First Clement: A Church Father’s Love of Scripture and Grace
If one were to believe certain corners of the internet, the Apostolic Fathers exist primarily as Catholic bait. The claim is simple: read them honestly, and you will inevitably discover that Protestantism is a tragic misunderstanding foisted upon the Church sometime between Constantine and Luther. The Fathers, we are told, clearly believed in a sacerdotal priesthood, sacramental regeneration, apostolic succession as Rome now defines it, and a visible, centralized authority capable of speaking infallibly. Read Clement, they say, and you will see the papacy waiting in embryo.
This is a confident claim, which is always a warning sign. When one actually reads the First Epistle of Clement, something quite different emerges. What we find is not a Roman bishop asserting universal jurisdiction, but a pastoral letter addressing a local church crisis. What we find is not a proto-Tridentine theology, but a theological framework of morality and salvation that would sound remarkably at home in a Reformed pulpit. We find, in short, a first-century Christian who assumes the authority of Scripture, the necessity of good order in the Church, and the absolute priority of divine grace in justification.
Sponsored
That this causes discomfort for modern Roman apologists is understandable. The early Fathers are useful only to the extent that they can be selectively quoted. St. Clement, unfortunately, refuses to cooperate.
The Occasion of the Letter
The immediate context of First Clement is ecclesial disorder in Corinth. Once again, the Church at Corinth has made itself a problem. Certain younger men have apparently deposed duly appointed presbyters, not because of doctrinal error or moral scandal, but out of envy and ambition. Clement’s concern is not abstract ecclesiology but concrete schism. Disorder in the Church, he insists, is no small matter. It is an offense against God’s appointed order and a manifestation of pride.
It is worth noting what Clement does not do. He does not threaten excommunication from Rome or claim a unique Petrine authority. He also does not assert that Rome possesses jurisdiction over Corinth by divine right. Instead, he reasons, exhorts, warns, pleads, and grounds his argument in Scripture. The letter assumes moral authority, not juridical supremacy. Clement writes as a brother, not as a monarch.
This alone should give pause to those who read later medieval categories back into the first century.
Scripture as the Shared Authority
One of the most striking features of First Clement is its saturation with Scripture. The Old Testament is quoted extensively and treated as fully authoritative. Clement assumes the unity of God’s dealings across redemptive history and reads Israel’s story as morally and spiritually instructive for the Church. Pride brought down Korah. Envy destroyed Cain. Disobedience led to exile. These are not antiquarian references; they are warnings.
Clement also draws freely from the New Testament, particularly from Paul. The echoes of his epistles to the Romans and Corinthians are unmistakable. This is not accidental. Clement sees himself as standing in continuity with apostolic teaching, not supplementing it with an independent stream of tradition.
This alone disrupts the tidy Roman Catholic narrative in which Scripture and Tradition exist as two parallel authorities, later harmonized by an infallible magisterium. Clement does not appeal to an extra-biblical deposit. He appeals to what has already been written.
Justification by Grace, Not by Ourselves
At this point, Clement becomes actively inconvenient. Consider the following passage:
And we, too, being called by his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
It is difficult to imagine a clearer repudiation of works-based justification. Clement explicitly denies justification by wisdom, understanding, godliness, or works done in holiness of heart. If one were attempting to construct a first-century argument against Pelagianism, or a sixteenth-century argument against Rome, one could hardly do better.
Note what Clement affirms. Justification is by faith. It is grounded in God’s will, is consistent across redemptive history, and is entirely to God’s glory. None of this requires creative interpretation. The text says what it says.
Roman Catholic apologists often attempt to blunt this passage by appealing to Clement’s later exhortations to good works. But this is a category error. Clement, like Paul, distinguishes justification from sanctification without separating them. Faith justifies. Works follow. This is not a contradiction; it is basic Christian theology.
Good Works as the Fruit, Not the Root
Clement’s exhortations to holiness are frequent and emphatic. He is deeply concerned with obedience, humility, charity, and perseverance. This, too, is often cited as evidence that the Fathers were not “Protestant” in any meaningful sense.
But again, the objection misunderstands Protestantism. After declaring justification by faith apart from works, Clement immediately asks:
What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all himself rejoices in his works.
