Not By Faith Alone

[Philthy]

Don’t mix apples and oranges. I quoted this verse in reference to assurance, and it does implicitly state the gift of perseverance is given. Check it out:

Romans 8:30
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

There is no hole in this logic. Those whom he justifies he also glorifies.

I have purposely been lurking on the sidelines allowing you 2 to discuss these issues uninterrupted. My logic skills are pretty finely tuned and I always perk up when I see someone use the word “logic” as you did. Unfortunately for your argument, there is unequivocably a hole in your logic. You have incorrectly concluded from the above verse that everyone who is justified is also glorified. That, however, is not quite correct. It is more correct to say that OF THOSE HE PREDESTINED he also called, justified and glorified. What remains to be determined is whom, exactly is Paul referring to when he uses the term “those he predestined”.
For the clearest determination of that, we need to present the ENTIRE section from Romans 8:29-30:
"For those he FOREKNEW he also PREDESTINED…And those he predestined he also called…justified…and glorified.
I beleive the logical conclusion is that OF THOSE HE FOREKNEW he also predestined, etc etc etc. And the question becomes “Who are those he foreknew?”
The answer is most clearly expressed in Romnas 11:1-2
“…has God rejected his people? Of course not! For I too am an Israelite…God has not rejected his people whom he FORENEW.”
When Paul is talking about “his people whom he foreknew” he means the remnant of the Israelites whom God foreknew, predestined etc etc. That is why he says in verse 11:5 "So also at the present time there is a REMNANT(of Israelites), CHOSEN BY GRACE.
So who are “those he foreknew” who were “predestined to Glory?” The answer is the remnant of the Israelites. of which Paul is a member. That invalidates some of the conclusions that you have regarding how that verse applies to you and me. In addition, it would be erroneous logic to conclude from these verses that EVERYONE who is glorified was PREDESTINED to glorification…
I will let you two continue uninterrupted…

BTW - it’s nice to see the charitable posting from each of you.

 

[Philthy]

Paul and James are speaking of justification in two different senses. Paul is speaking of how one comes into a right relationship with God. He is talking about God justifying the ungodly. James is speaking of how the godly one(already justified) will produce works.

I disagree and I apologize for not being able to stay away! Could you explain 2 things:

1. What is the value of James stating that the “godly one” will produce works? How is this useful to you and me?
2. Why on earth would James choose to use the term “justified” in the manner you allege (behavioral), and then link it to the “justification” of Abraham (which you accept as “actual” justification)? Is there any way he could possibly made it more confusing?! Do you really think that James was trying to say that Abraham, who was “actually” justified was subsequently “behaviorly” justified by works? That really makes no sense at all and simply loops us back into Question 1 - So what? What do we do with it?

It becomes a useless distinction on this side of eternity. Even if what you allege is true, you cannot avoid the following reality: It may be that God can judge our faith apart from our works (though Gen 22 would seem to indicate otherwise) but we cannot, and if we are not producing good works we should presume that we have a saving faith. Do you agree?
ss:

If you don’t produce works then we should not count your faith as real faith.

I agree, but the big question is, “Should you personally count your faith as real if you don’t produce works?” Yes or no will suffice.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

An assertion is not an argument my friend.

Great! Then I can simply ignore the “assertions” of Protestantism, as they are without convincing evidence!

However, if you think you’ve convinced anybody here by your assertions that St. John Chrysostom was some kind of Proto-Protestant who taught Protestant soteriology, then you’ve failed. The apologists who rip the early fathers out of context often do.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Great! Then I can simply ignore the “assertions” of Protestantism, as they are without convincing evidence!

I’m disappointed, I expected more from a guy with his own website

However, if you think you’ve convinced anybody here by your assertions that St. John Chrysostom was some kind of Proto-Protestant who taught Protestant soteriology, then you’ve failed. The apologists who rip the early fathers out of context often do.

Now, I’m really disappointed. I never asserted such thing. What I did assert and provide the evidence for was the following:

• Chrysostom used the phrase faith alone when interpreting parts of the book of Romans
• Chrysostom believed the reason Paul anticipated the response of how we lived didn’t matter was because he was teaching justification by faith alone
• As a bonus he believed Paul was teaching against more than just ceremonial laws as a means of justification.

And of course you ended this with another assertion that I took him out of context. Care to make an cogent argument that he was taken out of context?

