Not By Faith Alone

[mikeledes]

Of course we have many obligations. What child doesn’t have obligations as far as what they can and cannot do. By the way, which verse are you talking about?

I’m sorry. I’m referring to the verses in post # 725 and 726.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Sean_Boyle]

which is an anti-biblical, anti-Pauline concept.

Paul’s letters are no more important to christians of today then any other of the bibical letters or books.

You are aware of that, right?

 

[Redbandito]

Wow, this is pretty good. I would have one small quibble with this sentence:

“God freely gives the gift of righteosness and then promises to give eternal life in the age to come to those of the justified who persevere to the end.”

God not only promises to give eternal life in the future age to come, but the future age to come invades the present age and we have it now in part as a down payment.

What the heck? I have been making this argument for 15 freakin’ pages. You agree with it now?

 

[Redbandito]

Yes, I agree. Tell that to Redbandito However, he does say we are transferred to a righteous state because God gives us His righteousness. Here is what he says:

"For since it is possible to be saved, yet not without shame (as many are saved of those, who by the royal humanity are released from punishment), that no one may suspect this upon hearing of safety, he adds also righteousness; and righteousness, not thine own, but that of God; hinting also the abundance of it and the facility. For you do not achieve it by toilings and labors, but you receive it by a gift from above, contributing one thing only from your own store, “believing.”( John Chrysostom)

But that is not the issue for Chrysostom in his homily of Romans 4 and that is what Redbandito and I have been discussing.

Of course we have many obligations. What child doesn’t have obligations as far as what they can and cannot do. By the way, which verse are you talking about?

Wow! Just wow! You have just completely misrepresented my argument. You just agreed with mikeledes on the very thing I have been arguing. Perhaps different terminology needed to be used, but Mike just crystallized my argument perfectly. Glad to know you agree. I guess your misunderstanding led to a lot of wasted posts.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Romans two is so often misinterpreted by taking Paul completely out of context. In the first two chapters Paul is simply presenting the principles of God’s judgment as Judge of all (Jew and Gentile). He concludes in 3:9 that ALL are “under sin” and then procedes to describe humanity in its natural state “under sin” (vss. 10-18). Paul is not telling his readers in Rom. 2:6-11how to be justified before God. This he formulates in 3:19ff, stating emphatically:"…for ALL sinned and are falling short of the the glory of God, being justified AS A GIFT by HIS GRACE (through our “grace fueled” good works? No!) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:23-24).IOW, justification is “gifted” to men based entirely on the redemptive work of Another, the man Christ Jesus. There could be no other way since ALL men are “under” sin according to divine revelation, divine decree.Thank you for pointing out that “merit” is a second century term and not a first century, Aposotlic concept. The two sided coin of merit and reward, according to Pauline theology, is not legal tender for divine justification - only the shed blood of Jesus Christ.Then why did you quote Rom. 2:6-11 in the meritorious way in which you did???The Council of Trent and the CCC are notorious for contradicting themselves. For instance:And what is this “reward” that is “condignly” merited Randy? Justification (see Rom. 3:24)? Salvation (see Eph. 2:8-9)? Eternal life (see Rom. 6:23)?

According to Scripture none are “rewarded” based on any human merit whatsoever (not even “condign”). All are said to be strictly “gifted” based on the finished work of Another. And ALL are said to be gifts a believer possesses now, not something to be “rewarded” at some future time, which would be the case if based on meritorious “works” (even so-called “condign”).

As you rightly pointed out, the whole concept of “merit” is second century, not Apostolic. Paul clearly refutes this two-sided coin of yours when he writes:Rom 4:4-5 "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,Paul is very clear and consistent throughout his Epistles.

Poppycock.

“Merit” is a second century term for a first century concept just as the word “trinity” was a second century term for an eternal reality.

On the other hand, “sola fide” is a 16th century campaign slogan for a very bad heresy. Thank you for reminding us of the need to keep our historical timeline plainly in view.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I know I’m supposed to be ignoring your posts, but just in case Rebandito would think this is a sufficient answer I will respond to it.

