Justified by Faith Alone cf. James 2:24

[rcwitness]

Are you implying that they had been baptized earlier?

No, I am agreeing with you (on that issue).

 

[lanman87]

No, I am agreeing with you (on that issue).

LOL! I was trying to figure out how that didn’t say what I thought it said.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Acts 10

While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” **God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. **

CCC agrees

 

[LatinRight]

God doesn’t predestine ANYONE to hell. To profess double predestination is heresy.

**God bless James and every readers of the CAF.

Please read again** my posts # 441 and 443.

**An interesting excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

THE THEORY OF THE NEGATIVE REPROBATION OF THE DAMNED**

Lessius rightly says that it would be indifferent to him whether he was numbered among those reprobated positively or negatively; for, in either case, his eternal damnation would be certain.

The reason for this is that in the present economy exclusion from heaven means for adults practically the same thing as damnation.

A middle state, a merely natural happiness, does not exist. End quote.

James, do you know what is the practical differences between the expressions NEGATIVE REPROBATION OF THE DAMNED and NEGATIVE PREDESTINATION TO HELL?

God bless.

LatinRight

 

[James248]

**God bless James and every readers of the CAF.

Please read again** my posts # 441 and 443.

**An interesting excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

THE THEORY OF THE NEGATIVE REPROBATION OF THE DAMNED**

Lessius rightly says that it would be indifferent to him whether he was numbered among those reprobated positively or negatively; for, in either case, his eternal damnation would be certain.

The reason for this is that in the present economy exclusion from heaven means for adults practically the same thing as damnation.

A middle state, a merely natural happiness, does not exist. End quote.

James, do you know what is the practical differences between the expressions NEGATIVE REPROBATION OF THE DAMNED and NEGATIVE PREDESTINATION TO HELL?

God bless.

LatinRight

What I know is this: there is a Book of Life and not a book of death.

 

[Cathoholic]

lanman87. You asked me (here) . . .

What do you think of this article?

I thought it was very good.

Thanks lanman87 for sharing it with me.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sy Carl. You stated in post 417 . . . .

God makes us capable of wanting to be righteous and capable of trying to be righteous. However, God’s standard is perfection.

That is correct.

You went on to state . . . .

We are not perfect, therefore we have not been made righteous.

Then you went on to quote St. Augustine who actually contradicts your point.

ST. AUGUSTINE (excerpt from your quote) And thus, as it appears to me, that man has made a far advance, even in the present life, in the righteousness which is to be perfected hereafter, who has discovered by this very advance how very far removed he is from the completion of righteousness.

St. Augustine doesn’t say we are not “righteous” in this life. There’s LOTS of examples of people in the Bible who are “righteous” (I won’t do the word search for you. I expect you to already know this).

St. Augustine says our righteousness (notice there is “righteousness”) is to be “completed” (“completion”).

I agree our righteousness needs to be “completed”.

That’s the whole point I made earlier about justification Sy Carl. It is a moment followed by a PROCESS. A lifelong PROCESS.

If you have been taught in the Baptist tradition you know justification gets whittled down to a mere moment ALONE. (That’s why High School kids like me [long ago] got “You are now saved cards” at Baptist campfires at times)

And the standard being “perfection” I agree with.

You’ve gotta be PERFECT to enter Heaven.

In Heaven there are not going to be people lying, cheating, etc.

Our “righteousness” stems from our union with Christ in a special way Sy Carl.

You are focusing on sin. (that’s a partial truth)

I am focusing on Christ.

 

[Cathoholic]

SyCarl. I stated:

I have no problem with God “declaring” us as “righteous”. But if you are positing that it is a declaration “ALONE” I am going to take issue with that.

You replied (here) . . .

. . . . justification is strictly a declaration.

Yet God almighty tells us . . .

ISAIAH 55:11 11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

• God: My Word shall accomplish that which I purpose.
• Cathoholic: God’s Word shall accomplish that which He purposes.
• SyCarl: Justification is strictly a declaration.

This is yet another example of “whittling down” the faith.

Justification gets truncated down to faith ALONE.
Grace gets minimized to favor ALONE.
Justification gets cut down to a moment ALONE.
God’s word, gets mutilated down to a declaration ALONE.
God’s life IN US gets dwindled down to an imputation ALONE.
Merit gets curtailed to God meriting ALONE.