If this sounds familiar, it should. It is Romans 6 in different clothing. Clement rejects antinomianism with the same force that he rejects legalism. Good works are necessary, not as the basis of justification, but as the proper response to grace. God delights in the obedience of his people, not because it earns his favor, but because it reflects his character.
This is precisely the Reformed understanding of sanctification. Faith alone justifies, but the faith that justifies is never alone. Clement would have found the slogan unremarkable.
Order, Office, and Authority
Clement does affirm structured church leadership. He speaks of bishops and deacons, of presbyters duly appointed, of orderly succession. This is often seized upon as evidence for later hierarchical developments.
Clement’s concern is order and not ontology. He does not argue that ordained office confers an indelible sacramental character. He does not suggest that grace flows ex opere operato through the hands of the clergy. Trying to argue he presents the doctrine in embryo is abusing history, full stop. He argues that God is a God of order, not chaos, and that the Church must reflect this reality.
The rebellion in Corinth is condemned not because it violates Roman jurisdiction, but because it violates Christian humility. The younger men are guilty of pride. The deposed presbyters are commended for their faithful service. The issue is moral and pastoral before it is institutional.
Once again, Clement sounds far more like a Reformed ecclesiologist than a medieval canon lawyer.
Clement and the Roman Narrative
Why, then, is First Clement so often deployed as a weapon against Protestantism?
Because most people have not read it. Selective quotation can make any ancient text say almost anything, but sustained reading resists manipulation. Clement does not present a proto-papacy, a sacramental economy of merit, or a theology of justification alien to the Reformation. He presents a church rooted in Scripture, saved by grace, called to obedience, and plagued by the same sins that afflict every generation.
In other words, he presents something recognizably Christian. In fact, if we accept Rome’s idea that Clement was a pope, then Rome had a Protestant pope. This does not mean Clement was a sixteenth-century Reformed theologian. He was not. He lived before many later controversies arose. But it does mean that the claim that Protestant theology represents a radical rupture from early Christianity is historically indefensible.
Why Protestants Must Read the Fathers
Modern Protestants often avoid the Fathers out of fear. That fear is unnecessary and unhealthy. The Fathers are not Roman Catholics waiting to be discovered. They are early Christians wrestling with Scripture, doctrine, and pastoral realities in a world not unlike our own.
Reading Clement does not weaken Protestant convictions. It strengthens them. It reminds us that justification by faith is not a novel innovation and that good works have always been understood as the fruit of grace. Finally, it reminds us that church order matters, but not at the expense of the gospel.
Most importantly, it reminds us that the Church did not suddenly become intelligent in 1517.
Conclusion: Clement as a Protestant Ally
First Clement is not a threat to Protestant theology. It is an ally. When read carefully, it confirms rather than contradicts the Reformation’s central claims. It exposes the shallowness of internet apologetics and the danger of historical illiteracy.
The irony is hard to miss. Those who urge Protestants to read the Fathers often assume the Fathers will finish the job that Rome could not. In Clement’s case, the opposite occurs. The more carefully he is read, the more clearly he speaks against the caricatures imposed upon him.
The lesson is simple. Read the Fathers. Read them fully and without fear. They belong to the whole Church, not to one communion. And when we do, we may find that the early Church sounds far less Roman than we were warned, and far more Protestant than we were promised.
Image: 5th-Century fresco of St. Clement of Rome from Santa Maria Antiqua. Photographed by Wikivorker, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. Digitally edited by Jacob Davis.
Should You Preach a Father’s Day Sermon on Father’s Day?
We all know that Mother’s Day has a special place in American culture. I wrote about whether a pastor should preach a “Mother’s Day message,” and it was a popular post. I will address the same subject about Father’s Day…but I do not expect to generate a similar amount of interest! But it is as…
Learning to Love the Whole Church: Why I Decided to Join the Anglican Church in North America
If someone had told me ten years ago that today I would be an Anglican priest, I would not have responded with joy or even disappointment; I simply would have been confused. Raised in a squarely evangelical culture, I grew up without conscious knowledge of liturgical denominations—and probably a degree of suspicion toward them. I…