Everyone with a Ph.D. has to write a dissertation. Writing a dissertation does not make one a scholar, nor does speaking at different conferences help to qualify one as a scholar, unless it is scholarly conference. I looked at Dr Hahn’s speaking engagement and they don’t seem to qualify. If what you are offering above determines that one is a scholar the Redbandito argument doesn’t make sense, because he differentated Dr Hahn from individuals( e.g. Robert Sungenis) who has the same requirements. As a matter of fact the evidence you gave above is so extremely common amongst those with a Ph D.

As I said before if you use the term scholar in a very generic sense this maybe appropriate, but otherwise you haven’t shown me anything to take back my original assertion. If Dr Hahn is anything it is an apologist.

I’m not sure what I did to earn the distinction of being ignored, but okay.

I did not claim that Dr. Hahn is a scholar in the field of covenant theology per se. In fact, the key to my post regarding Dr. Hahn was found in the last two sentences.

I suspect you would have your hands full, in other words.

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

Wow, this is pretty good. I would have one small quibble with this sentence:

“God freely gives the gift of righteosness and then promises to give eternal life in the age to come to those of the justified who persevere to the end.”

God not only promises to give eternal life in the future age to come, but the future age to come invades the present age and we have it now in part as a down payment.

What the heck? I have been making this argument for 15 freakin’ pages. You agree with it now?

C’mon Redbandito, you have been saying a lot more then that, because we have been discussing things in much more detail. I’m sure Michael and I would also disagree once we start pressing the details of the above statement. For example, here is how Michael responded to my gloss of Chrysostom’s statement about God “making us just”:

Michael:

We are not transferred from an ungodly state to righteousness before God by our works. That is purely by the grace of God and I think this is what Chrysostom is trying to say.

Now here is how you talk about the same phrase:

Redbandito:

Exactly! You just made my point. Try to follow here. You just admitted that John cannot be saying that “God too hath God for his debtor.” What you rightly state is that this means “Man has God as His debtor.” Correct! That is precisely my point. A debtor is someone who owes payment to a “CREDITOR.” Your apparent problem is a confusion of terms. Thus, if man has God as his debtor, John is saying that God “owes man payment.”

How are those two things the same unless you read a lot of extra stuff into Michael’s statement.

By the way did you seem my 3 posts on Chrysostom’s quote in context? You have been making arguments like the following about the quote:

Redbandito:

In other words, Chrysostom is arguing INFUSION (the justification kind). And in this sense, God becomes a “debtor” to these works. Or in other words, God becomes a debtor to Himself, since they are His works, and His promise.

I don’t think that argument is sound once all of the context is brought into play.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I’m not sure what I did to earn the distinction of being ignored, but okay.

Maybe it wasn’t you. I started to ignore the Catholic fundamentals who repeat the same caricatures no matter how many times you explain it is a caricature. Either they can’t follow an argument or they are unwilling to follow it, because it easier to just say, “But sola Scriptura is unworkable”, “Every Protestant is Pope”, etc., etc., etc. I got tired of wasting my time so I decided to just ignore there parroting.

I did not claim that Dr. Hahn is a scholar in the field of covenant theology per se. In fact, the key to my post regarding Dr. Hahn was found in the last two sentences.

I suspect you would have your hands full, in other words.

I’m not sure what having one’s hand full mean. I’m very familiar with Covenant Theology myself, probably not in some of the details of Dr Hahn but that means nothing. I would love to dialogue with him on a number of topics and Covenant Theology would be one.

However, my initial point still stands, Dr Hahn is more of a respected apologist then a respect scholar.

 

[Redbandito]

C’mon Redbandito, you have been saying a lot more then that, because we have been discussing things in much more detail. I’m sure Michael and I would also disagree once we start pressing the details of the above statement. :.

Would you knock it off? Quit grandstanding. And quit acting like you and Michael are unified on your position in justification against me. You are correct, I have “been saying a lot more then that.” For while Michael is arguing that we cannot obligate God by our works, but our justification comes through faith, he is most specifically referring to our INITIAL JUSTIFICATION. Ask Michael though, if he believes that God rewards and ultimately judges us on our works AFTER our initial justification, and you will see that he agrees with me. Not that we CAN obligate God based on the law AFTER our initial justification either, but rather based on the promise He made to reward our cooperation with His grace. Thus, nobody here disagrees with the fact that man brings nothing to God that merits grace (neither faith nor works), which I made clear earlier by posting the Canon from Trent on justification that directly speaks to this. You have simply distorted the argument (perhaps unintentionally) by failing to distinguish between things clearly talking about initial justification and those that talk about afterward. Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that you assume justification is only a one-time event, and thus anything referring to this must be talking about that one-time event. Whereas, a Catholic is not necessarily always referring to that initial event when discussing justification.

