson for us, It is absolutely possible for one or two people to cause massive problems within a church. You begin sowing discord, you become a Korah, a Dathan, and an Abiram, you can cause massive problems. Remember what Paul said, Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm. It can really only take one or two. So that's, but anyway, this is under the section of scripture, so you can see how it views itself. Another point of doctrine I'd like to bring out from this letter is the doctrine of election. No less than five times, probably more, election is very clearly and unapologetically referenced. You heard it already in the opening of the letter where he refers, as the Apostles do, he refers to the church as the elect of God. He says also in that first paragraph, day and night, you were anxious for the whole brotherhood. This is when he's commending the Corinthians. He says that the number of God's elect might be saved with mercy and a good conscience. You can read those paragraphs that I noted for you in 29 and 50. And here is another thing that he says, and you can see how Clement is bringing doctrine to bear as he's dealing with the divisions in the church. He says, there's nothing base. Nothing arrogant in love. Love admits no schisms. Love gives rise to no seditions. Love does all things in harmony. You can almost hear him referencing to what chapter in Corinthians here? Chapter 13. He's like, this is your letter, guys. You should know this. 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, His soul for our souls. And so you see this doctrine very clearly. I don't want to take up the time to read those paragraphs that are in your outline. But the reason this is significant is some of the arguments against the doctrine of election being a biblical doctrine are arguments that acclaim that the doctrine of election is a novelty, that it's mere rationalism, that it's something that was invented later. And if people say that, if they say, well, it was just something invented by John Calvin, they prove themselves right there to be historically ignorant. Because not only is it very clearly written out in the scriptures, you see the earliest piece of Christian literature, one of the earliest that we have, referring to this very clearly. And then obviously it's expanded and expounded by Augustine and by the other faithful teachers of the ages. And this is an early extra biblical writing, very clearly speaking of this reality, and doing so, interestingly, in the midst of a church controversy. And so that's just a neat little section on election. Let me talk a little bit about Christology. There's a very clear, now remember, the early centuries of the church, so really from the Apostolic Fathers up until Chalcedon, the question was, well, let me back up, from this period of time up to the Council of Nicaea, and then really finalized in the Council of Constantinople in 381. Nicaea, what year is Nicaea? Nope. 325. Okay, key dates, key dates, key dates. You got to remember. AD 70? Fall of Jerusalem, okay, by General Titus. Titus destroys Jerusalem. Who's the Roman Caesar at the time? Vespasian, very good. Okay, 325, next, you know, historically speaking, next big moment, okay, Council of Nicaea. We're going to talk later on about the things leading up to that council, but 325, Council of Nicaea. Okay, 381, Council of Constantinople. Constantinople, kind of, sort of, again, history is a lot faster when we talk about it than when we live through it, okay? But 381 essentially brings to a close the raging battle that really brought about Nicaea and then extended past Nicaea. And the question that's being asked up until 325 is, To what degree does the Son have relation to the Father with respect to Trinitarian doctrine? The question essentially is, is Jesus divine equal to the Father? Post-Nicaea, and especially post-Constantinople, the question then is, okay, if that's true, if Jesus is divine, how then does his deity relate to his humanity? And so, if you want to be simple or simplistic about it, we're questioning and wrestling with, for 200 and some years, 50 years, How is Jesus divine? Okay, and then from 325 really until 451 for another 125 years the church is wrestling with, okay, how is the divine Jesus human? I hope that makes sense. What inevitably would have happened in these debates, well, I say that, so let me back that up. What I would assume could have been happening, likely, is there are going to be appeals to letters like this, and appeals to letters like what we find in Ignatius, for example, which I'll share with you in a couple of weeks, clear and glorious descriptions of the divine Christ. But here are a couple statements that he makes about Christ in his deity. Actually, and here's the one I wanted to mention about Psalm 34. Now, in paragraph 22, this is not in your outline, but in paragraph 22 Clement is writing and he says this, referring to Christ, he says, by the Holy Ghost addresses us, quote, Come ye children, hearken unto me. I will teach you the fear of the Lord. What man is he that desireth life and loveth to see good days, et cetera? And there's one of those long quotations from Psalm 34. What's significant about this? He is putting the words of the Psalm, Psalm 34, into whose mouth? into Jesus's mouth. He, by the Holy Spirit, said these things, which shows you this Christology that Christ is the man of the Psalms. Christ is the giver of the Psalms. And so this is really a clear ascription of deity to the Lord Jesus Christ. Another one, as he's referring to, as he's actually bringing the letter to a close in paragraph 58, he says, May God who seeth all things and who is ruler of all spirits and the Lord of all flesh, who chose our Lord Jesus Christ and us