Clement of Alexandria on Salvation and Real Presence

I came across a question of Catholic Answers that apologist Tom Nash attempted to answer.  Here is the question:

“I am seeking material that supports St. Clement of Alexandria’s belief in the Eucharist not as a metaphor. His writings seem to infer he did not believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.”

Nash responded by quoting a portion of Clement’s writing where he presumed the impression came from.  Then he simply posted another quote from Clement as if that was satisfactory.  He essentially said, here is what Clement said in a different place, now go along and stop asking silly questions.

I guess we can’t blame Nash for doing that since it is his job to retain Catholics, not lose them.  If he were to engage in the context of Clement’s writings, he would most certainly find himself backed into a corner with no way out. 

When he challenged my article, “Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence,” he did so using information exclusively drawn from tracts on the Catholic Answers website.  My counter response was to write three in-depth articles on Ignatius, Justin and Irenaeus.  To this, Nash had nothing to say but to point his readers, once again, to the tracts on the website.

It was blaringly obvious to me that Nash had no understanding or need of the early church writings, except to use them as propaganda.  The person asking the question, presumably a Catholic, had obviously been reading something from Clement’s work that was persuading him or her to the opinion that Clement was not a proponent of the real presence doctrine.  I’m convinced that Nash would not have known where to find that impression from Clement had he not been informed of my article.

In book one, chapter six of his work, The Instructor, Clement continually stresses the proclamation of the Gospel as the only food necessary for the soul. 

Clement taught that the Word, that is, He who was from the beginning with God and who is God, is the source of nutrition to the believer in Christ.  Christ is the Word and source of our nutriment.  He is the Vine and we are the branches.  We receive no nutriment or bear any fruit unless we abide in the Vine.  Clement further taught that the way we receive the nutriment of the Word, is through the proclamation of the Gospel. 

“We may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat and assimilates to the soul itself, nourishment of this kind.”

This parallels with Paul’s analogy of the foundation upon which the church is built.  He said the foundation was the apostles, prophets and Christ Jesus as the cornerstone.  We, as living stones, are built up together for a dwelling place for God in spirit, i.e., His temple.  Out nourishment is the Word Himself, and the means by which we receive the Word is through the Gospel.

Clement illustrated how Jesus used the metaphor of consuming His flesh and blood the same as Paul used milk and meat to convey our spiritual nutriment.

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise.”

He said this concurrently with the above quote.  So the “this” he is referring to is the milk and meat through the proclamation of the Gospel.  He said it was a description by Jesus that was presented distinctly by metaphor to describe the drinkable properties of faith.  He knew this to be true because Jesus explained that the words He spoke were spirit and life. 

The bread of life discourse itself was a distinction between carnal nutriment and Spiritual nutriment.  There were those at the discourse who could not see past the carnal because they didn’t believe in Jesus.  Clement picked up on this as well.

“Salvation, accordingly, is the following of Christ: For that which is in Him is life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears My words, and believes in Him that sent Me, has eternal life, and comes not into condemnation, but has passed from death to life.’ Thus believing alone, and regeneration, is perfection in life; for God is never weak.”

The biblical quote is from John 5:24, and Clement uses it as a lead-in to show that salvation is solely the product of faith, which can also be derived from the bread of life discourse.

“Now the Lord Himself has most clearly revealed the equality of salvation, when He said: For this is the will of my Father, that every one that sees the Son, and believes in Him, should have everlasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day.’ As far as possible in this world, which is what he means by the last day, and which is preserved till the time that it shall end, we believe that we are made perfect. Wherefore He says, He that believes in the Son has everlasting life. If, then, those who have believed have life, what remains beyond the possession of eternal life? Nothing is wanting to faith, as it is perfect and complete in itself. If anything is wanting to it, it is not wholly perfect.”

Clement proclaims loud and clear that faith in Jesus alone is the means of salvation.  Most Catholics don’t know this because it’s never presented to them, and the ones who do don’t want the rest to know.  What they do present, however, are quotes like the following:

“Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood. Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth.”

That is a Catholic apologist’s use of early church writings.  Anything that sounds like it might support Catholic doctrine is used with no regard for context.  Coincidentally, this quote comes from the same book and chapter from which the above quotes were taken.  How then could one reconcile the idea that Clement was suggesting that the suitable food is the eucharist when one reads the context of the work? 

