Should a Christian Sing “I’m Proud to Be an American (God Bless the U.S.A.)”?

A few weeks ago asked me what I thought about the Lee Greenwood song, “Proud to be an American.”  Particularly in reference to a church choir singing it.  There were the thoughts I shared.

Proud To Be An American
The sentiment of the title violates Jer. 9:23-24; 1 Cor. 1:31; 2 Cor. 10:17; Gal 6:14 which teach that the believer boasts only in the Lord and the cross of Christ. These Scriptures apply every time the chorus is sung, and the line later, “There’s pride in every American heart.”

If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.

This verse demonstrates that the author was not living a biblically obedient, Spirit filled life.  Obedient believers are to seek first God’s kingdom (Matt. 6:33); are not to labor for the food that perishes (John 6:27); or build their lives on wood, hay, and stubble (1 Cor. 3:9-17).  An obedient Christian could not sing this lyric honestly because if he was living obediently nothing that he had worked for his whole life could ever be taken away!  I would think that a person who wanted to be obedient would not desire to sing this since it implies a life that is lived according to the world’s value system.

I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘ Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.

Well I think there is enough in Scripture about sorcery, astrology, “fate” etc. to render “lucky stars” completely un-singable.  The veracity of the next-to-last line is certainly open for debate–especially internationally.  Since Americans are increasingly losing their “freedoms,”  the last line is simply untrue on the face of it.

And I’m proud to be an American, (see comments on title)
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.

What I am about to say is certainly a sentiment that would make many angry and would be rejected by most, but only one Man ever died for my freedom:  Luke 4:18, 19; John 8:36; Rom. 8:2; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; Gal. 5:1.  I have the only freedom that matters, and it was purchased for me by the eternal Son of God.  Does your freedom come from men or God?  I mean this verse is not even Constitutional: at least they recognized that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain rights!  (Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.  That line is in the Declaration of Independence not Constitution, but you get the point.)

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA. (see comment on the end of song)

From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.

From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there’s pride in every American heart, (see comment on title)
and its time we stand and say.

That I’m proud to be an American, (see comment on title)
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.  (see comment on 1st refrain)

And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

One has to wonder if “God bless the U.S.A.” is a line that is violating the 3rd commandment.  If God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble (Prov. 3:34; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5), how can he bless a person singing about being proud?  Considering the song as a whole, is this  the kind of attitude God blesses? I think it might be a little vain to invoke the name of God when the virtues that are extolled in the song include pride, materialism, fate, and militarism.

Bavinck on Perseverance of the Saints

Whatever apostasy occurs in Christianity, it may never prompt us to question the unchanging faithfulness of God, the certainty of his counsel, the enduring character of his covenant, or the trustworthiness of his promises.  One should sooner abandon all creatures than fail to trust his word.  And that word in its totality is one immensely rich promise to the heirs of the kingdom.  It is not just a handful of texts that teach the perseverance of the saints: the entire gospel sustains and confirms it.  The Father has chosen them before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), ordained them to eternal life (Acts 13:48), to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29).  This election stands (Rom. 9:11; Heb. 6:17) and in due time carries with it the calling and justification and glorification (Rom. 8:30).  Christ, in whom all the promises of God are Yes and Amen (2 Cor. 1:20), died for those who were given him by the Father (John 17:6, 12) in order that he might give them eternal life and not lose a single one of them (John 6:40; 17:2); he therefore gives them eternal life and they will never be lost in all eternity; no one will snatch them out of his hand (6:39; 10:28).  The Holy Spirit who regenerates them remains eternally with them (14:16) and seals them for the day of redemption (Eph. 1:13; 4:30)… The benefits of Christ, which the Holy Spirit imparts to them, are all irrevocable (Rom. 11:29).  Those who are called are also glorified (8:30).  Those who are adopted as children are heirs of eternal life (8:17; Gal. 4:7).  Those who believe have eternal life already here and now (John 3:16).  That life itself, being eternal. cannot be lost.  It cannot die since it cannot sin (1 John 3:9).  Faith is a firm ground (Heb. 11:1), hope is an anchor (6:19) and does not disappoint us (Rom. 5:5), and love never ends (1 Cor. 13:8).

