If the apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible, then please explain why Clement of Rome said that Judith is scripture in his letter to the Corinthians?

[NathanH83]

Clement of Rome was alive the same time the apostles were alive, and would have known Peter and Paul personally. Clement wrote a letter to the Corinthians (1 Clement) where he mentions Moses, Judith, and Esther, and calls them all scripture.

Judith is an apocryphal book.

If Peter and Paul didn’t consider Judith scripture, how did Clement not get the memo? For that matter, how did the Corinthians not get the memo?

 

[Josiah]

If every publisher in the world isn't mandated to include the Book of Mormon in any tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover, why did Brigham Young call it Scripture?

Clement of Rome (likely a good dude) is not The Church. He never claimed to be. NONE have ever claimed him to be. Nor is Brigham Young.



.

 

[Andrew]

Ok but you agree that the early church worship service included the reading of inerrant scripture correct? I mean, these men and women were martyred for Christ's sake, they weren't reading mormon material were they?
Paul praises the Corinthians, Clement preached to that same church and wrote letters before the 2nd temple was destroyed (he refers to the temple in present tense in one of his letters)

 

[Josiah]

Ok but you agree that the early church worship service included the reading of inerrant scripture correct?

Which early church worship service? There has NEVER been just one universal service, still isn't.


And just because something is/was included in the Lectionary has nothing to do with whether the book from which it was taken is considered to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. Anglicans, to share one example, OFTEN include readings in their lectionary that that denomination has officially and authoritatively declared are NOT, N.O.T., the the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans, but is yet included in the Anglican Lectionary; your pure assumption that if a book is in some lectionary (NONE of which have EVER been official and authoritative!) ergo it must be OFFICALLY and authoritatively declared by the whole Christian church on earth to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. That's a VERY wrong assumption. And of course, perhaps you'd visit some American Evangelical church some Sunday and see on Powerpoint sermon clips of some episode of MASH, perhaps some clip from Gone With the Wind, and maybe Simon and Garfunkel singling some folk song. Does that prove that ERGO the whole Christian church from 33 AD to today officially and authoritatively accepts everything Hollywood produces and every TV show and every song Simon and Garfunkel sang to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? I think you are making some incredible and totally unacceptable leaps.

Paul praises the Corinthians, Clement preached to that same church

Yup, he was one of the earliest popes of the RC Denomination. But he was NEVER The Church. And NOTHING he ever said or wrote or believed or did ever was seen by anyone to be The Official, Authoritative, Ecumenical dogma of The Church. Smart dude, helpful man, great faith - YOUBETSYA, but then hundreds of others are seen like that, too. I'd put Martin Luther high on that list.

Pope Francis preaches to that same church today. Do you accept everything he thinks, feels, says, believes and holds to be thus The Authoritative Voice of The Church, to which you submit as the Voice of God? Or do you see him perhaps as a nice guy, with much faith but not THE CHURCH? Not inerrant in everything? Not in all things the Voice of God to which ALL Christians (past, present and future) and ALL congregations and ALL denominations must submit as unto God?

Yes, a few denominations regard this Clement as ONE of the fallible fathers of Christianity... and the RCC regards him as an early pope. But you seem to be making amazing, incredible, unacceptable and ENORMOUS leaps from that.





.

 

[Andrew]

Which early church worship service? There has NEVER been just one universal service, still isn't.


And just because something is/was included in the Lectionary has nothing to do with whether the book from which it was taken is considered to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. Anglicans, to share one example, OFTEN include readings in their lectionary that that denomination has officially and authoritatively declared are NOT, N.O.T., the the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans, but is yet included in the Anglican Lectionary; your pure assumption that if a book is in some lectionary (NONE of which have EVER been official and authoritative!) ergo it must be OFFICALLY and authoritatively declared by the whole Christian church on earth to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. That's a VERY wrong assumption. And of course, perhaps you'd visit some American Evangelical church some Sunday and see on Powerpoint sermon clips of some episode of MASH, perhaps some clip from Gone With the Wind, and maybe Simon and Garfunkel singling some folk song. Does that prove that ERGO the whole Christian church from 33 AD to today officially and authoritatively accepts everything Hollywood produces and every TV show and every song Simon and Garfunkel sang to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? I think you are making some incredible and totally unacceptable leaps.