It’s easy to cherry-pick quotes out of context, and even easier to accept them as proof because it makes one feel as though the early church writers support their beliefs.  It’s lazy, pure and simple.  It’s lazy on the part of the one who accepts it, and it’s deceitful on the part of the one who provides it. 

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church teaches that receiving the eucharist is essential for salvation.  Clement does not.  Rather, Clement taught that Gospel instruction nourishes up to eternal life.  See for yourself…  

“Wherefore also I have given you milk to drink, he [Paul: 1Cor. 3:2] says; meaning, I have instilled into you the knowledge which, from instruction, nourishes up to life eternal. But the expression, I have given you to drink, is the symbol of perfect appropriation. For those who are full-grown are said to drink, babes to suck. For my blood, says the Lord, is true drink. In saying, therefore, I have given you milk to drink, has he not indicated the knowledge of the truth, the perfect gladness in the Word, who is the milk?”

As much as Catholic apologists like to point out that Jesus’ blood it true drink, you will never find this quote on a Catholic website.  The nutrient is knowledge, and instruction is the conduit and eternal life is the result.  The Lord’s blood as true drink truly symbolizes the actual spiritual nutrition from Christ the Vine that leads to eternal life.  Like that of milk and meat, the Lord’s blood is another metaphor for Gospel instruction.  As Clement said previously, the Lord was describing, distinctly by metaphor, the drinkable properties of faith and promise.

And what of the cherry-picked quote that sound so authentically Catholic?  Well, try reading it in context.  Not just the context around it, but the entire context of Clement’s lesson.  The quote below gives the entire stance from which it is taken.  When reading it, keep in mind that the “milk” didn’t suddenly change meaning.  The nourishment didn’t suddenly become the eucharist.  In fact, Clement made no reference to the eucharist in the entire lesson.  Not once did he make a connection between the bread of life discourse, which he referenced several times, and the eucharist.  Not one time! 

“And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood. Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood. O amazing birth! O holy swaddling bands! The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood. Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.”

It takes a true ideologue to read Clement and conclude that he supported the Catholic doctrine of real presence.  The truth is that his writings refute the catholic doctrine of real presence.  Clement clearly believed in salvation by faith alone.  He believed that our spiritual nutrition comes from knowledge in Christ through the proclamation of the Gospel, like branches to the Vine.  The mystery isn’t transubstantiation, it’s spiritual growth through knowledge.  But I guess those without knowledge must have their own mysteries, and they are plentiful.

Answering the C.A. Tracts: Christ in the Eucharist

From the Catholic Answers website:

Here at Catholic Answers, one of the most effective methods for countering attacks and clearing up misconceptions about the Catholic Faith have been our tracts. They have been around since the beginning of the apostolate and have resulted in many thousands of conversions. These tracts provide a real point of contact for someone in discovering the truths of the Catholic Faith.

There is a continuous onslaught of Catholics asking the C.A. apologist to explain why something they were told by a Protestant is not true. Catholic Answers biggest fear is that Catholics will be drawn away from the Catholic Church by listening to Protestants, and the tracts on their website play an important role in making sure that does not happen. So wouldn’t it be interesting if Catholics start asking their apologists to answer challenges to their tracts?

If the tracts are the go-to source for clearing up misconceptions, where will they tell them to go when the tracts themselves are shown to be deceitful? Now I’m not talking about misunderstanding or opposing interpretations I’m talking about very intentional well-crafted deceit. For example…

The Council of Jerusalem

Unlike any other book of the New Testament, the book of Acts is a historical work, and the so-called council of Jerusalem is a historical event. All too often historical events get interpreted through the lens of one’s current ideology. In the case of the Jerusalem council, the long-held interpretation that the apostles and elders came together to decide whether Gentiles need circumcision, was interpreted through the lens of post-Nicene church leaders who themselves asserted similar authority and needed a Scriptural example for doing it.

Unlike Christians in the past who were denied Scriptural examination, we have the privilege of not only examining Scripture, but to do it in any language or translation we like. So when Christians today propagate the same interpretations held by those who formed them for selfish gain, it astonishes me. It astonishes me because Luke, the author of the book of Acts, took valuable time and effort to lay the foundation of what transpired in Jerusalem nearly two millennia ago; context that is largely ignored.