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics vol 4 pg. 269-270

Glory to God for salvation in Christ!  I appreciate the fact that Bavinck estimates eternal security as a doctrine intimately connected with the gospel itself.   “It is not just a handful of texts that teach the perseverance of the saints: the entire gospel sustains and confirms it.”  To not believe that the elect are eternally secure is to misunderstand the gospel.  And there are not many things more dangerous to misunderstand.

Sunday

…the cross of Christ then only triumphs in the breasts of believers over the devil and the flesh, sin and sinners, when their eyes are directed to the power of his resurrection.”

John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, III.9.6

Why Every Self-Respecting Premillennialist (and Amillennialist) should listen to Tom Schriener’s sermon on Revelation 20 and The Millennium

Anyone involved in the Millennial debate–even if the debate is only internal!–should listen to Tom Schreiner’s sermon on Revelation 20 entitled The Millennium. Everyone should listen to it because it is a model of gracious interaction with opposing viewpoints.  Whatever your position on eschatology you will profit from Schriener’s approach in his presentation.  Exemplary.

Premillennialists should listen to it not just because of how he teaches, but what he teaches.  I do not recall if Schreiner ever came right out and said so, but he dealt well with one of the major structural arguments made by Amillennialists: that Rev. 20 is a recapitulation of Rev. 12 (See, for example, A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger).  While it seems that Schreiner does believe that the 3 series of of judgments have elements of recapitulation (and I think he is right to do so), he does a wonderful job of showing from the text of Revelation 20 elements that are contradictory to a recapitulation of Revelation 12.

Premillennialists should compare this to MacArthur’s somewhat infamous salvo at the Shepherd’s Conference on Premillinnialism.  Schriener’s sermon is free from the embarrasing historical, logical, and theological errors that appear  in MacArthur’s sermon.  (See Riddlebarger for a measured response from an Amillennialist.)

Amillennialists have good reasons for holding the position they do.  Biblical reasons and biblical support.  Schriener recognizes this, but believes there are more compelling reasons to be a Premillennialist.

HT:Ben Wright

Hans Walter Wolff: The Finality of God’s Faithfulness

“…the Old Testament gives expression in the most manifold ways to the fact that the God who has called his people in love and given them gifts, cannot let his people go even amid faithlessness and judgment, indeed, that his final action for Israel still remains to be taken.

This final action is proclaimed by the New Testament.  Jesus Christ is the last Paschal Lamb that is offered for Israel.  He is the last King, who through his free act of love in his death renews with finality the broken covenant.  He is the last Priest of Israel, who through his own sacrifice takes away the sin of the people.  Now he is here in body, he whose shadow so often fell upon the old Israel.”

Hans Walter Wolff, “The Hermeneutics of the Old Testament” in Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics, ed. Claus Westermann (Richmond: John Knox, 1963), 175.

I recenetly spent 2 years going through the Minor Prophets in an adult Sunday school class.  I do not imagine one spends much time studying The 12 without running into Hans Wolff.  At least not someone who desires to study The 12 somewhat in depth.  And it is hard for me to imagine someone spending time with Wolff and not wanting to return to him.  Often.

I like to think of him as my “reluctant liberal” friend.  He accepts the documentary theory and all the typical source theories.  Or at least he gives lip service to them.   I have not come across him vigorously defending such ideas, but only mentioning them almost out of a sense of obligation.  So if you can get past the here and there unfortunate nods to unbelieving scholarship you will find many pungent observations and lustrous jewels like that above.  Or like the one below.

“If the texts stand, by origin or by adoption, in the service of witness to the God of Israel, and if no other than the God of Israel is God today, no hermeneutic principle can force the text to testify to God today.  But it is just for this reason that for proper understanding it must be said, no method can replace the Spirit of the living God as the proper expositor of the texts.”

ibid, 163.

As noted, both quotes come from his essay included in Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics.  The title is pretty explanatory.   It is a collection of translated German essays on Old Testament interpretation: von Rad, Westermann, Bultmann, Noth, Zimmerli, etc.  Several essays are worth attention.  Especially for recovering dispensationalists.  And Wolff’s shines as bright as any.

That we would trust the Father to answer His Son’s prayer to send the Spirit forth to be our teacher!

Clement of Rome on the Love of God

Who can describe the bond of the love of God? What man is able to tell the excellence of its beauty, as it ought to be told? The height to which love exalts is unspeakable.  Love unites us to God.  Love covers a multitude of sins.  Love bears all things, is long-suffering in all things.  There is nothing base, nothing arrogant in love. Love admits of no schisms: love gives rise to no rebellions: love does all things in harmony. 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, and His soul for our souls.