Yup, he was one of the earliest popes of the RC Denomination. But he was NEVER The Church. And NOTHING he ever said or wrote or believed or did ever was seen by anyone to be The Official, Authoritative, Ecumenical dogma of The Church. Smart dude, helpful man, great faith - YOUBETSYA, but then hundreds of others are seen like that, too. I'd put Martin Luther high on that list.

Pope Francis preaches to that same church today. Do you accept everything he thinks, feels, says, believes and holds to be thus The Authoritative Voice of The Church, to which you submit as the Voice of God? Or do you see him perhaps as a nice guy, with much faith but not THE CHURCH? Not inerrant in everything? Not in all things the Voice of God to which ALL Christians (past, present and future) and ALL congregations and ALL denominations must submit as unto God?

Yes, a few denominations regard this Clement as ONE of the fallible fathers of Christianity... and the RCC regards him as an early pope. But you seem to be making amazing, incredible, unacceptable and ENORMOUS leaps from that.





.

We have early church documents available for us dating back to the first century, we know exactly how early church services were like, much like today.. Prayer, reading of scripture and sermon with of course morning and evening communion, breaking of bread and wine/mixed with water (for morning communion)
Are you telling me that Clement of Rome (and many many others) preached on non inspired scriptures along with "actual" scripture at church services?

They read letters from the disciples of the Apostles in the churches, not sure what your beef with them is but they never quoted or used characters as examples in their sermons that weren't biblical, a little homework could help my dear friend
You aren't being completely honest if you claim that Clement used non biblical characters in his sermons

 

[Josiah]

We have early church documents available for us dating back to the first century, we know exactly how early church services were like, much like today.. Prayer, reading of scripture and sermon with of course morning and evening communion, breaking of bread and wine/mixed with water (for morning communion)

So, according to you, the typical Sunday worship service of the Egyptian Orthodox Church is the same as that of the United Pentecostal Church. I disagree. But let's pretend you are correct and every one of the 2 billion Christians now (and all those past) had identical Sunday worship services. Can you prove that every Sunday service of every Christian has always included readings from the books that 2 people (you and Nathan) think SHOULD be regarded as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and THEREFORE the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans;, that every service included readings from those books you two think should be? And they were not simply read but officially affirmed as not simply useful but canonical?

Are you telling me that Clement of Rome (and many many others) preached on non inspired scriptures along with "actual" scripture at church services?

I'm saying...

1. Clement was one man. He is not The Church.

2. If you noted that 20 men used the Book of Mormon in worship services, that would not be The Church (I suspect a LOT more than 20 have used video clips of TV shows in sermons!). Luther used quotes from several books he did not - NOT - did NOT regard as canonical but rather deuterocanonical. Luther many times used AS HIS TEXT readings that he did not - did not - did NOT - regard as canonical but as deuterocanonical, that he did not - did NOT - regard as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice - and neither did his audience. Your ASSUMPTION that if something is used by someone, ERGO the whole Christian church has authoritatively, officially, formally DECLARED such to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to that of say the Books of Moses or Epistle to the Romans, well, it's entirely baseless.

3. Christianity has NEVER accepted that the ECF were - individually or even collectively - authoritative or the church catholic. Sometimes The Church is equated with Jesus but NEVER with the ECF (individually or collectively). They had views - sometimes wrong ones - and they often were very helpful to the development of orthodox Christianity - but they were never and still are never accepted as The Church or as Authoritative or as inerrant. BTW, here is no universally accepted list of who is and who is not a "church father."