For example, here is how Michael responded to my gloss of Chrysostom’s statement about God “making us just”: We are not transferred from an ungodly state to righteousness before God by our works. That is purely by the grace of God and I think this is what Chrysostom is trying to say.

Now here is how you talk about the same phrase:
Exactly! You just made my point. Try to follow here. You just admitted that John cannot be saying that “God too hath God for his debtor.” What you rightly state is that this means “Man has God as His debtor.” Correct! That is precisely my point. A debtor is someone who owes payment to a “CREDITOR.” Your apparent problem is a confusion of terms. Thus, if man has God as his debtor, John is saying that God “owes man payment.”

How are those two things the same unless you read a lot of extra stuff into Michael’s statement.

Thank you for making my point. What Michael discusses in what happens to man in INITIAL JUSTIFICATION. Neither our faith nor our works merits God’s unmerited favor. As I stated MUCH EARLIER in the thread, how can I work my way into someone’s family? It’s impossible. There is nothing I can do to “earn” adoption. Rather, it is an act of extreme mercy alone.

What I am saying John Chrsysostom was commenting on was what happened AFTER our initial justification. In other words, that our faith could not stand alone. Rather, we had to “contribute something ourselves.” That’s it! It has nothing to do with how we are initially made righteous in God eyes.

By the way did you seem my 3 posts on Chrysostom’s quote in context? You have been making arguments like the following about the quote: In other words, Chrysostom is arguing INFUSION (the justification kind). And in this sense, God becomes a “debtor” to these works. Or in other words, God becomes a debtor to Himself, since they are His works, and His promise..

Precisely! What exactly you do think I am arguing here? Are you getting confused with the terms infusion and works being in the same sentence? Surely you are not insinuating that I am saying that our works are the reason God becomes a “debtor” to us PRIOR to INFUSION (i.e. initial justification)? Surely you have followed the thread a little better than that and know that I have made no such argument. Surely you understand that is not in any way, shape, or form, the Catholic position? Again, the passage you quoted from me must be put into the context of THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION. I have argued we are NO JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ALONE. Or in other words, I have stuck to the thread topic. What you appear to be doing is mistaking everything I say regarding justification as if I am referring to initial justification. If that is the case, then I understand the confusion. However, I have not made an argument that would suggest this in any way. The above one included.

I don’t think that argument is sound once all of the context is brought into play.

Well, apparently, any time one makes such a claim in a post, he has to back it up in that post. Thus, as you so fondly like to say, “That is an assertion without any evidence.”

 

[Redbandito]

Covenant theology? This is an assertion without any evidence. What advance research has he done in this area? What scholarly works on Covenant theology has interacted with? What scholarly journal or book has he written in this area? I did a search and all I came up with was a few audio tapes and a book that seemed more like an introductory book on covenant which wouldn’t come close to qualifying him as a scholar in that field. Also I found this description of Dr. Hahn with the book, ” Hahn, a master apologist and Roman Catholic theologian …” A master apologist? Like I said Dr Hahn is more of an apologist than a scholar, unless you deliver some goods.

Who cares!!! If you want to go on with this argument, knock yourself out. It is completely irrelevant to the thread. I had no idea you would make such a big deal out of this when I mentioned it. We will just have to agree to disagree, because I am certainly not going to spend a bunch of time trying to prove something that is completely subjective anyway.

Here is what you said:
” Fr. Brown brought doubt to some of the historical accuracies of the Scriptures. He approached Biblical exegesis with a more modernist, skeptical hermeneutic. That is not exactly the guy I want speaking for me as a Christian, much less a Catholic.”.
Now here was my paraphrase:
“And if all of what you say above is true about Fr Brown not even being a voice for Christians, let alone Catholicism what does that say about the Popes who appointed him?”
Now how are my words a “gross misrepresentation”? I was paraphrasing and not directly quoting, but it is fairly accurate. Are you insinuating you don’t want him speaking for you as a Christian, but he is a voice for all other Christians? Even if I take your direct quote the point still remains. What does that say about the Popes appointing someone that you claim “brought doubt to some of the historical accuracies of the Scriptures”, and he is not even someone you would have speak for you as a Christian, much less a Catholic. You seem to be overacting.