Clement of Rome, Letter To the Corinthians 49:2-6

Praise God for shedding abroad His love in our hearts by the Holy Spirit through the substitutionary death of Christ.

Who is a true Jew? Revelation 2:9 & 3:9

I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Revelation 2:9

Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie–indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. Revelation 3:9

Twice in the letters to the seven churches of Asia, Jesus mentions a group of people identified as, “Those who say they are Jews and are not.”  As if that statement were not perplexing enough, both times rather incendiary descriptions are added to this group: they are synagogues of Satan, liars, and will worship at the feet of Christians.  Immediately a very large section of American evangelicals are put on the defensive.  Here, in the same breath, we have mention of Jews, liars, synagogue of Satan, and God humbling said group.  The antisemitism bullets are ready to be fired!

But let us divorce the phrase “those who say they are Jews and are not” from the context in an attempt to take some of the passion out of the exegesis.  Just looking at that phrase alone what can we determine about the group?

What does it say?

The first thing that needs to be determined is, “What does the phrase actually imply?”  What is the truth that is assumed by the phrase?  In an attempt to further remove any prejudices, put the phrase in other terms.  If you heard someone say, “he says he is a professional baseball player, but he is not,” what could you safely assume?  I believe you could safely assume two things:

1. There really is such a thing as a professional baseball player:  such a person actually exists.
2. The person making the claim is not truly a professional baseball player.

So returning to the text we can safely assume two things:

1. There really is such a group as Jews:  true Jews.
2. Those making the claim to be Jewish are not truly Jews.

To paraphrase a T-shirt– there is a Jew, and you’re not him.

What could it mean?

So who are these people who say they are Jews but are really not?  I can think of three broad options:

1. They are Gentiles who for some reason claim to be Jews.  Perhaps they do not really want to worship the Emperor, so they seek exemption under the umbrella of Judaism.  Maybe in Smyrna and Philadelphia there was some economic incentive to be Jewish.  For whatever reason, this group refers to Gentiles calling themselves Jews.
2. They are ethnic Jews who are not practicing their faith according to Scripture.  Whether intentionally or not, they are practicing an apostate form of Judaism.
3. They are ethnic Jews who have misidentified what being a true Jew is.  This is somewhat different than the second category.  These people practice an orthodox faith, yet the orthodoxy itself flawed.

What is the question?

In all of this, the real question is, “What is a true Jew?”  The statement under examination, “those who say they are Jews and are not,” is based on the fact that true Jews exist.  By condemning the “false” Jews, Jesus acknowledges the “true” Jews.  But who might Jesus say is a false Jew and a true Jew?

Comparing spiritual things with spiritual

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a clear answer to this question in the text.  So might the Scripture answer this question elsewhere?  Does the Bible speak about this true vs. false Jew dichotomy in other places?  In fact Scripture addresses this subject in various places and diverse manners.

Both Matthew 3:9 and Luke 3:8 record John (the baptizer) assailing ethnic Jews with the statement, “…and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.”  This certainly leads in the direction of asserting that there is more to being a child of Abraham- hence, a Jew- than physical genealogy.  At the very least, John asserted that being a physical descendant of Abraham merited his audience members nothing with God.

While I assume this is what John meant, I know it is what Paul thought.  At the end of Romans 2 we read, “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.”  If this is not the jackpot, it is certainly a very handsome consolation prize.  Paul is seeking to answer the very question we are asking, “What is a true Jew?”  A true Jew is not a physical child of Abraham, but a Spiritual child of God.  It is not the physical circumcision made by man that counts, it is the heart circumcision made by the Spirit that matters.

Paul returns to a variation of this theme in Romans 4:11-12.  Again the question is, “Who is a true son of Abraham?”  Again Paul answers that physical circumcision is meaningless, but that whoever has the faith that Abraham had can claim Abraham as “father.”  This is also the argument of the entire chapter of Galatians 3.  The precise statements include:

Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.  And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”   So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. (3:7-9)

that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (3:14)

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (3:26, 29)

In Philippians 3:3 we see more about this circumcision of faith, “For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh…”  Again we see that physical descent is meaningless (no confidence in the flesh).  Writing to the church, Paul says they are “the circumcision.”  What makes Christians in Philippi “the circumcision?”  Their relationship with the Trinity: they worship God, in the Spirit, while rejoicing in Christ Jesus.