 

[Redbandito]

I’m disappointed, I expected more from a guy with his own website

Now, I’m really disappointed. I never asserted such thing. What I did assert and provide the evidence for was the following:

• Chrysostom used the phrase faith alone when interpreting parts of the book of Romans
• Chrysostom believed the reason Paul anticipated the response of how we lived didn’t matter was because he was teaching justification by faith alone
• As a bonus he believed Paul was teaching against more than just ceremonial laws as a means of justification.

And of course you ended this with another assertion that I took him out of context. Care to make an cogent argument that he was taken out of context?

I believe he did this by providing a little “context” to the ONE quote of John Chrysostom you provided. You admit that John says “love” in one, thus you admit that, at least at one point, John did not believe faith was “alone” in the modern Evangelical Protestant sense.

 

[Redbandito]

*I had this saved in my email. Unfortunately, I don’t have the link to this. However, if you would like the whole of the explanation, I would be more than happy to cut, paste and send it to you. John Chrysostom did NOT teach “faith alone” as you are arguing. *

Ver. 4. "For to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."
Then is not this last the greatest? he means. By no means: for it is to the believer that it is reckoned. ****But it would not have been reckoned, unless there were something that he contributed himself. And so he too hath God for his debtor, and debtor too for no common things, but great and high ones. For to show his high-mindedness and spiritual understanding, he does not say “to him that believeth” merely, but
Ver. 5. "To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly."
For reflect how great a thing it is to be persuaded and have full confidence that God is able on a sudden not to free a man who has lived in impiety from punishment only, but even to make him just,****and to count him worthy of those immortal honors. NPNF1: Vol. XI, **Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans,**Homily 8, Rom. 4:1, 2., p. 386
Thus, St. Chrysostom even sees God as a debtor. The gift that he gives us is a just reward for our works. We contribute ourselves to our own justification. Those who use Roman 4 to teach that works do not contribute to our own justification are at odds with St. Chrysostom. Part of justification is him making us righteous. That is his definition of justification:
**Chrysostom (349-407): That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor. Upon this head accordingly Paul has discoursed at length in his Epistle to the Romans, and here again at length. “This is a faithful saying,” he says, “and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” As the Jews were chiefly attracted by this, he persuades them not to give heed to the law, since they could not attain salvation by it without faith. Against this he contends; for it seemed to them incredible, that a man who had misspent all his former life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his faith alone. On this account he says, “It is a saying to be believed.” But some not only disbelieved but even objected, as the Greeks do now. “Let us then do evil, that good may come.” This was the consequence they drew in derision of our faith, from his words, “Where sin abounded grace did much more abound.” (Rom. 3:8, and 5:20) ( HOMILY IV. Saint John Chrysostom 1 Timothy 1:15, 16) **
He says that you can not be saved by law without faith. Of course, the Catholic Church does not teach that one is saved by law alone. The law, in and of itself is unable to save one. He says: “since they could not attain salvation by it without faith”. In addition, he is dealing with Judaizers, as can be seen from his statement, ‘As the Jews’, and ‘against this’. Notice that he does not say that law is divorced from salvation. He says just that without faith, the law will not save. Thus, faith must be in cooperation with the law in order for one to be saved. We see this in his commentary on Romans 8. However, even in the more immediate context of his statement here on 1 Tim. 1:15, 16, we see what is the means of getting this remission of sins. What is this faith ‘alone’ pointing to in the remission of sins? In the very paragraph, King points us to, St. Chrysostom writes, immediately following the above quote that King tries to show faith alone excluding the sacraments, still Homily on 1 Tim. 1:15:16::

 

[Redbandito]

Continued…

So when we discourse to them of Hell they say, How can this be worthy of God? When man has found his servant offending, he forgives it, and thinks him worthy of pardon and does God punish eternally? And**** when we speak of the Laver, and of the remission of sins through it, ****this too they say is unworthy of God, that he who has committed offenses without number should have his sins remitted. What perverseness of mind is this, what a spirit of contention does it manifest! NPNF1: Vol. XIII, p. 420.
Thus, the faith ‘alone’ that he speaks of, is only efficient for the remission of sins, ****through the laver. ****What is the laver, but baptism? As this is in the very same paragraph that King points us to, he is either being sloppy or misleading when he forgets to mention that ‘faith alone’ only justifies when it is through the Laver, or baptism for the remission of sins. He further shows us that Paul’s contention is with the Judaizers. How do we get remission of sins? King leaves the answer out of his selective citation of Chrysostom in the very paragraph he points us to!!!
In this very homily of St. Chrysostom, he points us to the works that we do, and the honor we do in our works honor God. And that we must not commit mortal sins, as they will separate us from God. How does one attain salvation? St. Chrysostom answers in the very passage that King points us to, in Homily 4, on 1 Tim. 1:15, 16