(LOTS of ADDING “ALONES” in many of these traditions, when the word “alone” isn’t in Scripture)

Pretty soon you look at the** denial of verse after verse after verse**, and it seems more like a denial system sometimes than a belief system.

And on and on and on goes the denials.

This is why Catholics look at much of Protestant theology (not Protestants) and wonder where is the “belief” (?) taught in these other verses that are constantly being DENIED?

(So much for “FAITH alone”)

 

[SyCarl]

Then you went on to quote St. Augustine who actually contradicts your point.

St. Augustine doesn’t say we are not “righteous” in this life. There’s LOTS of examples of people in the Bible who are “righteous” (I won’t do the word search for you. I expect you to already know this).

St. Augustine says our righteousness (notice there is “righteousness”) is to be “completed” (“completion”).

The question though is whether a lesser degree of righteousness can actually be called righteousness before God. Augustine goes on to talk about an inferior righteousness in this life.

Forasmuch, however, as an inferior righteousness may be said to be competent to this life, whereby the just man lives by faith, although absent from the Lord, and, therefore, walking by faith and not yet by sight,—it may be without absurdity said, no doubt, in respect of it, that it is free from sin; for it ought not to be attributed to it as a fault, that it is not as yet sufficient for so great a love to God as is due to the final, complete, and perfect condition thereof….And do they prove this to be wrong which is written, “In Thy sight shall no man living be justified?” and this: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?” and, “There is no man that sinneth not;” and again, “There is not on the earth a righteous man, who doeth good and sinneth not” (for both these statements are expressed in a general future sense,—“sinneth not,” “will not sin,”—not in the past time, “has not sinned”)?—and all other places of this purport contained in the Holy Scripture? Since, however, these passages cannot possibly be false, it plainly follows, to my mind, that whatever be the quality or extent of the righteousness which we may definitely ascribe to the present life, there is not a man living in it who is absolutely free from all sin; and that it is necessary for every one to give, that it may be given to him; and to forgive, that it may be forgiven him; and whatever righteousness he has, not to presume that he has it of himself, but from the grace of God, who justifies him, and still to go on hungering and thirsting for righteousness from Him who is the living bread, and with whom is the fountain of life; who works in His saints, whilst labouring amidst temptation in this life, their justification in such manner that He may still have somewhat to impart to them liberally when they ask, and something mercifully to forgive them when they confess.

(On the Spirit and the Letter, Chapter 65)
newadvent.org/fathers/1502.htm

I think that the standard to be called righteous is God’s standard of perfection. That is why it was necessary for Jesus to fulfill the law perfectly. Then as our Head His righteousness can be imputed to us.

That’s the whole point I made earlier about justification Sy Carl. It is a moment followed by a PROCESS. A lifelong PROCESS.

And that is why I said much of our differences are a matter of semantics. Salvation is a process. However we call that process sanctification which we separate from justification. In sanctification we work to increase our righteousness but the process will not be completed in this lifetime.

 

[Cathoholic]

SyCarl. You quoted (here) Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, etc. ostensibly to show they taught justification by faith ALONE.

NO ancient Church Father taught justification by faith ALONE in the sense YOU are trying to get them to say.

It is not persuasive to trot out those ECF quotes to try to force them to teach justification by faith ALONE.

Why?

Because they are either denying “works” in terms of “works of law” or “Torah” such as circumcision.

Or they are affirming FAITH alone with “faith” or “fides” meaning “FIDElity”.

Fidelity.

Fidelity includes ACTIONS.

When a spouse commits “infidelity” we know there were likely “actions” involved.

When the Fathers use the term “Faith alone” they are using “faith” in the sense of “fidelity”.

How do we know that?

By looking elsewhere in their writings where they talk about Baptism, or works, or how sin can cut you off from Christ.

I have already addressed this issue in principle and quoted Trent to do it.

That’s EXACTLY WHY I said (in post 310) . . . .

If you want to define a “saving faith” as a faith that NECESSARILY works, and NEEDS to WORK, and CONTINUES working, you will hear no criticism from me.

The Council of Trent’s condemnation of “Justification by faith alone” seems to be OK with that as well.

But the Council was NOT OK with a definition of “faith alone” that means nothing else is required in the way of COOPERATION after your moment.