through him to be a peculiar people. He keeps going on and then he says, basically kind of a Pauline heap of virtuous desires. He says, through our high priest and protector, Jesus Christ, by whom to him be glory and majesty and power and honor, both now and forevermore. Amen. And once again, it's a description to Jesus of praises worthy only of God. Now, that citation I have for you in your outline, number 16, is a segue between both an ascription of deity to Christ, but also an explanation of his humility. For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, not of those who exalt themselves over his flock. And you see the undertones of sedition and rebellion in this. Then he says, our Lord Jesus, the scepter of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp and pride or arrogance, although he might have done so. but in a lowly condition as the Holy Spirit declared regarding him. Again, you know, there are certainly unbelievers and those who would have been Arian at the time would have tried to explain these things away. That's nothing new. But very clearly, there's an understanding of a divine Christ who is the Savior of his church. There are many, many, many references, of course, to his humility, like I just read to you. There are many others as well, which should not surprise you. because exhortations to humility are very fitting in letters dealing with sins of division and schism. But the other thing that's great to look at is how this letter is full of statements and references to gratuitous salvation. What does gratuitous salvation mean, anybody? Brian? Saved by grace, free grace, grace through faith. My favorite section from this letter is what I put at the top of your outline there from paragraph 32, you can read that. But there's a wonderful, and you could even say this is like Protestant Reformation doctrine, but that's because Protestant Reformation doctrine was a return to biblical doctrine and the doctrine rightly exposited by the apostolic fathers. But listen to a couple of other things. Here's what he writes in paragraph 7. Another one, and we too being called by His will in Christ Jesus are not justified by ourselves. Oh, that's paragraph 32. That's what's at the top. So you can read that on your own time. But I just, again, I have a couple of more things to touch on and I'm running out of time as I always do. And so, I hope you can see some wonderful statements of Christological doctrine and especially gratuitous salvation. Now, ecclesiology. This is our last section for this morning, and the reason this is important is several fold. What I want to point out to you is it should make you ask certain questions when you're reading a letter written from one church to another church. What you're going to find is that these statements are going to prove something. They're going to prove, first of all, an intra-ecclesiastical connectionalism, otherwise known as Presbyterianism. where there are churches connected one to another. And this, I do believe, is some very good information that would argue against a view very firmly held by Congregationalists and Baptists of church autonomy. Anybody understand or would anyone like to explain what does church autonomy mean? Go ahead. It's not so much that we are the supreme church, it's that we are an exclusively governed church accountable to no one. Congregationalism was a reaction against the monolithic ecclesiastical empire of Rome. Each church is sovereign to itself, and there's no connectionalism. There's no organic relationship with them and other churches. And I do believe that internally, as you look at the way Clement is writing to the church, and you recognize from the letter itself that the church had sought the counsel of this church, there's some establishment between these churches. And that is something I've taught on before, and I think is modeled for us not only throughout the book of Acts, but particularly in Acts chapter 15. The other thing that you're going to find in some of these comments I'm about to read to you is not merely the principle of connectionalism, but also the principle of the plurality of elders and the equality of both the church at Rome to the church at Corinth. Now why is that significant when it comes to opposing Roman Catholic apologetics? What do you think? the highest among equals. Yes, the Petrine supremacy and the preeminency of the bishopric of Rome. And what you never find, first of all, it's the church writing to the church. It's not the bishop. It's not the pope for sure. And the pope is really not even used until the 6th or 7th century. Gregory the Great is really the first classically understood pope. And we'll talk about, when we get to Chalcedon, why Roman supremacy kind of started creeping in. By Roman, I mean the city of Rome, the church of Rome. But what you find is there's an appeal to equals, and there's a plurality of the elders. They're not throwing off one bishop, but many bishops within that church. Remember, I've told you before that bishop and what term are interchangeable? Elder. Bishop and elder are interchangeable. Okay? So let me read a few of these comments to you. Now, in terms of, first of all, apostolic government. In paragraph 42, here's what Clement writes for us. He says, the apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments then were made in an orderly way according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and establishing the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming the kingdom of God that was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the firstfruits of their labors, having first proved them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons of those who would afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, and this is where he actually misquotes Isaiah, and I'll read it to you. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith." And actually, if you go back to the original Hebrew, it's referring to how God's going to be dealing with and restoring Jerusalem. And it talks about restoring their overseers in righteousness, which is fine. But then it talks about their ministers or their servants in righteousness. And the Greek word for righteousness looks very much like the word for deacon, but it's a different word. And I think that's the mistake that he makes here as he uses the Septuagint in order to prove this point, which again, I think is a great point. It's just you don't get that great point from that text. And so what you see here is there's an apostolic government. God sent Christ, Christ sent his apostles, the apostles went out and established churches by appointing what? bishops, bishops, plural, and deacons. You see, this is a relationship to church government. You also see then the plurality of the eldership. Many times throughout this letter, you'll see the plurality of the eldership. You have in your outline there a statement from the opening paragraph of paragraph one. where he's saying that giving all fitting honor to the presbyters, to the elders, multiple among you. Paragraph 44, for our sin will not be small. I already read that. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure. In paragraph 54, he says, only let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace with the presbyters set over it. You therefore, paragraph 57, who laid the foundation of this edition, submit yourselves to your presbyters, to your elders. This is a direct citation or allusion to Hebrews 13, 17. Obey your leaders, those who are over you in the Lord, as also in 1 Thessalonians 5. And you see, in every case, it doesn't say listen to the bishop, listen to the presbyter, but to the plurality of those elders that Jesus has established. As you can expect, then, there is often appeals to humility, as I've already mentioned. This is very clear as to why this would be needed, but I'll read for you, as you see there, paragraph 57. This is near the end of the letter where he says, ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this edition, submit yourselves to the presbyters and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue, for it is better that you should occupy a humble, honorable place in the flock of Christ, then that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of his people. I apologize for the 141, that is a footnote from the document I was reading. And then finally what you see is this communion between the churches. The sheer existence of this letter from one church to another, at the very least, suggests a bond of communion with one another, not a situation in which every church is autonomous. Now that's not why the letter was written, of course. It wasn't written to prove or to argue against church autonomy, but we're looking at the organic structure of the soil out of which this letter arose. And I'll read for you in closing and then we can have time for questions or whatever. Here's how the letter ends, which is interesting. So the church at Rome says to the church at Corinth, and this again is an argument against Roman supremacy in this church, send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these are messengers to you, Claudius, Ephebus, and Valerius Beto with Fortunatus. that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for among you." Now, before I finish that, I want you to note something. Again, he's not calling for an absolute and blind submission because of his own inherent authority as the writer of the church in Rome or as the Bishop of Rome. He's appealing to them on the basis of his love for Christ, the humility expressed in Christ, the humility that he illustrates from all throughout the Bible. And he's pleading with them to come of one mind. And he says, look, send our messengers back to us. We want to hear a good report from you. And that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order reestablished among you, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all everywhere that are called of God through him, by whom be to him glory, honor, power, majesty, and eternal dominion from everlasting to everlasting. Amen. And so that is a little summary analysis of the letter to the first Corinthians told to us that it is written by Clement. I hope that's kind of helpful. I think it's encouraging to see some of these doctrines that we believe being written about and applied to churches from nearly 2,000 years ago. Very remarkable. But any questions or comments as we have come to the end of my material and about the end of our time? Okay, a happy, satisfied congregation at the very least. Well, let's pray and then we'll worship together. Our Lord, we are thankful for your church. We're thankful that though by schisms rent asunder and heresies distressed, yet saints their watch are keeping. And we do from time to time cry out how long, but we also know that you will bring that great victory in due time. Preserve unity among us, we pray. Help us to worship you in spirit and in truth, to know your goodness and kindness. Lord, we do pray that you would preserve the order that Christ has established in this church, in our congregation, in our presbytery, in our General Assembly, and in sister churches that may have different views, but that they would serve Christ with a pure heart. We do thank you for a time to study these things and we pray now that as we turn to worship, you would prepare our hearts to love you well and to worship you with zeal. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.