 

[Redbandito]

Here is another one I had saved, but much more comprehensive of the stance of the ECF’s. Please take the time to read it, and realize that your position was not that of the ECF’s. One or two quotes out of context lead to a lot of confusion, as your previous quote shows.

The Church Fathers and Sola Fide (Justification By Faith Alone)

James White gave me the following challenge (on Julie Staples Message Board – November 2002):
JW> I have missed where you provide an in-depth response to Ambrosiaster’s teaching of sola fide, or to the repeated references to the elect in Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, or to the Epistle to Diognetius and its clear reference to imputational righteousness. >>
St. Clement of Rome has been discussed in depth by Matt1618 (see links below) so I don’t need to cover him here. Ambrosiaster would be the main focus, as well as Theodoret.
Ambrosiaster did use the term “faith alone,” however, he did not use it in the Protestant sense. He used the word “faith” that would include good works or love. “Faith” according to his definition was to walk in love. We Catholics don’t have problems with this. He says:
“God by his mercy has saved us through Christ. By his grace, we, born again, have received abundantly of his Holy Spirit, so that relying on good works, with him helping us in all things, we might be able thus to lay hold of the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven.” (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Titus 3:7 cited by Robert B. Eno “Some Patristic Views on the Relationship of Faith and Works in Justification” in Justification By Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII [1985], page 115)
“For justification, faith alone in love is necessary. For faith must be fortified with brotherly love for the perfection of the believer.” (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Galatians 5:6, ibid 116)
And a comment from Alister McGrath, an Anglican Protestant scholar:
“Like many of his contemporaries, for example, he [Ambrosiaster] appears to be obsessed with the idea that man can acquire merit before God, and the associated idea that certain labours are necessary to attain this.” (Alister McGrath, IUSTITIA DEI, volume 1, page 22 – his reference is to Souter’s The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul [Oxford, 1927] pages 65, 72-73, 80).
And Robert Eno, who Protestants like to quote because of his somewhat negative book on the Papacy, wrote this in the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue on Ambrosiaster’s views:
“Despite our initial justification by God’s mercy, our subsequent life, our works, will determine whether we are justified or damned ultimately. As can be seen, Ambrosiaster has no difficulty with merit language for the justified person. Having been washed, we must merit receiving the promise.” (Eno, in Justification By Faith, page 117)

 

[Redbandito]