See post #4



You are using apologetics that are entirely unfounded and unreasonable. With some ENORMOUS leaps.... from positions that simply aren't true.





.

 

[atpollard]

Clement of Rome was alive the same time the apostles were alive, and would have known Peter and Paul personally. Clement wrote a letter to the Corinthians (1 Clement) where he mentions Moses, Judith, and Esther, and calls them all scripture.

Judith is an apocryphal book.

If Peter and Paul didn’t consider Judith scripture, how did Clement not get the memo? For that matter, how did the Corinthians not get the memo?

Then I guess Clement’s letter to the Corinthians is not ”God breathed” and infallible scripture.

 

[atpollard]

Paul praises the Corinthians

• [1Co 1:11-12 NASB] 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's [people,] that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
• [1Co 3:1-3 NASB] 1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able [to receive it.] Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?
• [1Co 4:6-8, 14, 18-21 NASB] 6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 7 For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? 8 You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and indeed, wish that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. ... 14 I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. ... 18 Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power. 20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power. 21 What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of gentleness?
  [*][1Co 5:1-2, 6, 9-13 NASB] 1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. ... 6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump [of dough?] ... 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I [did] not at all [mean] with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within [the church?] 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
  [*][1Co 6:1, 5-8, 15 NASB] 1 Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? ... 5 I say [this] to your shame. [Is it] so, [that] there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. [You do] this even to [your] brethren. ... 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!
  [*][1Co 7:5 NASB] 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
  [*][1Co 8:9-12 NASB] 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
  [*][1Co 11:17-22 NASB] 17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. 20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.
  

Are we thinking of the same Paul and the same Corinthians?

 

[NathanH83]

Then I guess Clement’s letter to the Corinthians is not ”God breathed” and infallible scripture.

That doesn’t answer my question. How did Clement not get the memo?

 

[Josiah]

How did Clement not get the memo?

1. There were no memos then.

2. There was no postal service then.

3. In the 2000 or so years of Chrsitianity, there have been AT MOST seven deciding meetings that were largely ecumenical (well, 3 for sure), decisions that one could at least claim were largely authoritative and decisive and actions of THE CHURCH, the whole church catholic. But NONE of those determined ANYTHING about the Bible or Scriptures or the canon or what is or is not authoritative or what a publisher may or may not include in a tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover (maybe because there was no such thing as books or publishers then). Singular, individual persons no doubt had their OPINIONS about such, but no one individual mortal human is THE CHURCH and no one individual mortal human has EVER been seen by the whole church catholic as infallible or authoritative. It may be that Brigham Young considered the Book of Mormon to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon for faith and life... and maybe millions agree with him... but that does NOT mean that ERGO this is an authoritative, official, binding decision of THE CHURCH (the whole church catholic) and thus there should be a law that all publishers must include it in all books with "BIBLE" on the cover or that all Christian congregations must read from it each Sunday in their lectionary.

See post # 4.



.

 

[Andrew]

I apologize I meant the church in Rome
@atpollard

 

[NathanH83]

1. There were no memos then.

2. There was no postal service then.

3. In the 2000 or so years of Chrsitianity, there have been AT MOST seven deciding meetings that were largely ecumenical (well, 3 for sure), decisions that one could at least claim were largely authoritative and decisive and actions of THE CHURCH, the whole church catholic. But NONE of those determined ANYTHING about the Bible or Scriptures or the canon or what is or is not authoritative or what a publisher may or may not include in a tome with "BIBLE" written on the cover (maybe because there was no such thing as books or publishers then). Singular, individual persons no doubt had their OPINIONS about such, but no one individual mortal human is THE CHURCH and no one individual mortal human has EVER been seen by the whole church catholic as infallible or authoritative. It may be that Brigham Young considered the Book of Mormon to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon for faith and life... and maybe millions agree with him... but that does NOT mean that ERGO this is an authoritative, official, binding decision of THE CHURCH (the whole church catholic) and thus there should be a law that all publishers must include it in all books with "BIBLE" on the cover or that all Christian congregations must read from it each Sunday in their lectionary.