Summary and Conclusion

So a true Jew is:

1. Not necessarily a physical descendant of Abraham (Matt. 3:9; Luke 3:8; Rom. 2:28; 4:11-12; Phil. 3:3).
2. Someone who has the same faith Abraham had (Rom. 4:11-12; Gal. 3).
3. Which faith includes a work of the Holy Spirit circumcising the heart (Rom. 2:28-29; Phil. 3:3).
4. Which heart circumcision brings one into worshiping relationship with the Holy Trinity (Phil. 3:3) by way of one’s union with Christ (Gal. 3:26, 29).

What Scripture makes abundantly clear in the New Testament is that true Jews are more commonly known to us as Christians.  If you have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ to worship God, you are a true Jew.

So who are “those who say they are Jews and are not?”  While the first option above was Gentiles claiming to be Jews, I find it completely irrational and cannot find anyone who seriously suggests it as an interpretive option.  As for options 2 and 3, there is not much difference since both deal with ethnic Jews: the same people addressed and rebuked in Matt. 3:9; Luke 3:8; Rom. 2:28-29; Gal. 3; and Phil. 3:3.  Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 speak to and rebuke the same false Jews: all those physical sons of Abraham who have no relationship with God.  Those who say they are Jews and are not are still with us: worshiping on Saturday in the synagogue, denying the Lord who bought them.  Many Evangelicals call them Jews, the apple of God’s eye, God’s chosen people, etc.  Jesus simply says they “are not.”

Praise God for the circumcision not made with hands.

Sunday: It is Finished

If God himself in Jesus Christ bears the curse that must fall upon the transgressors of His law, then it really is borne; then there can be no thought of our bearing it again and further.  Then we are acquitted according to the law, yes, declared righteous.  For if God’s curse no longer falls on us, what can we be– there is no third possibility– what can we be in His sight, and that means in reality, but righteous?  If God Himself in Jesus Christ suffers the punishment that our existence would have to incur, then that means that He, this Other, has sacrificed His existence for us.  It follows that we can only recognise ourselves as those whom He has thereby won for Himself, who have therefore become His property.  If God will not punish us because the punishment is over and done with, then that means that we may now live as those who have been released by Him and who are therefore His own.

Karl Barth, Credo, p. 93

Praise God for the redemption which is in Christ Jesus!

Clement of Rome: Author of Hebrews?

The author of the book of Hebrews remains one of the enticing mysteries of the New Testament.  Upon reading the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (hereafter 1 Clement), it is not hard to see why he has been suggested as an author.  Eusebius quotes Origen as stating, “But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.” (Ecclesiastical History VI.25.11-14)

After stating in the introduction to his commentary on Hebrews, “I, indeed, can adduce no reason to show that Paul was its author,” John Calvin concludes in commenting on 13:23 with the statement, “…it is very probable that either Luke or Clement was the author of this Epistle.”

There are some striking similarities between Hebrews and 1 Clement.

Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

1 Clement 9
Noah, being found faithful, by his ministration preached regeneration unto the world, and through him the Master saved the living creatures that entered into the ark in concord.

Hebrews 11:31
By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.

1 Clement 12
For her faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved.

Heb 1:3-13 (portions)
…who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person…having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.  For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You.” And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.” But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.  But to which of the angels has He ever said: “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?

1 Clement 36
Who being the brightness of His majesty is so much greater than angels, as He hath inherited a more excellent name.  For so it is written; Who maketh His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire; but of His Son the Master said thus; Thou art My Son, I this day have begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy possession. And again He saith unto Him; Sit Thou on My right hand until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.

Furthermore, both books have a similar way of citing Scripture.  Hebrews 2:6 introduces a quotation, “But one testified in a certain place, saying…” and 4:4 introduces a quotation, “For He has spoken in a certain place…”  In chapters 15 and 21 Clement introduces Scripture quotations with the phrase, “For he saith in a certain place.”   Furthermore both works have a tendency to connect multiple Scripture quotations with the simple phrase, “and again.” (Heb. 1:5; 2:13; 4:5; 10:30 cf. 1 Clement 15; 16).