COUNCIL OF TRENT CANON IX - If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.​

That’s what the Fathers sometimes do. Use “faith” in the sense of “fidelity”. Not divorced from working.

(The fathers use “fidelity” or fides just like St. Paul does when he talks about the OBEDIENCE of faith the very first and last times he mentions “Faith” in Romans (Romans 1:5 and Romans 16:26. As Dr. Hahn says: Obedience and Faith are conjoined by St. Paul in Romans as “bookends” so YOU the reader, don’t divorce faith and works.)

The Fathers use faith sometimes in the sense of fidelity.

And that’s WHY your ministers often won’t have you read Church history in my opinion.

Your ministers will urge you to read books ABOUT Church history . . . but they frequently cannot suggest reading the actual Fathers works (except for selective quotes) as they are too Catholic.

I will try to deal soon with your implication that the teachings about Abraham suggest justification by faith ALONE.

None of the teachings about Abraham say or teach justification by faith ALONE.

 

[SyCarl]

Yet God almighty tells us . . .

• God: My Word shall accomplish that which I purpose.
• Cathoholic: God’s Word shall accomplish that which He purposes.
• SyCarl: Justification is strictly a declaration.

This is yet another example of “whittling down” the faith.

Justification gets truncated down to faith ALONE.
Grace gets minimized to favor ALONE.
Justification gets cut down to a moment ALONE.
God’s word, gets mutilated down to a declaration ALONE.
God’s life IN US gets dwindled down to an imputation ALONE.
Merit gets curtailed to God meriting ALONE.

(LOTS of ADDING “ALONES” in many of these traditions, when the word “alone” isn’t in Scripture)

Pretty soon you look at the** denial of verse after verse after verse**, and it seems more like a denial system sometimes than a belief system.

And on and on and on goes the denials.

This is why Catholics look at much of Protestant theology (not Protestants) and wonder where is the “belief” (?) taught in these other verses that are constantly being DENIED?

(So much for “FAITH alone”)

You really do not seem to be paying attention to what I am saying. I am not denying the importance of works. However I place them as part of sanctification separate from justification. God’s life in us is seen as part of regeneration, which is again viewed as separate from justification. Again the difference appears be me to be mainly one of semantics rather than substance. That the process of salvation is broken down differently doesn’t mean that things are left out.

 

[Cathoholic]

You really do not seem to be paying attention to what I am saying. I am not denying the importance of works.

But I am not talking about the mere “importance” of works SyCarl.

I am talking about the NECESSITY of works for those who can do so.

Works done in and through the Holy Spirit to be sure, but necessary they still are.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl. You quoted (here) Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, etc. ostensibly to show they taught justification by faith ALONE.

NO ancient Church Father taught justification by faith ALONE in the sense YOU are trying to get them to say.

It is not persuasive to trot out those ECF quotes to try to force them to teach justification by faith ALONE.

Why?

Because they are either denying “works” in terms of “works of law” or “Torah” such as circumcision.

Or they are affirming FAITH alone with “faith” or “fides” meaning “FIDElity”.

Fidelity.

Fidelity includes ACTIONS.

When a spouse commits “infidelity” we know there were likely “actions” involved.

When the Fathers use the term “Faith alone” they are using “faith” in the sense of “fidelity”.

How do we know that?

By looking elsewhere in their writings where they talk about Baptism, or works, or how sin can cut you off from Christ.

I have already addressed this issue in principle and quoted Trent to do it.

That’s EXACTLY WHY I said (in post 310) . . . .

If you want to define a “saving faith” as a faith that NECESSARILY works, and NEEDS to WORK, and CONTINUES working, you will hear no criticism from me.

The Council of Trent’s condemnation of “Justification by faith alone” seems to be OK with that as well.

But the Council was NOT OK with a definition of “faith alone” that means nothing else is required in the way of COOPERATION after your moment.

COUNCIL OF TRENT CANON IX - If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.​

That’s what the Fathers sometimes do. Use “faith” in the sense of “fidelity”. Not divorced from working.

(The fathers use “fidelity” or fides just like St. Paul does when he talks about the OBEDIENCE of faith the very first and last times he mentions “Faith” in Romans (Romans 1:5 and Romans 16:26. As Dr. Hahn says: Obedience and Faith are conjoined by St. Paul in Romans as “bookends” so YOU the reader, don’t divorce faith and works.)