I admitted Fr. Brown contributed a lot. The fact that I don’t want him speaking for me on all matters pertaining to the Bible, when he didn’t even necessarily believe in the literal virgin birth, doesn’t mean I wouldn’t ever be able to appreciate his positive contributions. One can bring a lot of good things out in his research and still not be the guy you want as your spokesman. Further, my whole point was that there are a lot of people in both camps on Fr. Brown. I try to stay to the middle. I don’t think he was all bad, but I certainly disagree with the Historical-Critical method of exegesis in isolation from other methods.

Your words about respecting Fr Brown were destroyed by what you said after that. You don’t even want him speaking for you as a Christian, much less a Catholic. You spoke of the doubt he brought to the inerrancy of Scripture and his skeptical hermeneutic. If this is respect, I hate to see disrespect. You didn’t mention anything positive about him at all, yet you accuse me of taken you out of context. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

Please don’t presume to talk for me. I actually, DID say something positive about him. You just want to be petty. Go ahead, knock yourself out on this one too. Again, it is completely irrelevant to the thread.

You sound like you are trying to convince yourself of this, because you keep saying it over and over. I didn’t misinterpret you anymore than you were misinterpreting me. I was arguing for an interpretation of Romans 4:4 and you were arguing for Catholic theology of justification. We had already had that discussion when you pointed me to Akins article. So when we were discussing Chrysostom I was discussing his exegesis of Romans 4:4 while you were arguing for his entire theology of Justification. I don’t believe that is what Chrysostom was doing and as I told you before I will post on that shortly. So you were missing my point and I was missing your point. We are even there. The jury is still out on Chrysostom and you are definitely wrong on Paul

Do I? It really doesn’t matter what you believe. I am not basing this statement on that. I understood precisely what you were trying to say. I kept trying to make the point that Chrysostom is writing a HOMILY on this topic. This is not strictly on exegesis on this text. You can argue that all you want, but is really a ridiculous argument since the title of the writing are"HOMILIES on Rom, Tim, etc…"

As for Paul, I am not wrong. You brought in Chrysostom to back your exegesis up, it backfired. Now you admit the “jury is still out” on him. So, if the jury comes back and proves I am correct on Chrysostom, will you reconsider your position on Paul? If not, why bother with the discussion? You are already set in stone in this case.

 

[Redbandito]

I know I’m supposed to be ignoring your posts, but just in case Rebandito would think this is a sufficient answer I will respond to it.

Everyone with a Ph.D. has to write a dissertation. Writing a dissertation does not make one a scholar, nor does speaking at different conferences help to qualify one as a scholar, unless it is scholarly conference. I looked at Dr Hahn’s speaking engagement and they don’t seem to qualify. If what you are offering above determines that one is a scholar the Redbandito argument doesn’t make sense, because he differentated Dr Hahn from individuals( e.g. Robert Sungenis) who has the same requirements. As a matter of fact the evidence you gave above is so extremely common amongst those with a Ph D.

As I said before if you use the term scholar in a very generic sense this maybe appropriate, but otherwise you haven’t shown me anything to take back my original assertion. If Dr Hahn is anything it is an apologist.

Wow! I am so glad you find it so important to prove me wrong that you post my name in multiple posts to others. It is a true honor indeed.

BTW, for the record, I think Sungenis is on the same level of scholarship as Dr. Hahn. I simply think Dr. Hahn is better on justification.

 

[Redbandito]

Hi Redbandito,
Chrysostom starts off saying it is impossible to be saved, otherwise than by faith. He then states what he believes is the point the Apostle is making. Salvation by faith is not a matter of shame but a cause for brighter glory than salvation by works. Chrysostom believes the Apostle is making this point because he knows a gift of salvation by just having faith maybe considered inferior to working and earning a reward. This is definitely true in our culture today. This drives the rest of his interpretation. In Chrysostom interpretation it is not just salvation that makes this way so superior, but also because there is “righteousness” and that is the righteousness of God revealed per Romans 1:17. Now if we briefly look at what he says about Romans 1:17 we find the following:

And I agree with him on this! Who is arguing to the contrary? Have I ever argued that we are not saved by faith?