A new page on the Onefold Blog details the event in context. Beginning with Paul’s conversion to the faith, the article walks the reader through the context laid out by Luke and adds historical insight. It follows Paul and Peter along different paths and demonstrates that they, and the other apostles and elders, had been of the same understanding regarding Gentiles for nearly twenty years prior to the meeting in Jerusalem. It examines the underlying issue in the Jerusalem church that grew like a cancer and eventually culminated in the largest controversy of the apostolic church.

To read the article, click here, or navigate through the menu above.

Thank you!

Brian Culliton
Onefold admin

A Critical Response to “The Church Fathers on Transubstantiation”

I was recently made aware of a website called, Called to Communion,” in particular to an article written by a gentleman named, Tim Troutman. The article is titled, “The Church Fathers on Transubstantiation.” Mr. Troutman’s objective was to prove that the early church fathers affirm a change in substance of the elements of the Eucharist into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, though admitting that it is not expressly stated in any patristic source.

In his introduction he points to a type of evidence which he states is a “simple identification of the consecrated species with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.” He goes on to explain, “Because unconsecrated bread is not called the Body, and consecrated is called the Body, this directly implies a belief that a supernatural change has taken place at the point of consecration.” It seems much could be implied from approaching the early church works from this viewpoint. I would say it implies that they referred to it as the Lord’s body and blood simply because the Lord Himself did, and for no other reason than that. In fact, we will see from the first quote used by Mr. Troutman, that this is exactly what we find. But Mr. Troutman’s first claim is the most important; the claim that the early church fathers affirmed a change in the elements.

The Bread of Life: Why Many Disciples Walked Away

Catholic apologist, Karl Keating, authored an article titled, “Catholicism and Fundamentalism — The Eucharist,” which can be read here: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0003.html. The subject of the article was John chapter six, the bread of life discourse.

Mr. Keating has a fair amount of respect among Catholics who visit my blog, which is why I want to address his article here. He is the champion of using early church writings out of context, avoiding context within Scripture, and using references of which he seems to have little familiarity to support his arguments. It was his plethora of out-of-context quotes published on his website, Catholic Answers, that inspired me to write a lengthy contextual article on the early church view of the eucharist. Here I just want to respond to some of his arguments on the bread of life discourse. I want to pick up where he commented on why Jesus didn’t go after His departing disciples.

Catholic Propaganda Takes Me Back to My S.E.R.E. Training

I was asked by a Catholic visitor to listen to a series of audio recordings of a catholic apologist making the case for the authority of the Catholic pope. I agreed to listen to the first one and told him I would give my response in a new post. The audio can be found here, and my response below.

Okay, so I listed to the first audio file and I was immediately taken back to the time I went through S.E.R.E. training in the Navy. S.E.A.R. stands for Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape. I spent a week in the woods of Maine, in November, learning to survive and evade hostile enemy forces. I spent the last three days of the course as a P.O.W. The first night of P.O.W. experience I was blindfolded and lead to a facility where I was placed in a small cell and forced to sit all night in a particular position that quickly became uncomfortable. They checked on me regularly to make sure I didn’t move from that position. While I sat there, severely sleep deprived, they played propaganda recordings throughout the entire night that continually told of American bombs hitting hospitals and civilian communities. Intertwined with that were several assertions about the American forces that were purely fabricated. And there was evidence reported by them that was taken out of context in order to make their cause appear justified.

Although I was sitting comfortably on my couch as I listened to that Catholic apologist on the audio, it felt almost as uncomfortable as that nigh in the cell. Before listening to the audio I predicted that it would be pure propaganda and I was right. The reason I knew this is because I am quite familiar with Catholic indoctrination and I know what things they are going to point to in Scripture and history and, more importantly, what things they will leave out.

John Martignoni’s video apologetics

Catholic apologist, John Martignoni decided to take his one-man apologetics show to You Tube. He intends to present a series called, “Questions Protestants can’t Answer.” He opens the series with this question: “Is a dead body really a body?” The analogy is that a body without a spirit is still a body though be it a dead body, and faith without works is still faith, but like a body without a spirit it is a dead faith.

