Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 5
The transcript highlights how 1 Clement was “publicly read” in many churches and even treated as Scripture by some, yet did not enter the canon—partly because of a “scientific error”; what does that teach about God’s providence, human fallibility in revered leaders, and the kind of authority you should (and shouldn’t) grant to historical teachers you admire?
Another way to ask: What does it teach you that 1 Clement was read in churches like Scripture but still didn’t make it into the canon, partly because of an error? How should that shape how much authority you give famous Christian leaders and teachers you admire?

Direct Answer Based on the transcript, 1 Clement shows that early churches highly respected some writings and even read them like Scripture, yet God providentially guided the canon so that only truly inspired writings became final authority. It also shows that revered leaders (and their letters) can contain errors, so their authority is real but not equal to Scripture.

Support from Transcript:

  • Eusebius is cited: the epistle “has been publicly read in very many churches,” and the hosts explain “publicly read…meant it was read in the Sunday service as Scripture.”
  • Some churches viewed it as canon because they thought Clement was Paul’s “fellow worker” (Philippians 4:3 is quoted).
  • They stress uncertainty: “We do not know for certain that this is the same Clement,” yet early Christians “seemed to identify him” as Paul’s companion.
  • David states clearly, “We know now today it definitely is not” part of the canon.
  • They call the canon “providential[ly] guided by the Holy Spirit,” and say Clement contains “a scientific error…we don’t see that kind of thing in the inspired scriptures.”
  • They frame Clement as valuable but not inspired: later, they say early writings are “not…inspired,” but “the best commentary…on the New Testament.”
Discussion Follow-ups How do you benefit from church history without treating it like a second Bible? What limits should you place on any favorite teacher—ancient or modern—because they can be sincerely wrong?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10
Back Questions Next