The Fathers use faith sometimes in the sense of fidelity.

And that’s WHY your ministers often won’t have you read Church history in my opinion.

Your ministers will urge you to read books ABOUT Church history . . . but they frequently cannot suggest reading the actual Fathers works (except for selective quotes) as they are too Catholic.

I will try to deal soon with your implication that the teachings about Abraham suggest justification by faith ALONE.

None of the teachings about Abraham say or teach justification by faith ALONE.

Of course the church fathers stressed the importance of works. They say various things about the effects of those works and what they mean. For example, Chrysostom says:

God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.

(Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 134.)

In another place he also draws a distinction that places works separate from justification.

But since after this grace, whereby we were justified, there is need also of a life suited to it, let us show an earnestness worthy the gift. And show it we shall, if we keep with earnestness charity, the mother of good deeds.

(Homilies on Romans, Homily 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm

Again it comes down to semantics. Does it really matter if one places works under justification or sanctification?

 

[Cathoholic]

SyCarl mentioned . . .

The question though is whether a lesser degree of righteousness can actually be called righteousness before God.

I think the answer is it can be called “righteous” . . . . because the Bible calls it “righteous”.

---

MATTHEW 5:20 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

NOT MATTHEW 5:20 (but a phantom verse) 20 For I tell you, you can’t have what would actually be called righteousness, but in some other ways you are to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, or you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

---

MATTHEW 6:33 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.

**NOT MATTHEW 6:33 (but a phantom verse) ** 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness but you cannot have what is actually called righteous because then it would suggest Christ lives IN and through YOU instead of only covering you like snow on a dunghill. So seek what can’t be called righteousness and then all that mere covering shall be yours as well.

---

MARK 6:19-20a 19 And Herodi-as had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not, 20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe.

NOT MARK 6:19-20a 19 And Herodi-as had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not, 20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a good guy but couldn’t actually be called righteous, kept him safe.

---

LUKE 1:5-6 5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

NOT LUKE 1:5-6 5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both nice, but they couldn’t actually be called righteous before God.

---

Here St. Paul again affirms the need for faith AND works or faith WORKING in love or “through faith is righteous”.

ROMANS 1:16-17 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written,** “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”**

NOT ROMANS 1:16-17 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, **“He who has faith alone shall live, but he can’t really be called righteous.” **

---

You also said:

I am not denying the importance of works. However I place them as part of sanctification separate from justification.

Yet St. Paul says (parenthetical addition mine) . . . . .

2nd THESSALONIANS 2:13a 13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved . . . . (HOW? HOW are we to be saved?)

But HOW are we saved St. Paul? Through faith ALONE?

NO! Through faith AND sanctification!

2nd THESSALONIANS 2:13 13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

---

HEBREWS 12:14 (NIV) 14 Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.

 

[SyCarl]

But I am not talking about the mere “importance” of works SyCarl.

I am talking about the NECESSITY of works for those who can do so.

Works done in and through the Holy Spirit to be sure, but necessary they still are.

You seem to be more interested in playing with words rather than in a meaningful discussion as if using the word importance somehow denies necessity. Even Calvin said works were required.

We, indeed, allow that good works are required for righteousness; we only take away from them the power of conferring righteousness, because they cannot stand before the tribunal of God

Commentary on the Catholic Epistles
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.vi.iii.vii.html

From the Westminster Confession of Faith

They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

 

[Cathoholic]

To the readers of this thread.

SyCarl attempts to make it sound like St. John Chrysostom (who was a Catholic Bishop incidentally) teaches justification by faith ALONE by quoting one of St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on Ephesians.

He does so here.

Please don’t fall for it.

St. John Chrysostom uses “faith” in terms of fidelity.

I went to my computer program to read first hand St. John’s homilies on Ephesians (he has nine of them translated).

This was about 14 pages worth.

The first three PARAGRAPHS I got this from St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on Ephesians (which Sy Carl did NOT MENTION).

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM "For this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus, which is among you, and which ye show toward all the saints

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM “Wherefore,” he says, i.e., because of what is to come, because of the good things that are laid up in store for them who rightly believe and live. And it is meet then to give thanks to God both for all the things which mankind have received at His hands, both heretofore and hereafter; and meet to give Him thanks also for the faith of them that believe.