Continued…

James White goes on:
JW> And I wonder what you do with these words:
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) Hebrews 9:27-28: “As it is appointed for each human being to die once, and the one who accepts death’s decree no longer sins but awaits the examination of what was done in life, so Christ the Lord, after being offered once for us and taking up our sins, will come to us again, with sin no longer in force, that is, with sin no longer occupying a place as far as human beings are concerned. He said himself, remember, when he still had a mortal body, “He committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth.” It should be noted, of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only.” [Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 175. Many thanks to DTK for providing this citation.] >>
James seems to be saying that Theodoret believes in “limited atonement.” However, this is a misinterpretation of Theodoret’s teachings. James emphasized this quote:
“It should be noted of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only.”
The phrase “he bore the sins of many, not all” is the same thing as “not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only.” He explained what he meant by the phrase “he bore the sins of many, not all.” In other words, He bore the sins of many not all because not all came to faith. But Theodoret definitely believed that Jesus desires all men to be saved (as does the Bible of course, cf. 1 Tim 2:4,6; 4:10; 2 Peter 3:9; Matt 23:37; Ezek 18:23-32; 33:11; John 1:9,16; 3:16-17; 4:42; 1 John 2:2; 4:9-14; Rom 2:4; 5:6,18; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Titus 2:11; James 1:13-14; Sirach 15:11-20; 1 Cor 10:13; etc):
“By raising the flesh He has given the promise of resurrection to us all, after giving the resurrection of His own precious body as a worthy pledge of ours. So loved He men even when they hated Him that the mystery of the economy fails to obtain credence with some on account of the very bitterness of His sufferings, and it is enough to show the depths of His loving kindness that He is even yet day by day calling to men who do not believe. And He does so not as though He were in need of the service of men – for of what is the Creator of the universe in want? – but because He thirsts for the salvation of every man. Grasp then, my excellent friend, His gift; sing praises to the Giver, and procure for us a very great and right goodly feast.” (Theodoret, Letter LXXVI To Uranius, Governor of Cyprus)
Here, Theodoret speaks of Jesus as thirsting for the salvation of every man, not the elect only. Anyone who claims otherwise would be “anachronistic.” Then of course, he also believed in faith and works for justification and salvation:
"If they give both to the pleadings of the opponents, and deliver a sentence acceptable to them, I shall put up with the injustice as bringing me nearer to the kingdom of heaven, and shall await that impartial tribunal, where there is neither prosecutor, nor counsel, nor witness, nor distinction in rank, but judgment of deeds and words and righteous retribution. “For,” it is said, “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that every one may receive the things done in his body according to that he hath done whether it be good or bad [cf. 2 Cor 5:10].” (Theodoret, Letter XCI To the Prefect Euthrechius)
“But this I will say, that we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and shall give account of our words and deeds. I, who for every other reason dread this tribunal, now that I am encompassed with calumny, find my chief consolation in the thought of it.” (Theodoret, Letter CII To Bishop Basilius)
He also speaks of people who live for Christ will wait for their rewards (Letter XIV To Alexandra).

 

[Redbandito]

In closing, James challenged me to give a response to Ambrosiaster and Theodoret. Many apologists, like Matt1618 (see below), have already given such a response. I believe those responses are sufficient to show the Fathers did not believe justification was by faith alone in the Protestant sense – by sola fide and “imputational righteousness.”
However, since I wanted to see if James was right or wrong, I looked into the sources myself. I did so, and I have responded. James White is wrong and he has not refuted any of my responses.
Evangelical Anglican scholar Alister McGrath writes at the conclusion of his doctoral dissertation IUSTITIA DEI: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge Univ Press, 1986), Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 19 –
“The significance of the Protestant distinction between -iustificatio- and -regeneratio- is that a FUNDAMENTAL DISCONTINUITY has been introduced into the western theological tradition WHERE NONE HAD EXISTED BEFORE [emphasis by McGrath].”
“However, it will be clear that the medieval period was astonishingly FAITHFUL to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, WHERE THE REFORMERS DEPARTED FROM IT [emphasis mine].”
“The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between JUSTIFICATION and REGENERATION. Although it must be emphasised that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the -ordo salutis- [the order of salvation], the essential point is that a notional distinction is made WHERE NONE HAD BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE [emphasis mine].”
“A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition WHERE NONE HAD EVER EXISTED, OR EVER BEEN CONTEMPLATED, BEFORE [my emphasis]. The Reformation understanding of the NATURE of justification – as opposed to its mode – must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological NOVUM.”
Here is a little bit more from St. Augustine (the great Father of the West), and St. John Chrysostom (the great Father of the East) on justification, salvation, baptism, grace and merit –
SAINT AUGUSTINE**** on Justification-Salvation****
Christ’s saints imitate Him in order to pursue JUSTICE [Justification]. Whence also the same Apostle says: “Be imitators of me, even as I am of Christ” [1 Cor 11:1]. But besides this imitation, His GRACE also works WITHIN us our illumination and JUSTIFICATION, by that work of which His same preacher says: “Neither is he that plants anything, nor he that waters, but He that gives the increase, God” [1 Cor 3:7].
For by this GRACE baptized INFANTS too are ingrafted into His body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive, besides offering Himself as an example of RIGHTEOUSNESS for those who would imitate Him, gives also the most hidden GRACE of His Spirit to believers, GRACE which He secretly INFUSES EVEN INTO INFANTS. (Forgiveness of Sins 1:9:10)
You are the only authorities who suppose that JUSTIFICATION is conferred by the remission alone of sins. Certainly God JUSTIFIES the impious man not only by remitting the evil deeds which that man does, but ALSO by granting LOVE, so that the man may turn away from evil and may DO GOOD THROUGH the Holy Spirit. (Against Julian 2:165)
He that is by nature the only Son of God, in His mercy to us, was made Son of Man, so that we, by nature sons of man, might through Him BY GRACE BECOME SONS of God…For just as we, by the sinning of one man, have fallen into this so deplorable an evil, so too through JUSTIFICATION wrought by one Man, the same who is God, we shall come to that good so sublime. (City of God 21:15)

