Since, as you say, no one understands Paul as well as did his friends (you left out Timothy by the way), then why should we go to extra-biblical teachings of people who were stumbling around in the dark?
I highly doubt that the Clement of Philippians 4:3 is the Clement of Alexandria (not that you were suggesting such). But just to let us see how quickly theology began going astray from Paul, Clement of A. brought philosophy into his teachings and was a huge Plato follower. Here is one of many things Clement of Alexandria went astray from Paul: In the 5th book of his Stromata he stated that a person can only attain to a knowledge of God through faith if a person’s moral faults were corrected first. Paul would never teach such a thing. In fact, Paul’s salvific event on the road to Damascus is a kibosh on such an idea.
In his final book of the Stromata he believed that a Christian was responsible for his own way to salvation. Again, this is far afield from what Paul believed. Paul believed and taught that: Rom_8:30 Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies also; now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also." So in Paul’s theology, God is the author and finisher of our salvation, the Alpha and Omega of our salvation. Whom God designates beforehand, these He will glorify. There is not doubt with Paul that God will do this.
To be saved from sin is not synonymous with salvation from Hell. Christ in my life has begun the work of saving me from sin and hopefully you as well and so we are better people as Christians than if we were not Christians. So we agree on that.
Yet at the end of our lives we will still be far from perfection. In fact we will each still have enough sin in our lives at that time that we could still be condemned if our remaining sin is not forgiven and found hidden from God’s wrath in Christ. Moses is a good example of a man who made progress in sanctification, but yet needed grace during and also at the end of his life.
So consider that the gospel says that God’s grace has BOTH the power to transform and ALSO the power to forgive all sin one time at the cross.
Risible is a trademark, of the Holy Fools tradition. It means
or
And some synonyms are
The only different is that Holy Fools and P-Zombies, might not use such fancy words - to make a point. 
DaveB & HFPZ must be perspicacious to know what risible means. If only more people understood what Paul meant by “For in grace, through faith, are you saved, and this is not out of you; it is God’s approach present, not of works, lest anyone should be boasting.” (Eph 2:8-9)
If there is anything one who feels they can boast about as to salvation, that would be a clear indicator that we know they are not understanding Paul.
"perspicacious "? Why such fancy words? To show that one can use them - in a sentence? I prefer this quote myself. 
You are right. It is St. Clement of Rome, who certainly wrote the epistle called I Clement and arguably wrote the epistle called II Clement. The only question about I Clement is whether it was written around A. D. 70 or A. D. 95. In any case, it is certainly a 1st-century letter.
Paul’s friend Hermas is arguably the St. Hermas who wrote the Shepherd of Hermas around A. D. 85 (which I think is probable). This work was on many ancient lists of canonical scriptures. Skeptics say that it was written later in around A. D. 140, but I doubt this late date. (For that matter, skeptics say II Peter was written around that same late date, but I doubt that as well.) Not only was St. Hermas Paul’s friend, but I believe that he was one of Christ’s seventy disciples mentioned in Luke 10:1.
Did what Clement of Rome and Hermas write agree with what Paul wrote to us of the nations?
I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were a six year old . . . oh, that’s gonna leave a mark. LOL 
There are many things scientists state in research works and theologians write which are above the level of most high school students and adults. This does not mean they have to explain it to a six year old or they don’t understand what they are stating if they don’t. Everyone has their target audience. Since we were talking about risible, I figured I’d add to the topic.
Well. If I’m a six year old, I’m probably smarter than the average one (but it’s all due to the grace of God, mind you). Like I said before. If someone is trained in things, like the martial arts and Zen - then they are trained, to keep their cool under fire. Which gives me a distinctive advantage.
Although I did babysit occasionally, for my Greek Orthodox friend Dora’s children. She has a PhD in Biblical archaeology from Oxford. One of the 2 boys, is a professor at Harvard. The other is an independent researcher, in software engineering. But as children, they were taking advanced music and math university courses. But liked to play with woodchuck dolls, etc. - as children. I was with them in grade and high school.
But take a lesson from direct response marketing and copywriting. Where they test each marketing sales letter, etc., to see how well it works. And if it beats the current control piece… The top marketing copywriters write for a grade school audience. And they appeal to emotions first. Then they give reasons, to justified the emotional buying decision. And the best make millions - from royalties (i.e. Ben Hart, Clayton Makepeace, Dan Kennedy). Go figure 
Also, you are making unwarranted assumptions, regarding your target audience here. Not everyone here is a Gregory McDonald - though a few might come close. Nor can you make assumptions, regarding the educational background of members. Some may just be high school graduates. But not all things are learned in universities. Some learning come from self education, military and commercial job experience, volunteer opportunities, etc. Unless you do statistical polling and sampling, you have to target the lowest common denominator. Also, what percentage of members are making responses in threads vs the total membership? Probably the most knowledgeable ones. Actually, I had a similar conversation with Paidion a while back - regarding mathematics.
Which target audience educational level, are these debates geared for?
or
hfpc replied:
Eusebius replied:
HFPC replied:
I understand what you are saying. We should all be like children when it comes to acceptance of what God has said.
What Paul wrote, however, is hardly targeted to six year old mentality. Some of it is meat to be eaten by adults.