So far very good and very biblical, but then Martignoni attempts to associate the doctrine of “faith alone” with dead faith. And how does Martignoni associate faith alone with dead faith? He doesn’t say. Martignoni offers nothing to support his accusation. Nevertheless he is willing to send his disciples out to confront Protestants with this accusation armed with nothing but ignorance and misconceptions.

Take a look.

If Catholics are going to confront Protestants on this issue, they better be prepared to talk about works, specifically works of the law.

Faith alone is a biblical doctrine and it refers to a living faith. Dead faith is faith that is not accompanied by the fruit of the Spirit, which is the works of God in us. There are indeed those who proclaim Christ yet lack the works of the Spirit in their lives, these have dead faith. But those who by faith have become a new creation in Christ are alive in Christ and Christ in manifested in them by the fruit they bear. When a person truly believes the Gospel of Christ they desire repentance, and in their repentance they change the way they talk, the way they treat others, and the way they perceive their neighbor. They begin to manifest the fruits of the Spirit, this faith is a living faith accompanied by good works.

Conversely, the Catholic view of faith plus works is entirely unbiblical. This view separates faith from works. If we apply this doctrine to the thief on the cross next to Jesus we have a conflict. In order for the thief to be saved, and we know he was, an exception has to be made to the Catholic doctrine. And if we are to say that a person can believe and be saved upon their deathbed we again have to make an exception to the doctrine. And again exceptions have to be made with regards to small children and the mentally handicapped. All this is proof that the Catholic doctrine of faith plus works is a doctrine of men.

In addition, the Catholic system, yes system, of salvation includes adherence to “canon law.” For example, if a Catholic does not go to mass on a day deemed mandatory by canon law, they supposedly commit mortal sin and are immediately removed from a state of grace. Then comes the exception; if they confess their “sin” to a priest and do the mandatory penance they can return to a state of grace.

Such laws were never intended to be imposed on Christians. Salvation by faith is accompanied by good works apart from any law. Catholics are told that their salvation is dependant upon following canon law, the Apostle Paul said,

“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. against such there is no law.” (Gal. 5:22-23)

Why Catholics should stop listening to their apologists and read the Bible

The following was posted on the Catholic Answers forum on the topic of Peter as the foundation of the church. This quote represents fairly well the Catholic understanding of what the foundation of the church is. Out of everything discussed on that particular thread, this, believe it or not, was the most in-depth any Catholic ever got.

Thou art Peter [Kipha, Cephas] and on this rock [Kipha, Cephas] I will build my Church, cannot be understood save of building the Church on this man Peter (Cephas), otherwise the point of the phrase disappears. Jesus was called the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:4-8; Ephesians 2:20), but He could not be indicating Himself here: it would have been rather like a bad joke, if I may venture to say so: Thou art Peter, but it is on quite another Peter that I am going to build! Some try to return indirectly to this superannuated Protestant interpretation by making out the Rock to be Peter’s faith in the Messiahship of the Lord. It was indeed Peter’s faith that introduced the promise, but the promise is given to the person whose faith has just been displayed. If the building is a group, the foundation is their head: Jesus, says St. John Chrysostom, exalts Peter’s declaration, He made him pastor. The position of Peter in the Church is that of the rock on which the building is erected; thanks to this foundation the building will stand firm; thanks to this head the community will be well ruled.

Response to Martignoni’s “Biblical Evidence” for the Catholic Mass (Part 1)

Catholic apologist, John Martignoni, in his latest newsletter asks his readers (of which I am one) to respond to an email he received from a non-Catholic. The email Mr. Martignoni received was rather brusque and only offered someone else’s article as a response to his earlier newsletter. Martignoni’s objection to his challenger’s email was that it did not address the Scripture references he cited in his previous newsletter on the sacrifice of the mass. So my response will be to address those references in this and forthcoming blog posts.

Justification: The Power of Catholic Hierarchy

Most of us are not strangers to the often-heated disagreements between Catholics and Evangelicals on the topic of Justification. Are we saved by faith and works or by faith alone? These debates are often centered on James, Chapter 2. Since James plainly states that faith without works is dead, Catholics easily accept the notion that their faith requires cooperation on their part. If that is true, to what degree is it true? So often these debates get convoluted in the philosophies of faith /works and faith alone. But what really matters are the specifics; and it is in the specifics that is the substance that fuels the power that drives the Catholic hierarchy.