C
carlos19
Guest
never mind I misread your earlier post
- Status
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
What I mean is that God gives man “faith”. This is the property of the human being to have been exposed to the Promise of God in the gospel for the world, and he/she believes in the gospel. Since “faith” is considered “righteousness” (Rom 4:1-4), faith is man’s righteousness in this sense. However, because faith is really not a sinlessly perfect obedience to God, is is God’s grace in reckoning it “righteousness”, because it really is not “righteousness”. So it is this exchange that is arranged by God so that man is justified by faith, and not by works.
C
carlos19
Guest
If Catholics and Protestants are wrong, and the Eastern Orthodox and also the Oriental Orthodox are wrong on infusion of righteousness/ Imputation of Christ’s righteousness and theosis
who is right?
who is right?
C
carlos19
Guest
what role do works play in our Christian life?
are they salvific?
are they salvific?
B
benjohnson
Guest
To be fair, we Lutherans chose a catchy phrase and didn’t quite explain it all - “Faith alone” needs to be understood in it’s sixteenth century context as “Faith - without need of indulgences, required praying to saints, without paying for sacraments…etc.”
Now… 500 years lather… when you sit Lutheran and Catholic theologians down and they discuss the issue, they almost come to the same point. I certainly now don’t object to the Catholic idea of Justification, and most Catholics I meet don’t object to the Lutheran idea too much. They’re different in approach, but the arrive at almost the same point. So close, the one begins to wonder if we need to keep arguing.
C
carlos19
Guest
Erick also feels that Protestants and Orthodox are wrong too not when it comes to justification by faith we all believe that
but he does not hold to Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant teaching on Righteousness whether infused, imputed or God Infused (theosis).
C
carlos19
Guest
great postLet me take this approach. (but don’t forget to answer my questions if you have time)
what you dispute I believe is the catholic assertion that righteousness is infused. You believe that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong on this.
You believe in a legal declaration of righteousness but that we do not receive Christ’s imputed Righteousness.
However, yours is not the historical view of Protestantism. You, yourself admitted this. Most Protestants believe that we are legally declared righteous when Christ’s righteousness is imputed upon us. I asked you if any church holds to this tradition and you said that Luther and Calvin at first held this position then shortly there after started to believe in Christ’s imputed righteousness. Luther has heavily influenced the Protestant Churches to say the least.
The Orthodox Church does not hold to the faith alone position. They hold to the beautiful theology of Theosis. Similar but not quite to the Catholic position of infusion of Righteousness. They have been separated from the Western Church for about 1000 years.
The Oriental Orthodox Churches broke away in the 5th Century right around the time of St. Chrysostom was alive and they also believe in Theosis.
Based on what you have written in various threads I must conclude that yours is a new innovation. Since even you wrote in the Chrysostom thread that no other protestant church held to this position.
I googled your ideas recently and it appears that this way of looking at things originated in the 60’s. The movement is called the New Perspectives on Paul. Reading excerpts of what the proponents of this new movement hav written sound close to what you have been saying. Until I read this, your threads were extremely confusing. I get it now.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
I believe that this doctrine, because it has been variegated in definition throughout history in the world-wide body of Christ, has been grasped in total whenever one group teaches that through conversion to Jesus Christ, repentance and faith, one is a receiver of the forgiveness of sins and is purified in their hearts through baptism and the holy spirit. And that perserverance is essential to final salvation.
C
carlos19
Guest
Hi Ben,
Well said. I would add however, that the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, under the article on Good Works, breaks this down fairly well.
[bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#IV. Good Works.](http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#IV. Good Works.)
This was the point that I tried to make to Erik, though you did it better, when I posted the link to the JDDJ.
Jon
C
carlos19
Guest
Erick in his homilies on the gospel of John. St. John Chrysotom teaches that faith alone is in sufficient for salvation.
In your theology, is leading a righteous life salvific as St. Chrysostom teaches?
In your theology, is leading a righteous life salvific as St. Chrysostom teaches?
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Yes good works are salvific. Jesus taught that there will be a resurrection, for those who have done good, into life. Protestants have always taught this.
Faith with no practice of righteosuness will gain no one entrance into the kingdom. This is taught in protestant theologians aw pink, Herman ridderbos, Richard gaffin, Wayne grudem, Charles spurgeon, john MacArthur, john calvin, the puritans, especially the baptist original, etc etc
Chrysostom however when speaking about the righteousness which justifies us, never speaks of it as that righteousness which inheres in us, but the gift of status
Faith with no practice of righteosuness will gain no one entrance into the kingdom. This is taught in protestant theologians aw pink, Herman ridderbos, Richard gaffin, Wayne grudem, Charles spurgeon, john MacArthur, john calvin, the puritans, especially the baptist original, etc etc
Chrysostom however when speaking about the righteousness which justifies us, never speaks of it as that righteousness which inheres in us, but the gift of status
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Nice link.
C
carlos19
Guest
Excellent, thank you. The last part about chrysostom, which homily are you referring to?
P
pablope
Guest
Erick…sooner or later, matters will come to a head…sooner or later…you will need or have to stop analysing it…I mean…at what point when will it become overly analyzed and becomes an obsession?
It is either the Luther and friends are correct and the CC is wrong? Has the CC changed its teachings since AD33? Even after the reformation…the CC has not changed its teachings.
And why would you believe Luther and his friends over that of John Crysostom? Or Luther over Aquinas? Or Luther over Ratrzinger? Or Scott Hanh?