So Chrysostom makes it clear that when he speaks of believer being made he just he is speaking in reference to the gift of righteous from God and not their own righteousness. You received this righteousness as a gift by believing. This is important to keep in mind as we read the rest of his thoughts on Romans 4.
We continue with Chrysostom on Romans 4::

Amen brother! Again though, your conlucsion presents a false dichotomy. In the passages I previously gave you, Chrysostom makes clear that that “gift of righteousness” we receive by “believing” actually becomes us (remember, this is not simply a behavioral, but an ontological righteousness). Thus, the passage in NO WAY contradicts Catholic teaching on justification, which affirms that the grace of righteousness is both truly unmerited and truly transformative. In otherwords, there is no dichotomy between it being a gift of righteousness from God and it being the person’s own righteousness. For if God gives you the gift of righteousness, it is YOUR’S! How common sense is that? You are reading in your theology here. You assume that if it is a gift, it must be imputation. Yet, Chrysostom does not make that argument.

Now notice his point in the above. It was nothing unlikely for a person who had “no works” to be justified by faith, but it puts faith in such great light and causes wonder, “ that a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just” by them. So even though Abraham was richly adorned with great works he was not made just because of them. Of course this show he is thinking of more than the ceremonial law at this point, because he talks of Abraham being adorned with good works that play not part in his justification. continued with 2 of 3

Again, you need to take off your Evangelical justification lenses and read him in the context of the passages I presented earlier. The ones you thought made him inconsistent. Why did you think that? Because here he talks about initial justification, where no amount of good deeds can make us righteous. There, he talked about what happens after this event. The problem you continue to have is that you assume your theology on a one-time imputation of righteousness anywhere there is a passage on justification. That would indeed make Chrysostom inconsistent. However, he clearly does not see it this way.

And I agree that prior to initial justification, neither works of the moral law nor the ceremonial law justify. Chrysostom definitely makes that argument. That, however, does not mean that PAUL is not referring to the Ceremonial Law primarily. I already explained this above. If you would like me to re-explain it, I would be happy to.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Maybe it wasn’t you. I started to ignore the Catholic fundamentals who repeat the same caricatures no matter how many times you explain it is a caricature. Either they can’t follow an argument or they are unwilling to follow it, because it easier to just say, “But sola Scriptura is unworkable”, “Every Protestant is Pope”, etc., etc., etc. I got tired of wasting my time so I decided to just ignore there parroting.

I’m not sure what having one’s hand full mean. I’m very familiar with Covenant Theology myself, probably not in some of the details of Dr Hahn but that means nothing. I would love to dialogue with him on a number of topics and Covenant Theology would be one.

However, my initial point still stands, Dr Hahn is more of a respected apologist then a respect scholar.

Fair enough.

I’m sure as a Catholic apologist, Dr. Hahn would love to dialogue with you too!

 

[Redbandito]

3 of 3​

Now this is the context that precedes our debated text. Here is the text again that you presented:

Chrysostom asks the question is the debt/works paradigm the greatest? He has already answered that question above and he answers again here with, “By no means: for it is reckoned to the believer”. He also states it would not be reckoned unless the believer contributed something and this makes God his debtor. Furthermore, he states this is not a common thing, because it is greater than God just giving this to those who believe, God gives it to the ungodly one who believes in Him! This is the amazing point that Chrysostom is bringing out. God takes a person who has lived an impious life and not only frees him from punishment, but also makes him just by giving him the gift of God’s righteousness. Now, if you remember this was one of the points I mentioned when I read James Akins article. In initial justification he was speaking of the believer being at a state purity, but not having the good works yet. Chrysostom is saying, not only is there a removal of punishment because sins are removed(purity), but there is also a positive righteousness, which is God’s righteousness. The believer actually has righteousness at initial justification.

So, even though Chrysostom uses the phrase “makes just” it doesn’t contradict justification by faith alone, because we also believe we are made just at justification. Otherwise, God would not declare us just. The point is we are made just because God righteousness is given to us and therefore it is truly and really ours.

The only quibble I would have with what Chrysostom has said above is that I don’t agree with the language that the believer is making God his debtor in this context, because it seems clear the Apostle is making the opposite point. That is, God is not our debtor because we receive His righteousness as a gift. But the meaning behind what Chrysostom is saying is totally in line with justification by faith alone. .