Talking about St. Paul . . . .

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM “Having heard,” saith he, “of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is among you, and which ye show toward all the saints.” He on all occasions knits together and combines faith and love, a glorious pair; nor does he mention the saints of that country only, but all.

There is more. Much more. But you get the idea. St. John Chrysostom is NOT teaching justification by faith ALONE in the sense that Sy Carl is attempting to make it sound like.

Sy Carl. That approach just isn’t going to be persuasive.

I want to suggest to you instead of reading excerpts of the early Church Fathers, just read the Early Church Fathers.

I sense a very good spirit in you Sy Carl, but I think God is calling you to more too.

 

[Cathoholic]

You seem to be more interested in playing with words rather than in a meaningful discussion

Well then I apologize Sy Carl for giving you the wrong impression.

I am concerned about truth.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sy Carl. You quoted Calvin here saying . . . .

We, indeed, allow that good works are required for righteousness; we only take away from them the power of conferring righteousness, because they cannot stand before the tribunal of God.

OK. A couple of things here.

We, indeed, allow that good works are required for righteousness . . .

OK. Are you saying “good works” are necessary for justification?

Are you saying you don’t need to be “righteous” for justification?

. . . . we only take away from them the power of conferring righteousness . . .

A couple of things here.

My faith or my works cannot “confer righteousness” at least initially. OK?

But after I have the Holy Spirit . . . things change.

The first thing that changes is that my faith and my works have been supernaturalized.

Jesus is the “author and finisher” of our faith. And thus now my faith IS efficacious.

But Jesus is also the author and finisher of my works too. God is “at WORK.”

Where?

“God is at work IN YOU”.

Why?

“God is at work IN YOU both for the will and good pleasure of the Father.”

“It’s no longer I who live, but Christ who lives IN ME!”

And I am expected to allow Him to CONTINUE to live IN ME (and I in HIM).

And if I choose to remain in the Vine, the Bible tells me I CAN do good work. But if I choose to separate myself from the Vine, I will be cast aside and burned.

Christ abides IN ME (notice He doesn’t merely “cover” me) and I IN HIM.

And THIS is WHY my works DO stand before the tribunal of God.
And THIS is WHY my faith DOES stand before the tribunal of God.

Because of Christ. Because I am a partaker of the Divine nature by His grace.

And because of this great gift I CAN supplement my faith (which was/is a gift) with virtue (which was/is a gift).

2nd PETER 1:2-5a 2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. 3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. 5 For this very reason make every effort to **supplement your faith with virtue . . . **

 

[Cathoholic]

Sy Carl. You also said (parenthesis and emphasis mine) . . .

In another place he (St. John Chrysostom) also draws a distinction that places works separate from justification.

But since after this grace, whereby we were justified, there is need also of a life suited to it, let us show an earnestness worthy the gift. And show it we shall, if we keep with earnestness charity, the mother of good deeds.​

This is not a distinction that is “separate” from justification Sy Carl.

It is a distinction from the initial moment of justification.

But after that moment of justification, you embark on a lifelong process of justification.

That’s WHY the Book of Revelation says “let him that is justified, be justified further still.” (I am paraphrasing as I did not look it up here).

And that is WHY St. John Chrysostom (in the very segment you quoted) says AFTER this grace (of justification) there is “NEED ALSO” of a good life.

(Notice in the very passage you quoted St. John Chrysostom talks about the “NEED” to live a good life)

And that good life occurs through “charity” St. John Chrysostom says.

Charity is a supernatural virtue. (“Supernatural virtue” only comes from the Holy Spirit who lives IN us. That’s WHY it is called “supernatural” virtue.)

And St. Paul says of charity it is even MORE important than FAITH!!

(That would be non-sense for St. Paul to say that **charity **is more important than **faith **if he believed in justification by faith ALONE.)

 

[drblank1]

Luke 18:18-22

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

Sorry I’m late to respond but am very busy these days:

You totally miss the point of what Jesus was asking of the rich young ruler. This was not a good work that would merit him salvation. Jesus was asking the young man to empty himself; give up his faith in his riches and put all his faith in Jesus. This is a prime example of Jesus’ teaching that faith saves. The young man executed the 10 commandments very well but it wasn’t enough. What the young man “lacked” was faith in Jesus!!!