 

[Philthy]

• Chrysostom believed the reason Paul anticipated the response of how we lived didn’t matter was because he was teaching justification by faith alone

Not quite - this was your insertion, right? I better go back and read the quote you provided…hang on…here’s the actual quote you provided:

Chrysostom:

“This was the consequence they drew in derision of our faith…”

Note that we cannot assume that Chrysostom’s definition of “our faith” is the same as yours - and there is good reason to believe he was Catholic, after all. Perhaps you are confusing Chrysostom with your own conclusion?

“The verses make not sense in light of Catholic interpretation, because if Paul was not teaching justification by faith alone then no one could arrive at the conclusion that living holy was not needed.”

Not quite supported by the text. This would appear to be another logical error in my opinion. You have assumed that the hearers of Paul’s message understood him correctly to be teaching “faith alone” in the manner that you understand it. That is certainly possible, but it is no more probable than the possibility that they incorrectly understood Paul’s message which was “faith” in the manner that Catholics understand it. Those are 2 equal probable possibilities which yield the same reaction from the Paul’s audience. Double positives and double negatives both yield the affirmative - its pure logic…

 

[Redbandito]

Continued…

If anyone says that faith MERITS the grace of doing GOOD WORKS, we cannot deny it; rather we admit it most readily. THIS is the FAITH we wish they might have, the FAITH by which they might obtain that LOVE which ALONE truly DOES GOOD WORKS, those brothers of ours who glory so much in their works! LOVE, however, is so much the gift of God that it is called God [1 John 4:8]…
Let no one say to himself: "If [justification] is from faith, how is it freely given [Rom 5:1; 3:24] : If faith MERITS it, why is it not rather paid than given?" Let the faithful man not say such a thing; for, if he says: “I have faith, therefore I merit justification,” he will be answered: “What have you that you did not receive” [1 Cor 4:7]? If therefore, faith entreats and receives JUSTIFICATION, according as God has apportioned to each in the measure of his faith [Rom 12:3], nothing of human merit PRECEDES the grace of God, but grace itself MERITS INCREASE, and the increase MERITS PERFECTION, with the will ACCOMPANYING but not leading, following ALONG but not going in advance. (Letters 186:3:7,10)
What MERIT, then, does a man have BEFORE grace, by which he might RECEIVE grace, when our EVERY good merit is produced in us ONLY by grace, and, when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but His own GIFTS to us? (Letters 194:5:19)
“He was handed over for our offenses, and He rose again for our JUSTIFICATION” [Rom 4:25]. What does this mean, “for our JUSTIFICATION” ? So that He might justify us; so that He might MAKE US JUST. You will be a work of God, not only because you are a man, but also because YOU ARE JUST…He who made you without your consent does not JUSTIFY you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but He does not JUSTIFY you without your WILLING it. (Sermons 169:13)
Now as to LOVE, which the Apostle says is greater than the other two, that is, than faith and hope [1 Cor 13:13], so much the better is he in whom it is found. For when it is asked whether someone is a good man, it is not asked what he BELIEVES or what he hopes for, but what he LOVES. For if someone loves rightly, without a doubt he believes and hopes rightly. But someone who does not love believes IN VAIN even if what he believes is TRUE; and he hopes IN VAIN, even if what he hopes for is rightly taught as pertaining to true happiness unless he believes and hopes for this also, that through prayer it may be given him to love…This however, is the FAITH of Christ which the Apostle commanded, which WORKS THROUGH LOVE [Gal 5:6]; and for whatever it does not yet have in love, it asks and receives, seeks and finds, knocks so that it will be opened to it [Matt 7:7]. Faith asks and OBTAINS what the law COMMANDS. For without the Gift of God, that is, without the Holy Spirit, through whom LOVE is poured out into our hearts [Rom 5:5], the law could command but could not help. Moreoever, the law could make a man a transgressor, who could not excuse himself on grounds of ignorance. Where there is NO love of God, carnal desire does reign. (Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love 31:117)
What is grace? Something given -gratis-. What is given -gratis-? That which is bestowed rather than paid as owed. If it is owed, it is wages paid, not a gift graciously given. If it was truly owed, you have been good; but if, as is the case, you have been evil, but YOU DID BELIEVE IN HIM WHO JUSTIFIES THE IMPIOUS * – and what is MEANT BY “He justifies the impious?” That HE MAKES THE IMPIOUS PIOUS* – think what was rightly threatened you by the law, and what you have obtained by grace! But since you have gotten that grace of faith, you shall be just by faith; for the just man lives by faith [Rom 1:17; Hab 2:4]. And by LIVING FAITH you shall DESERVE WELL of God; and when you shall have deserved well of God by LIVING by faith, as REWARD you shall receive immortality and ETERNAL LIFE. AND THAT IS GRACE. Because of what MERIT, then, do you receive ETERNAL LIFE? BECAUSE OF GRACE. (Homilies on the Gospel of John 3:9)