How can you argue this? For starters, Akin’s article made QUITE CLEAR that the person possesses a perfect quality of righteousness in his initial justification. Legally, he has been declared righteous. And since God’s word is efficacious, what he says happens. Thus, man is legally righteous, is white and without speck (ontologically righteous) and is becoming behaviorally righteous (sanctification). However, because he is not completely behaviorally righteous, this impacts his ontological righteousness. Why? Because sin and guilt have true properties. In other words, they make dirty what is clean. Thus, sanctification and justification work together to make us both behaviorally righteous and to continue to make us clean ontologically. He also brought up the distinction between quality and quantity which I think is important. It certainly explains this verse: “In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering” (Heb 2:10). Clearly Christ was perfectly righteous in quality prior to suffering, yet he was made “perfect through suffering.” What does this mean? And again, “and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him” (Rom 8:17). We are made perfectly righteous at our initial justification, yet Paul insists we must suffer with Christ to be an heir and glorified with Him. Why is that necessary from your standpoint?

Now just to give a little context of what he says after that quote.

So he continues his thought by stating how superior it is to receive righteousness by grace through faith then to receive a reward by works.

Finally, what have we learned from this?

• Chrysostom believes Paul is arguing against more than just ceremonial laws but all works.
• Chrysostom believes God justifies the ungodly and impious by not holding their sins against them and giving them God’s own righteousness
• Chrysostom believes the means by which all this happens is only faith.

This is justification by faith alone.

No, what we have learned is that INITIAL JUSTIFICATION is by “Grace through faith” (as you rightly stated), and not by works. We have learned how I easily rectify my position to the the “all works” argument. We have already known that God gives man his own righteousness. Yet we also know that in this, God transforms man. Thus, we have learned infusion again. And finally we learned that the way we receive this initial grace is not by works but by faith. This is the Catholic position on initial justification. Thanks for doing all the work.

 

[Redbandito]

Yes, I agree. Tell that to Redbandito However, he does say we are transferred to a righteous state because God gives us His righteousness. Here is what he says:

"For since it is possible to be saved, yet not without shame (as many are saved of those, who by the royal humanity are released from punishment), that no one may suspect this upon hearing of safety, he adds also righteousness; and righteousness, not thine own, but that of God; hinting also the abundance of it and the facility. For you do not achieve it by toilings and labors, but you receive it by a gift from above, contributing one thing only from your own store, “believing.”( John Chrysostom)?

Actually, this is the perfect way to describe infusion. God gives us his own righteousness, out of mercy. It is unearned. Yet, this righteousness is not merely a covering, but internally transformative. Hello INFUSION! Okay, maybe he does not explicitly argue infusion, but he does not contradict it either. This could just as easily be describing infusion. Agree?

But that is not the issue for Chrysostom in his homily of Romans 4 and that is what Redbandito and I have been discussing.

Of course we have many obligations. What child doesn’t have obligations as far as what they can and cannot do. By the way, which verse are you talking about?

Your final questions are precisely why Mikeledes’ questions are relevant. It is with this understanding on justification that John Chrysostom explains all the passages in question. Again, don’t just go to the passages I linked, but look at the ones Dave linked. Chrysostom’s thoughts on this subject are far beyond faith ALONE.

 

[Redbandito]

No, not necessarily. He says nothing about the righteousness being infused or imputed. With imputation we truly believe we receive righteousness as it is credited to our account and our status is changed. The common example is the bank account. If you give me the gift of a million dollars and you credit it to my bank account it is truly my money. I have been transferred from state of a broke man to millionaire, even though I didn’t earn a penny of it.

If you really want to see if this works send me a million dollars and watch me become a millionaire

You are correct on this. With that being said, the best you can do with the quotes you provided is to draw. Because people who believe in infusion also believe we receive God’s righteousness. Yet, it is not MERELY credited to our account, but ALSO changes us. The Catholic does not reject imputation. He simply goes further. It is a radically higher understanding of God’s grace.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Would you knock it off? Quit grandstanding. And quit acting like you and Michael are unified on your position in justification against me. You are correct, I have “been saying a lot more then that.” For while Michael is arguing that we cannot obligate God by our works, but our justification comes through faith, he is most specifically referring to our INITIAL JUSTIFICATION.