In addition, I see a striking similarity in flow of argument in Hebrews 11-12 and 1 Clement 9-21.  Hebrews 11 is the well known chapter listing so many examples of the faithful.  1 Clement 9 states, “Let us fix our eyes on them that ministered perfectly unto His excellent glory.”  And then proceeds to mention, in order, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Rahab, and “those who went about in goatskins and sheepskins” (cf. Heb. 11:37). Toward the conclusion of both lists of holy examples, both works mention those who “obtained a good report.” (Heb. 11:39; 1 Clem. 17; 19.)

Both works move from example to application in similar ways.  Heb 11:39-40 states:

And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

While 1 Clement 19 states:

The humility therefore and the submissiveness of so many and so great men, who have thus obtained a good report, hath through obedience made better not only us but also the generations which were before us, even them that received His oracles in fear and truth.

So both works encourage us to not just remember the examples of those before us; but to consider and reckon a true unity with those who have gone before us.  In Hebrews, they are not complete without us.  In 1 Clement we are bettered by them.

Hebrews 12:1-2 continues:

Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

While 1 Clement 19 continues:

Seeing then that we have been partakers of many great and glorious doings, let us hasten to return unto the goal of peace which hath been handed down to us from the beginning, and let us look stedfastly unto the Father and Maker of the whole world, and cleave unto His splendid and excellent gifts of peace and benefits. Let us behold Him in our mind, and let us look with the eyes of our soul unto His long-suffering will.

In both we are to consider our place, and look with patience at the life we are called to lead.

In concluding the argument, Hebrews 12:25 warns:

See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven.

While 1 Clement 21 warns:

Look ye, brethren, lest His benefits, which are many, turn unto judgment to all of us, if we walk not worthily of Him, and do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight with concord.

Did Clement of Rome write the book of Hebrews?  I do not think so.  In fact, I hope he did not.  For if Clement of Rome did not write the book of Hebrews, his work to the Corinthians stands as a sterling example of a mind saturated with Scripture.  It is clear that Clement had not only allowed Scripture to influence how he talked, but how he thought as well.  May our minds be as dominated by the words of God.

ADDENDUM: Reasons Clement did not write Hebrews.

1. Style of Greek. It is a good day when I can translate much more than a phrase. So like most people I just have to accept the word of scholars on this one.
2. Lack of clear early support. Like pretty much every background issue of Hebrews, the original destination of the letter is disputed. Many commentators make a good case for a Roman destination. (Some others argue for a Roman origin). In either case it seems odd that Rome, a church eager to accrue glory to itself would not celebrate Hebrews as the product of one of its bishops. The fact that the West didn’t fully embrace Hebrews until Jerome and Augustine attributed it to Paul argues against Clement’s authorship. Would Rome keep this secret or forget so quickly?
3. Concept of priesthood. Clement portrays believers as carrying on the Aaronic priesthood. Hebrews views that priesthood as rendered obsolete by the work of Christ.

Clement of Rome on Scripture–Introduction

It is generally held that Clement of Rome wrote his epistle to the Corinthians around A.D. 95. Some believe he is the same Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. A concise introduction and background can be found here.

In chapter 45, Clement writes,

“Be ye contentious, brethren, and jealous about the things that pertain unto salvation. Ye have searched the scriptures, which are true, which were given through the Holy Ghost; and ye know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them.”

How does this contribute to the formulation of Patristic doctrine of Scripture? What is Clement ascribing to Scripture, and what is he not ascribing to Scripture? Some particular issues to consider:

1. What does Clement consider Scripture to be? If traditional dates are accepted for both, Clement almost certainly did not have the last of John’s writings. He could not have been thinking of a closed New Testament canon. Aside from a canon, however, what might Clement have thought of individual NT books available to him?

2. What is the import of Scripture “given through the Holy Ghost”? How compatible is such a statement with NT passages like Matthew 22:43; Mark 12:36; Acts 1:16; Hebrews 3:7-11; and 2 Peter 1:21?

3. What weight should be given to the phrases “the scriptures, which are true;” and “nothing unrighteous or counterfeit.”? We cannot expect Clement, or any of the Fathers, to use the shibboleth “inerrant.” But could Clement believe such a thing without using the term?

In succeeding posts I will seek to approach an answer to these questions. This will be attempted by:

1. Noting Clement’s citations of Scripture. What does he call Scripture?

2. What import does Clement give to the words he cites?

3. How does being sourced in the Holy Spirit impact his view of Scripture?

(The English translation quoted from is J.B. Lightfoot’s. The Roberts & Donaldson translation is available here.)