 

[Redbandito]

And FINALLY we get to the guy, whom you claim taught sola fide in the way you believe it to mean. As incorrect as this is, it is even worse when you consider that Chrysostom was one of the clearest on the Papacy and authority of the Church. Perhaps you should read him as a whole rather than prooftexting him to support your position.

SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM on Justification-Salvation
They are citizens of the Church who were wandering in error. They have their lot in RIGHTEOUSNESS who were in the confusion of sin. For not only are they free, but HOLY also; not only holy, but RIGHTEOUS too; not only righteous, but SONS also; not only sons, but HEIRS as well; not only heirs, but BROTHERS even of Christ; not only brothers of Christ, but also co-heirs; not only co-heirs, but His very members; not only His members, but a temple too; not a temple only, but likewise the instruments of the SPIRIT. You see how many are the benefits of BAPTISM, and some think its heavenly GRACE consists ONLY in the remission of sins; but we have enumerated TEN honors. For this reason we baptize even INFANTS, though they are not defiled by sin [or do not have sins]: so that there may be given to them HOLINESS, RIGHTEOUSNESS, ADOPTION, INHERITANCE, BROTHERHOOD with Christ, and that they may be His MEMBERS. (from Baptismal Catecheses 2:4)
"He that believes in the Son has everlasting life [John 3:36]… "Is it ENOUGH, then, to BELIEVE in the Son," someone will say, “in order to have everlasting life?” BY NO MEANS! Listen to Christ declare this Himself when He says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” [Matt 7:21]; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a PART of our teaching? For if a man BELIEVE rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not LIVE RIGHTLY, his faith will avail him NOTHING TOWARD SALVATION. (Homilies on John 31:1)
“If salvation is BY GRACE [Rom 11:6],” someone will say, “why is it we are not all saved?” BECAUSE YOU DID NOT WILL IT; for grace, even though it be grace, saves the WILLING, not those who are NOT willing and who TURN AWAY from it and who constantly fight against it and OPPOSE themselves to it. (Homilies on Romans 18:5)
We have been freed from punishment, we have put off all wickedness, and we have been REBORN from above [John 3:3,5], and we have risen again, with the old man buried [Rom 6:3-4], and we have been redeemed, and we have been SANCTIFIED, and we have been given ADOPTION INTO SONSHIP, and we have been JUSTIFIED [cf. 1 Cor 6:11], and we have been made BROTHERS of the Only-begotten, and we have been constituted joint heirs and concorporeal with Him and have been perfected in His flesh, and have been united to Him as a body to its head. All of this Paul calls an “abundance of grace” [Rom 5:17], showing that what we have received is not just a medicine to counteract the wound, but even health and comeliness and honor and glory and dignities going far beyond what were natural to us. (Homilies on Romans 10:2)

---

 

[Redbandito]

