Learning About Eternal Security with Clement of Rome

From her earliest days, the issue of apostate Christians has demanded the attention of the Church. Whether it be due to the gruesome tortures threatened under Emperor Domitian’s reign or the lure of modern comfort in 21st-century America, it has always been around. Within Protestant Christianity, there is no shortage of debate regarding what to make of these Christians. Have they lost their salvation? Are they still saved even though they remain unrepentant? Or does their apostasy prove that they were never true converts to begin with? All important questions, the answers to which, for many, constitute a core piece of the salvation message.

Conversations on these questions are usually characterized by proof-texting tennis matches, as each side ushers forth as many verses supporting their position as their memory permits. As someone who has been on both sides, each can bring forth probable passages for their cause. Vincent of Lerins, in the fifth century, saw the same problem, “Here, possibly, someone may ask, do heretics also appeal to scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance… hardly ever do they bring forth anything of their own which they do not endeavor to shelter under words of Scripture.”^[1] While Scripture should of course be the bedrock of theology, this article seeks to take a different approach. What if, instead of giving our best effort to put ourselves in the apostle’s shoes, we could receive clarification from one who, quite literally, was? What is meant is this, as Oxford scholar Markus Bockmuehl writes, “the implied interpreter of the Christian Scripture is a disciple, just as that disciple's implied reading of the text is the witness to the Christ… the object of biblical interpretation, in other words, is the interpreter as much as it is the text… the New Testament… presumes to engage an exegete whose very interpretation serves, is judged by, and is converted to the evangelical truth that inheres in the Scripture’s witness.”^[2] Therefore, he concludes, “we must take a particular interest both in eyewitnesses and in those who personally knew them.”^[3] In other words, because the study of Scripture is more than just studying the text, but involves unearthing the implied intention within their respective context, the voices who constituted their implied readership must be taken seriously. Those who lived within the linguistic and cultural context of the New Testament, and were informed by the immediate memory of the apostle’s teaching, are in a prized position to relay their implied intention. So, when it comes to the doctrine of eternal security, perhaps a fresh approach is needed: What was the opinion of the Christians who received instruction directly from the apostles? As for the scope of this article, what was the opinion of Clement of Rome?

We have one surviving authentic letter from Clement which was written to the Corinthians in an attempt to resolve internal conflict. It is almost comical that the same church Paul struggled to keep in check needed further correction before the turn of the century. Just how soon is a matter of debate. The established position places the composition of Clement’s letter around 97 A.D.^[4] However, many modern assessments place it shortly after the death of Peter and Paul and before the fall of the temple (70 A.D.).^[5] Either way, the letter is a precious glimpse into the theology of a church that is shortly removed from a living apostle. Eusebius, in the fourth century, witnessing to the great influence of 1 Clement, wrote that it “has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own.”^[6] He also quotes Dionysius of Corinth (a second-century bishop of Corinth), stating that “it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church.”^[7] It was even cited as Scripture by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Didymus the Blind, and Jerome, while also being included in the codex Alexandrinus (fifth century) and the Syrian Apostolic Canons (fourth century).^[8] 

The letter itself is anonymous,^[9] however, the early church unanimously attributed it to Clement, the bishop of Rome. Irenaeus of Lyon, in the second century, writes the following, “This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…”^[10] Even if Clement of Rome was not the author of 1 Clement, the document presupposes that some disciples of the apostles are still alive.^[11] Therefore, whether we know that author by name or not, the same end is achieved; the letter of 1 Clement was composed contemporaneously with apostolic disciples, and possibly, the apostles themselves. Furthermore, the patristic scholar Charles Nielsen writes of the rhetoric in 1 Clement, “no one who has read the Apostolic Fathers would care to claim that Clement of Rome was a great original thinker. Rather, Clement’s major aim in life seemed to consist in being true to what he had received.”^[12]

A brief look into the conflict our author sought to resolve will set the stage for examining his contributions to the eternal security debate. In chapter 47, Clement writes that a few younger members of the church have risen up against the established leadership. In response, Clement writes that the apostles appointed successors to their ministry, therefore, “our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.”^[13]  Clement gives little attention to church structure but provides a great deal of practical advice related to salvation. The letter is not a systematic theology on salvation, its purpose was “to work repentance” in erring Christians as Nielsen notes.^[14] Therefore, it should provide valuable insight into what the apostles taught occurs when Christians fall away and require repentance.