Would you take an innovation 500 yrs ago or a consistent teaching for 2000 years?
I would suggest that you read this and get a hold of the book suggested here:
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0097.html
Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation
MARK BRUMLEY
Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work — for Protestantism’s principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church
Where does this leave us? If the Reformation was right about sola gratia and sola Scriptura, its two key principles, how was it wrong? Bouyer holds that only the positive elements of these Reformation principles are correct.
Unfortunately, these principles were unnecessarily linked by the Reformers to certain negative elements, which the Catholic Church had to reject. Here we consider two of those elements: 1) the doctrine of extrinsic justification and the nature of justifying faith and 2) the authority of the Bible.
The Reformation view was different. The Reformers, like the Catholic Church, insisted that justification is by grace and therefore originates outside of man, with God. But they also insisted that when God justifies man, man is not changed but merely declared just or righteous. God treats man as if he were just or righteous, imputing to man the righteousness of Christ, rather than imparting it to him.
The Reformers held this view for two reasons. First, because they came to think it necessary in order to uphold the gratuitousness of justification. Second, because they thought the Bible taught it. On both points, argues Bouyer, the Reformers were mistaken. There is neither a logical nor a biblical reason why God cannot effect a change in man without undercutting justification by grace alone. Whatever righteousness comes to be in man as a result of justification is a gift, as much any other gift God bestows on man. Nor does the Bible’s treatment of “imputed” righteousness imply that justification is not imparted. On these points, the Reformers were simply wrong:
“Without the least doubt, grace, for St. Paul, however freely given, involves what he calls ‘the new creation’, the appearance in us of a ‘new man’, created in justice and holiness. So far from suppressing the efforts of man, or making them a matter of indifference, or at least irrelevant to salvation, he himself tells us to ‘work out your salvation with fear and trembling’, at the very moment when he affirms that ‘. . . knowing that it is God who works in you both to will and to accomplish.’ These two expressions say better than any other that all is grace in our salvation, but at the same time grace is not opposed to human acts and endeavor in order to attain salvation, but arouses them and exacts their performance.”
B
Bookcat
Guest
Without agreeing that such and such was not discussed by a particular person (especially one with a good amount of extant works).
If a Priest is giving say homily – and discussing say that realty that it is by the death and resurrection of Christ that one has life and salvation…
The fact that he does not mention faith for example or grace does not mean that he does not profess all that the Church Teaches as a Christian and as a Priest.
Homilies are not systematic works of Theology.
And if after his death…some written works are found consisting of mostly homilies and a few letters – such are not full representations of what he held or even taught… so one cannot go through them and say …hey I do not find in these papers that he kept (the rest no longer existing) him saying “such and such” but he does treat this other aspect of things…gee he must have not believed such and such but only what we find in the writings left to us…
If a Priest is giving say homily – and discussing say that realty that it is by the death and resurrection of Christ that one has life and salvation…
The fact that he does not mention faith for example or grace does not mean that he does not profess all that the Church Teaches as a Christian and as a Priest.
Homilies are not systematic works of Theology.
And if after his death…some written works are found consisting of mostly homilies and a few letters – such are not full representations of what he held or even taught… so one cannot go through them and say …hey I do not find in these papers that he kept (the rest no longer existing) him saying “such and such” but he does treat this other aspect of things…gee he must have not believed such and such but only what we find in the writings left to us…
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Chrysostom’s homily on Romans and Galatians.
Chrysostom’s understand the “righteousness of God” as a gift of quality or status before God, rather than the behavioral sense of “righteousness”.
For instance, he believes that the sin of Adam is imputed to mankind, not just in the sense of making others sinful and corrupt, but that they are suffering the punishment of death not because of their sin but because of Adam’s sin (do you see?). In the same way the gift of “righteousness” is that which is given to mankind to make him just before God, not intrinsically, but as a status of right-standing with God, do you see?
This goes contrary to Catholic exegesis.
Chrysostom’s understand the “righteousness of God” as a gift of quality or status before God, rather than the behavioral sense of “righteousness”.
For instance, he believes that the sin of Adam is imputed to mankind, not just in the sense of making others sinful and corrupt, but that they are suffering the punishment of death not because of their sin but because of Adam’s sin (do you see?). In the same way the gift of “righteousness” is that which is given to mankind to make him just before God, not intrinsically, but as a status of right-standing with God, do you see?
This goes contrary to Catholic exegesis.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Without commenting on the rest of your ideas there.
Yes that is Catholic (though more can be said)
Behavior sense comes after…one has to be made holy before one can act in a holy way.
God makes the person righteous by the blood of Christ – by grace…as a gift.
God makes them righteous – and can say yes such is so before him.
Similar to God making the earth good – and then saying yes it is good.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The understanding you have of Catholic Teaching and theology (or Chrysostom) is not quite there but I can add quickly that do not have a full grasp the various Protestant Theologies.
B
Bookcat
Guest
I would propose there is both more ground to be covered in coming to an understanding of both Catholic Teaching and Theology as well as of what St. John Chrysostom is saying in various places in the genre of a homily.
And without getting into a trying to parse out here and now what your understanding is of various terms --it can be noted that yes righteousness is a gift. To focus one one aspect of justification is not to exclude other aspects that then follow.
And without getting into a trying to parse out here and now what your understanding is of various terms --it can be noted that yes righteousness is a gift. To focus one one aspect of justification is not to exclude other aspects that then follow.
- Status