See post # 4.



.

You still have not explained how Clement became convinced that Judith is scripture. If Peter and Paul didn’t accept it, why did Clement?

 

[atpollard]

That doesn’t answer my question. How did Clement not get the memo?

Who knows? You didn’t even bother to actually quote what Clement said, let alone present the context or reference the exact source so one can read it for themselves.

One possibility is that unlike the writings of Paul, Clement was just plain wrong in his beliefs. Valentinus was a candidate for Bishop of Rome (Pope) and held heretical gnostic beliefs, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Clement was in error on which books were scripture.

 

[Andrew]

Who knows? You didn’t even bother to actually quote what Clement said, let alone present the context or reference the exact source so one can read it for themselves.

One possibility is that unlike the writings of Paul, Clement was just plain wrong in his beliefs. Valentinus was a candidate for Bishop of Rome (Pope) and held heretical gnostic beliefs, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Clement was in error on which books were scripture.

Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/The Epistles of Clement/The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians/Chapter 55 - Wikisource, the free online library

en.m.wikisource.org

Chapter 55. Examples of Such Love.
To bring forward some examples from among the heathen: Many kings and princes, in times of pestilence, when they had been instructed by an oracle, have given themselves up to death, in order that by their own blood they might deliver their fellow citizens [from destruction]. Many have gone forth from their own cities, that so sedition might be brought to an end within them. We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to bonds, in order that they might ransom others. Many, too, have surrendered themselves to slavery, that with the price which they received for themselves, they might provide food for others. Many womenalso, being strengthened by the grace of God, have performed numerous manly exploits. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bare to her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman. Judith 8:30Esther also, being perfect in faith, exposed herself to no less danger, in order to deliver the twelve tribes of Israel from impending destruction. For with fastingand humiliation she entreated the everlasting God, who sees all things; and He, perceiving the humility of her spirit, delivered the people for whose sake

 

[Josiah]

You still have not explained how Clement became convinced that Judith is scripture. If Peter and Paul didn’t accept it, why did Clement?

See post # 10.

No one knows why Brigham Young (and millions of others) had the personal opinion that the Book of Mormon is the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every way to the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. But that IS a reality. Nor does anyone know why Clement had the personal opinions he might have had or Young his. But your question about memos was answered.



.

 

[Bluezone777]

You still have not explained how Clement became convinced that Judith is scripture. If Peter and Paul didn’t accept it, why did Clement?

You assume that reasoning for why he was convinced it was scripture was both written down by him and readily accessible to us today. If you are going to make those two assumptions then you might as well share what you have because refusing to do so really damages your case and leads people to suspect you are pushing a belief without any evidence of the sort and expect people to believe it when the burden is on the one making the positive claim to prove it.

The plausibility that Clement was in error is very much real until something is shown to prove that it is not. So far, I have seen nothing from you yet to suggest that Clement being in error is not plausible.

If no such writing exists in which Clement explains himself on the matter of why he thought Judith was scripture that we can verify to have been written by him then the question of why he thought the way he did is a question that can't be offered an answer to that isn't pure speculation and opinion.

TL;DR edition: It is Nathan who has made affirmative claims on the subject being discussed here and it is up to him and anyone else making such claims to provide evidence of and to prove their validity not those who dispute them. This is basic debate rules 101.