A quick aside before we examine the contents of the letter. There are multiple views under the umbrella of “eternal security.” For simplicity's sake, this article will divide this larger category into two major schools of thought so as to appreciate the nuanced views within this doctrine. The “once saved always saved” view (OSAS) will be that summarized by Robert Wilkin, “There is no time requirement on saving faith. Even if a person believes only for a while, he still has eternal life.”^[15] Meaning that those who fall away, even if they remain unrepentant, will still receive eternal life when they die. The “perseverance of the saints” view (POTS) is summarized well by R.C. Sproul, “if they have it, they will never lose it; if they lose it, they never had it.”^[16] This means that Christians who become unrepentant sinners or apostates never truly received salvation. This article will first examine Clement’s thought as it pertains most closely to the OSAS position, which will then provide a foundation for assessing the POTS view.

Once Saved Always Saved

What we hope to uncover in this section is whether Clement understood continued obedience to be something indispensable for salvation, or as a matter only pertaining to rewards. Nearing the end of the letter, Clement gives his most explicit statements regarding the necessity of obedience and perseverance. In chapter 58 he writes, “Let us, therefore, flee from the warning threats pronounced by Wisdom on the disobedient, and yield submission to His all-holy and glorious name.”^[17]  What are these threats? The fate of the ungodly: “For it shall come to pass, that when you call upon me, I will not hear you; the wicked shall seek me, and they shall not find me. For they hated wisdom, and did not choose the fear of the Lord; nor would they listen to my counsels, but despised my reproofs. Wherefore they shall eat the fruits of their own way, and they shall be filled with their own ungodliness.”^[18] Clement applies this warning to his audience (“Let us..”), which suggests that he knew of no distinction between “in God’s friendship and grace,” and being obedient to his will.

Clement’s elaboration on the necessity of love may be the most enlightening. He exhorts, “keep the commandments of Christ,” for “love unites us to God,”^[19] and it is only in love that one may be found “blameless” before God.^[20] Therefore, those who live “innocent and righteous… are the elect of God.”^[21]   Therefore, without the obedience that is commensurate with love, one cannot be blameless before God. For “the gate of righteousness” (later identified as Christ), or “the attainment of life,” is possessed by those who direct their “way in holiness and righteousness, doing all things without disorder.” Living “pure in all his deeds” and “faithful.”^[22]  Likewise, the fear of God is a necessary virtue to remain under the mercy of God,^[23] and “the fear of him… saves all who live in it with holiness and a pure mind.”^[24] Notice that living according to the commandments is associated not with one’s degree of heavenly rewards, but with remaining blameless, elect, and in God’s mercy.

Therefore, “the Lord” will “render to every man according to his work,”^[25] and the enemies of God will become his footstool. “But who are His enemies? All the wicked, and those who set themselves to oppose the will of God.”^[26]  Perhaps the most explicit passage comes one chapter earlier, “Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vain glory and ambition. For they that do such things are hateful to God.”^[27] 

It would seem most clear that obedience is not an optional addition to the Christian life. It is a necessary component to be found among the elect. Therefore, the OSAS view seems to be untenable with Clement’s soteriology. The late congregationalist church historian Arthur McGiffert rightly concludes, “salvation is to be had only by obeying God and doing his will.”^[28] Although hyper-critical of Clement’s soteriology, Rudolf Knopf rightly concludes that once someone receives forgiveness, “that person must exhibit his or her own good deeds, apart from which the person cannot be saved”^[29] (how this high view of ethical behavior relates to justification by faith, see Matthew J. Thomas’s article cited in footnote 6).

However, the final passage quoted above seems to indicate more. If a Christian could have infallible certitude that he will persevere until the end, what need is there for earnest striving? Likewise, why are the Corinthians commended for praying that the full “number of God's elect might be saved?”^[30]  These seem to indicate that final salvation is not inevitable for those who have received initial justification, and the full number of the elect may not be saved. But is there additional evidence that can shed light on the POTS view?