Continued…

The following from St. John Chrysostom from Matt1618 (see links below) and the NPNF Volumes:
“To declare His righteousness.” What is declaring of righteousness? Like the declaring of His riches, not only for Him to be rich Himself, but also to make others rich, or of life, not only that He is Himself living, but also that He makes the dead to live; and of His power, not only that He is Himself powerful, but also that He makes the feeble powerful. So also is the declaring of His righteousness not only that He is Himself righteous, but that He doth also make them that are filled with the putrefying sores (katasapentaj) of sin suddenly righteous. (Homily 7 on Romans 3, NPNF1, Volume 11, page 378)
(Romans 4) Verse 4 “For to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” Then is not this last the greatest? he means. By no means: for it is to the believer that it is reckoned. But it would not have been reckoned, unless there were something that he contributed himself. And so he too hath God for his debtor, and debtor too for no common things, but great and high ones. For to show his high-mindedness and spiritual understanding, he does not say “to him that believeth” merely, but Ver. 5. “To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly.” For reflect how great a thing it is to be persuaded and have full confidence that God is able on a sudden not to free a man who has lived in impiety from punishment only, but even to make him just, and to count him worthy of those immortal honors. (Homily 8 on Romans 4, NPNF1: Volume 11, page 386)
For what he saith is this, “Your salvation is not our work alone, but your own as well; for both we in preaching to you the word endure affliction, and ye in receiving it endure the very same; we to impart to you that which we received, ye to receive what is imparted and not to let it go.” Now what humility can compare with this, seeing that those who fell so far short of him he raiseth to the same dignity of endurance? for he saith, "Which worked in the enduring of the same sufferings;" for not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us. (Homily on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, NPNF1: Volume 12, page 277)
For, “think not,” saith he, "because ye have believed, that this is sufficient for your salvation: since if to me neither preaching nor teaching nor bringing over innumerable persons, is enough for salvation unless I exhibit my own conduct also unblameable, much less to you. (Homily 23, NPNF1: Volume 12, page 133)
(Galatians 5) Verse 6 "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love." What is the meaning of "working through love?" Here he gives them a hard blow, by showing that this error had crept in because the love of Christ had not been rooted within them. For to believe is not all that is required, but also to abide in love. (Commentary on Galatians 5, NPNF1: Volume 13, page 37)
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
1992. Justification has been merited for us by the passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.
1996. Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life [John 1; Rom 8; 2 Peter 1].
1997. Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I believe he did this by providing a little “context” to the ONE quote of John Chrysostom you provided. You admit that John says “love” in one, thus you admit that, at least at one point, John did not believe faith was “alone” in the modern Evangelical Protestant sense.

That is not context for his statement and admitting that John said “love” does not mean his previous statement about faith alone contradicts it. Did you read the rest of what I wrote in response to that? If so, I don’t see how you think that goes against the traditional Protestant sense.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The problem is that it is unclear what the “traditional Protestant sense” is, since this *sola fide *teaching is absent from Holy Writ. So, are Luther’s writings the “norm” for determining the “traditional Protestant sense” on this “sola fide” tradition?

It seems to me that Lutherans don’t agree with Lutherans on this, nor do some Lutherans agree with LUTHER on this. Is the “book of Concord” canonical for all Lutherans? Is it canonical for all Protestants?

Trying to get a definitive declaration on sola fide from Protestants is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Redbandito:

“Faith” according to his definition was to walk in love. We Catholics don’t have problems with this.

The following sermon from a well-known Protestant scholar, Rev. C.H. Spurgeon, has something very similar to say. Spurgeon seems to be equating Abraham’s faith of Gen 12 (& Heb 11:8) to the faith we Christians ought to have, a “genuine faith.”

C.H. Spurgeon, The Obedience of Faith, A Sermon (No. 2195), August 21st, 1890,

“By faith Abraham when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.”(Hebrews 11:8).

The part of the text to which I shall call your attention lies in these words, “By faith Abraham obeyed.” Obedience–what a blessing it would be if we were all trained to it by the Holy Spirit!

… The obedience of faith springs from a principle within, and not from compulsion without. It is sustained by the mind’s soberest reasoning and the heart’s warmest passion.

… Yes, this is a chief ingredient of heaven–that we shall see the face of our Lord, and serve him day and night in his temple. Meanwhile, the more fully we obey at this present, the nearer we shall be to his temple-gate. May the Holy Spirit work in us, so that, by faith–like Abraham–we may obey !

… For by faith Abraham obeyed." In every case where the father of the faithful obeyed, it was the result of his faith; and in every case in which you and I shall render true obedience, it will be the product of our faith.

… Have I that faith which leads me to obey my God?–for obedience, if it be of the kind we are speaking of, is faith in action–faith walking with God, or, shall I say, walking before the Lord in the land of the living? .