 

[atpollard]

Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/The Epistles of Clement/The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians/Chapter 55 - Wikisource, the free online library

en.m.wikisource.org

Chapter 55. Examples of Such Love.
To bring forward some examples from among the heathen: Many kings and princes, in times of pestilence, when they had been instructed by an oracle, have given themselves up to death, in order that by their own blood they might deliver their fellow citizens [from destruction]. Many have gone forth from their own cities, that so sedition might be brought to an end within them. We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to bonds, in order that they might ransom others. Many, too, have surrendered themselves to slavery, that with the price which they received for themselves, they might provide food for others. Many womenalso, being strengthened by the grace of God, have performed numerous manly exploits. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bare to her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman. Judith 8:30Esther also, being perfect in faith, exposed herself to no less danger, in order to deliver the twelve tribes of Israel from impending destruction. For with fastingand humiliation she entreated the everlasting God, who sees all things; and He, perceiving the humility of her spirit, delivered the people for whose sake

First, thank you for providing a source.

Now then, here is your original statement from the OP:

Clement of Rome was alive the same time the apostles were alive, and would have known Peter and Paul personally. Clement wrote a letter to the Corinthians (1 Clement) where he mentions Moses, Judith, and Esther, and calls them all scripture.

Let’s just take it as a given for the moment that Clement actually did know Peter and Paul (proving or disproving that is FAR too much effort).

Nothing in the above quote indicates that it was written to the Corinthians, but that is also a point not worth arguing over. So for this discussion, I am willing to assume that it was written to the Church in Corinth.

I acknowledge that the letter does reference both the person of Esther and Judith and appears at first glance to reference an event in the book of Judith (I have no desire to conduct a scholarly examination of the letter of Clement and the book of Judith to determine whether or not he is directly referencing the Book of Judith).

Where I will draw a line in the sand is the observation that Clement NEVER refers to anything as SCRIPTURE in the quoted reference. So Clement most certainly has not claimed that Judith is scripture that belongs in the Bible. Clement merely offered the actions of Judith as an example of love.

 

[NathanH83]

First, thank you for providing a source.

Now then, here is your original statement from the OP:

Let’s just take it as a given for the moment that Clement actually did know Peter and Paul (proving or disproving that is FAR too much effort).

Nothing in the above quote indicates that it was written to the Corinthians, but that is also a point not worth arguing over. So for this discussion, I am willing to assume that it was written to the Church in Corinth.

I acknowledge that the letter does reference both the person of Esther and Judith and appears at first glance to reference an event in the book of Judith (I have no desire to conduct a scholarly examination of the letter of Clement and the book of Judith to determine whether or not he is directly referencing the Book of Judith).

Where I will draw a line in the sand is the observation that Clement NEVER refers to anything as SCRIPTURE in the quoted reference. So Clement most certainly has not claimed that Judith is scripture that belongs in the Bible. Clement merely offered the actions of Judith as an example of love.

You need to read the whole letter of 1 Clement. Yes, he does refer to Judith as scripture. He starts out saying that he’s going to give some examples from scripture. Then he talks about Moses, then Judith and Esther, and then repeats the fact that he has given examples from scripture.

But, you haven’t read the whole book of 1 Clement, so you wouldn’t know that.

 

[atpollard]

But, you haven’t read the whole book of 1 Clement, so you wouldn’t know that.

Are you now claiming that Clement is an Apostle and the Book of 1 Clement is also God Breathed Holy scripture?

I thought that 1 Clement was a letter written to reprimand the Church at Corinth for rejecting the authority of leaders that they disagreed with and following new leaders that they did agree with (I am ignorant of the exact details of the disagreement, but remember Clement was writing to support the authority of the leaders over the body of believers, which is an important distinction for Baptist vs ‘denominational’ churches.)

 

[atpollard]

You need to read the whole letter of 1 Clement.

If I need to “read the whole letter of 1 Clement”, then your quote does not make your case and prove your statement, does it? That is my point. You have not proven what you claim is even so. It is not my responsibility to prove your points by researching the question. I am content to accept that IF Clement said what you claim he said, then Clement was wrong. Many great men of God have said and done things that were wrong. It is Scriprure that is God Breathed and infallible, not men.
“All Jews are pigs” - Marin Luther ... was he correct? Does that make him wrong when he also wrote “You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say.”?