Perseverance of the Saints

To begin, it should be noted how Clement views those to whom he is writing. He begins his letter by addressing his audience as those “called and sanctified by the will of God.”^[31] They had “fled for refuge to His compassions through Jesus Christ our Lord” and found mercy.^[32]  He continues, boasting of their past repute, “whoever dwelt, even for a short time among you, and did not find your faith to be as fruitful of virtue as it was firmly established?”^[33] They had given themselves over to piety and a righteous fear of God which resulted in “a full outpouring of the Holy Spirit” upon them.^[34] Whether an accurate representation of his audience or not, these are the kind of people Clement assumes to be addressing. In doing so, he consistently employs inclusive language such as “we” throughout his letter and the following passages. So, it should be kept in mind that these descriptions characterize the “we” in his letter.

He warns the Corinthians that, “we shall incur no slight injury, but rather great danger, if we rashly yield ourselves to the inclinations of men who aim at exciting strife and tumults, so as to draw us away from what is good.”^[35] It seems, at least prima facie, that someone can abandon (one cannot be drawn from that which they were not on, or possess) the way of eternal life due to sinful inclinations. More, however, can be elucidated from his use of “danger.” In chapter 47, Clement chastises the Corinthians for causing outsiders to blaspheme God, “while danger is also brought upon yourselves.” While examining the punishment for transgression in the Old Testament (physical death) Clements states that those in the new covenant are not dismissed from responsibility, on the contrary, “the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.”^[36]  So, what is this danger that the Corinthians have brought upon themselves? While chapter 55 does use “danger” as referring to mere physical peril experienced by the righteous, the above passages are “danger” of a different nature, as patristic theologian John Lawson notes, they are warnings about “spiritual danger.”^[37] In chapters 58-59 Clement links “danger” with disobedience, transgression, and sin against the commands of the Spirit.^[38] As seen above, chapter 14 makes “danger” the result of those who yield themselves to sin. Chapter 41 (which warns that the danger of the new covenant is greater than the old) implies a punishment greater than physical death, and Chapter 47 uses “danger” as the result of envy, strife, and schism. Furthermore, Clement immediately after this remark, implores them to “fall down before the Lord… that He would mercifully be reconciled to us” and return to the love which constitutes “the gate of righteousness.”^[39] Meaning that the danger brought upon them has created a need for reconciliation with God and a realignment on the path of righteousness. Therefore, ancient Christian theologian Robert Grant comments on chapter 47 that the danger brought upon them is “the danger of damnation.”^[40] 

Therefore, he exhorts, “Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight.”^[41] The same word, “condemnation” is used for God’s judgment coming upon those who set themselves up against Moses in chapter 51. Furthermore, as the antithesis of walking worthily of him, the condemnation must be the fate of those who disobey God and live sinfully. Which, as shown above, is the eternal condemnation of the wicked. Therefore, Hubert Motry, in his study of sin in the early church, writes of 1 Clement, “the nature of grievous sin was such as to deprive the guilty person of God’s friendship.” Throughout Clement's warnings to those whom he assumed to be true Christians, this fact “is quite evident.”^[42] Oxford Professor David Downs also notes that, within the context of those who have been sanctified and called, “human behavior can incur God’s blessing or wrath.”^[43]

Note how Clement consistently uses “we” for these warnings. For these are not mere hypotheticals; “These things, beloved, we write unto you, not merely to admonish you of your duty, but also to remind ourselves. For we are struggling on the same arena, and the same conflict is assigned to both of us.”^[44]  Furthermore, as shown in chapter 47, the Corinthians are a real-life example of such. Those who had once taken refuge in Christ (Ch. 7), who were called and sanctified (Sal.), and received a rich outpouring of the Spirit (Ch. 2.2), have now brought danger upon themselves (Ch. 47), and need reconciliation (Ch. 48). Those once a part of God’s elect can fall into sin, and incur its consequences. Whether those in Corinth who dissented were true converts or not, Clement certainly believed that the recipients of God’s kindness (Ch. 21) could incur sin’s condemnation.

In summary, what light can Clement on Rome shed upon the modern conundrum of eternal security? From the vaults of first century Rome we find two principles that can help resolve the theological stalemate that surrounds the doctrine of eternal security. The first is that obedience, which is a corollary of saving faith, is a necessary condition for final salvation. The second is that the possibility of receiving salvation, but failing to continue in faith working by love (Gal. 5:6) and therefore not receive final salvation, seems to be a painful reality (his audience being a real life example of this). Finally, these principles are not defended as much as merely presented as a part of the apostolic faith deposit and, therefore, self evident.

Footnotes