… Let us consider, secondly, THE KIND OF OBEDIENCE WHICH FAITH PRODUCES. This I shall illustrate from the whole of the verse. **Genuine faith in God **creates a prompt obedience. “By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed.” There was an immediate response to the command. Delayed obedience is disobedience. I wish some Christians, who put off duty, would remember this… remember that the obedience which comes of true faith is often bound to be altogether unreckoning and implicit; for it is written, “He went out, not knowing whither he went.” God bade Abraham journey, and he moved his camp at once.

C. H. Spurgeon seems to assert that Abraham in Gen 12 had a faith that was a “genuine faith in God” and a “true faith.”

Spurgeon goes on to preach something very Catholic…

God comes down to walk with men who obey. If they walk with him, he walks with them. The Lord can only have fellowship with his servants as they obey. Obedience is heaven in us, and it is the preface of our being in heaven. Obedient faith is the way to eternal life–it is eternal life revealing itself. (ibid)

Amen!!! Obedient faith is the way to eternal life!! If the “traditional Protestant sense” of the sola fide tradition means that faith need not be obedient, that is, it need not be “faith that worketh by charity,” (Gal 5:6), then such a sense is contrary to Sacred Scripture.

 

[Redbandito]

The problem is that it is unclear what the “traditional Protestant sense” is, since this *sola fide *teaching is absent from Holy Writ. So, are Luther’s writings the “norm” for determining the “traditional Protestant sense” on this “sola fide” tradition?

It seems to me that Lutherans don’t agree with Lutherans on this, nor do some Lutherans agree with LUTHER on this. Is the “book of Concord” canonical for all Lutherans? Is it canonical for all Protestants?

Trying to get a definitive declaration on sola fide from Protestants is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

The following sermon from a well-known Protestant scholar, Rev. C.H. Spurgeon, has something very similar to say. Spurgeon seems to be equating Abraham’s faith of Gen 12 (& Heb 11:8) to the faith we Christians ought to have, a “genuine faith.”

C.H. Spurgeon, The Obedience of Faith, A Sermon (No. 2195), August 21st, 1890,

C. H. Spurgeon seems to assert that Abraham in Gen 12 had a faith that was a “genuine faith in God” and a “true faith.”

Spurgeon goes on to preach something very Catholic…

Amen!!! Obedient faith is the way to eternal life!! If the “traditional Protestant sense” of the sola fide tradition means that faith need not be obedient, that is, it need not be “faith that worketh by charity,” (Gal 5:6), then such a sense is contrary to Sacred Scripture.

Amen Dave. This is an excellent point. SS, while I respect your opinion, and have found them extremely solid, I do not agree that these are “traditional Protestant” teachings. There is no such thing, in fact. Every denomination is autonomous, and the further away from Luther one gets on sola fide, the further one gets from any type of Scriptural definition of faith.

 

[mikeledes]

Amen Dave. This is an excellent point. SS, while I respect your opinion, and have found them extremely solid, I do not agree that these are “traditional Protestant” teachings. There is no such thing, in fact. Every denomination is autonomous, and the further away from Luther one gets on sola fide, the further one gets from any type of Scriptural definition of faith.

I compeletely agree. Luther’s teachings on justification by faith alone incorporated baptismal rgeneration. Many Protestants, however, see a clear contradiction between justification by faith alone and baptismal regeneration. They see baptism as a “work” and hence baptismal regeneration contradicts sola fide and Romans 4.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

I compeletely agree. Luther’s teachings on justification by faith alone incorporated baptismal rgeneration. Many Protestants, however, see a clear contradiction between justification by faith alone and baptismal regeneration. They see baptism as a “work” and hence baptismal regeneration contradicts sola fide and Romans 4.

God Bless,
Michael

Believing that Baptism is the event where one receives justification by faith alone is not a contradiction of justification by faith alone. The Reformed and Luther were united on justification by faith alone.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The problem is that it is unclear what the “traditional Protestant sense” is, since this *sola fide *teaching is absent from Holy Writ. So, are Luther’s writings the “norm” for determining the “traditional Protestant sense” on this “sola fide” tradition?

Dave, I’m really disappointed. I expected you to be someone who would be somewhat knowledgeable of the issues that I could have an intelligent dialogue with. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. You fast approaching the list of those I ignore. To say there is no traditional Protesants view on justification by faith alone is foolish. All you need to do is check the traditional Protestants confessions and catechism. But if you are only interested in firing up the home team then continue with misrepresentations that anyone with a small amount of understanding of the issues would know.