I’m just kind of curious why you didn’t seem to have much of a problem with “risible,” but you did when I mentioned “perspicacious”? Not that it matters.
Well, Eusebius. I really have no problem, with folks using “big words”, “fancy words”, etc. But I might - and have - poked a bit of fun at it.
Have you ever watched TV evangelists and services? I have. I have watched Roman Catholic and Charismatic services. And folks like the health and property preacher Joel Osteen. And I’ve been to Quaker, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican and Community Church services. Even if the homily is about something Paul wrote, it’s normally watered down - so that everyone can comprehend it.
Here, we can talk academic. It’s expected. But if you want to reach a larger audience, then you need to use the KISS philosophy (i.e. Keep It Simple and Stupid).
Kind of like writing. Both William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway, won the Nobel prize for literature. William writes in long and convoluted sentences. Ernest writes with simple sentences - like a reporter. I think the books by Ernest, are far more popular. But actually, you should mix long and short sentences. Like this.
Not that it matters much here. We are all wearing or trying to wear - academic hats. But in the world of reaching the popular masses, the KISS philosophy does wonders. Take direct response copywriting and marketing. They write like they are talking to a friend - in a bar. Very simple stuff. And they appeal to a psychological need. The quest for prestige, power, money, sex, etc. Like this new aftershave, will make me smell sexy and attract all them beautiful women. Or this new luxury car, will make me feel important. Or this American Express card, will make me feel, like one of the elite. Etc.
Now don’t get me wrong. It’s OK to wear different hats - for different occasions. I sometimes wear an acadamic, Mr. Data, Mr. Spock, Nerd, Geek, Holy Fool, P-Zombie and Devil’s Advocate hats. And I mix them up - more often then not.
I’ll leave everyone with an interesting article. It’s from the Business Insider:
Did they serve grits with their homily? 
Actually, this image is cool. It goes through a few frames.
http://cartoonstudio.co.uk/cartoonist-for-hire/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ElasticBand.gif
Good catch on similar sounds! But still - the right word and spelling. It’s grits and hominy. Actually, I’m a big fan of grits - with butter and pepper added.
But anyway, off tonight to watch superhero TV shows (i.e. the Flash), the Cubs World Series quest and the Sci Fi channel - monster and horror flick, Halloween marathon.
Even Sleeping Beauty, wants to join the TV binge - of watching non-redeeming shows.
or
Stumbling around in the dark???
Clement, an overseer in the Roman church in his letter to the Corinthians referred to Paul and Peter as “recent spiritual heroes.” Many, including myself, believe him to have been one of Paul’s fellow workers (Philippians 4:3). He may have even been one of the early apostles. His letter to the Corinthians was read in second-century churches along with those of the other apostles. Do you categorize him with those who “stumble around in the dark” merely because his letter to the Corinthians didn’t happen to make the “canon” of Christian writings that Eusebius proposed in the fourth century?
Clement of Rome, A.K.A. Pope Clement, was supposedly ordained by Peter, not by Paul. And if that is the case, he was a Circumcisionist and not of or for the Circumcision. Some say he was the one mentioned by Paul
From Albert Barnes’ commentary on Clement:
With Clement also - That is, they were associated with Clement, and with the other fellow-laborers of Paul, in aiding him in the gospel. Clement as doubtless someone who was well known among them; and the apostle felt that, by associating them with him, as having been real helpers in the gospel, their claim to respectful attention would be better appreciated. Who Clement was, is unknown. Most of the ancients say it was Clement of Rome, one of the primitive fathers. But there is no evidence of this. The name Clement was common, and there is no improbability in supposing that there might have been a preacher of this name in the church at Philippi."
And we have this which prove Clement didn’t understand Paul:
"Nevertheless, not more than 60 years after Paul wrote his Corinthian epistles we find one Clement of Rome writing to believers in Corinth in an entirely different spirit. In the second chapter of Clement’s letter he shows how fully he missed what Paul wrote about grace by taking the apostles words in 2 Corinthians 3:3 to mean: “The commandments and ordinances of the Lord were written on the tables of your heart.” To Clement, the whole idea of service was centered in the stern declarations of law. Clement’s principal appeal to Paul’s ministry is given in the sixth chapter of this letter (where Peter is made the foremost example) with these words: “By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West” (quotations from “The Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians,” translated into English by J. B. Lightfoot).
Paidion?
jeff, the problem most churches have with “sanctification” is they put a heavy load of guilt on their parishioners. It causes one to always wonder “Have I done enough?” or “Does God still like me when I fail in the flesh?” I got so sick and tired of all that. Now I am at peace with God. When I fail I just tell God, yes I’m sorry for that but I think You would rather I go through life thanking You that my sins are taken away by Christ rather than wallow in pity my whole life.
It is axiomatic to me that the late 1st-century and early 2nd-century Christians such as St. Clement of Rome, St. Hermas, St. Ignatios of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and the writer of the Didache understood Paul better than did Augustine of Hippo (who became a Christian in A. D. 386 and read Paul only in Latin translation) and his intellectual descendants among Roman Catholics and Protestants.
“Consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” (II Peter 3:15-16)