It is not grandstanding, but stating the facts. After telling me to knock it off you basically admit it, because you have been arguing that Chrysostom is dealing with more than initial justification which is why God is our debtor. Now you state Michael is only dealing with initial justification, because he states God is NOT our debtor. But here is what you initially said:

What the heck? I have been making this argument for 15 freakin’ pages. You agree with it now?

So there is nothing grandstanding about what I said. I just refuting your point and you seem to agree that you have not been the same argument as Michael for “15 freakin’ pages” and no I don’t agree with it now and I never did.
BTW, I explicitly stated in this post that Michael and I would disagree if we pressed the details as you and I have done, so if anyone is grandstanding and becoming melodramatic it is you my friend.

Ask Michael though, if he believes that God rewards and ultimately judges us on our works AFTER our initial justification, and you will see that he agrees with me. Not that we CAN obligate God based on the law AFTER our initial justification either, but rather based on the promise He made to reward our cooperation with His grace. Thus, nobody here disagrees with the fact that man brings nothing to God that merits grace (neither faith nor works), which I made clear earlier by posting the Canon from Trent on justification that directly speaks to this. You have simply distorted the argument (perhaps unintentionally) by failing to distinguish between things clearly talking about initial justification and those that talk about afterward. Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that you assume justification is only a one-time event, and thus anything referring to this must be talking about that one-time event. Whereas, a Catholic is not necessarily always referring to that initial event when discussing justification.

This is besides the point. Micheal stated Chrysostom was dealing with initial justification and Chrysostom statement about God “making us just” then not equate to God being our debtor. You said the opposite.

Thank you for making my point. What Michael discusses in what happens to man in INITIAL JUSTIFICATION. Neither our faith nor our works merits God’s unmerited favor. As I stated MUCH EARLIER in the thread, how can I work my way into someone’s family? It’s impossible. There is nothing I can do to “earn” adoption. Rather, it is an act of extreme mercy alone.

What I am saying John Chrsysostom was commenting on was what happened AFTER our initial justification. In other words, that our faith could not stand alone. Rather, we had to “contribute something ourselves.” That’s it! It has nothing to do with how we are initially made righteous in God eyes.

Yes, but Michael says something different about Chrysostom and he is more in agreement with me than you. I contended that Chrysostom was only talking about what you call initial justification. You are importing all your Catholic theology into his words. I have made a case for that in my 3 part post on what Chrysostom was saying.

Precisely! What exactly you do think I am arguing here? Are you getting confused with the terms infusion and works being in the same sentence? Surely you are not insinuating that I am saying that our works are the reason God becomes a “debtor” to us PRIOR to INFUSION (i.e. initial justification)?
…
clipped for space, sola Scriptura

We are discussing the quote you provided from Chrysostom on Romans 4. My argument is that Chrysostom is only dealing with what you call initial justification and God is not our debtor. It is only faith that is the cause of our justification. You are arguing that Chrysostom is discussing initial justification and the rest of the Catholic theology on justification therefore God is our debtor. Chrysostom has in mind the Catholic concept of infusion. So I understand your argument, but I disagree with it.

Well, apparently, any time one makes such a claim in a post, he has to back it up in that post. Thus, as you so fondly like to say, “That is an assertion without any evidence.”

Actually, I’ve already provided the evidence. Have you not read my 3 part post where I pointed out what Chrysostom meant in context? This board can move fast sometimes you may have missed it, but it is there.

 

[Redbandito]

I’m not sure what having one’s hand full mean. I’m very familiar with Covenant Theology myself, probably not in some of the details of Dr Hahn but that means nothing. I would love to dialogue with him on a number of topics and Covenant Theology would be one.

However, my initial point still stands, Dr Hahn is more of a respected apologist then a respect scholar.

Probably not as familiar? Let me ask you an honest question. What books, articles have read of Dr. Hahn’s? What tape series have you listened to? What seminars have you attended? My assumption is that you might have listened to “Protestant Minister Becomes Catholic.” You might have even read “Rome Sweet Home.” In his early days, while producing these, he was indeed an apologist. That is not the case anymore. Dr. Hahn is not an apologist. He has no desire to debate. He has the desire to dig deeper into the theology of the Catholic Church and that laid out in Scripture. Dr. Hahn has read at a dissertation level since before his dissertation. That is decades worth of reading at that level. Most people stop after the completion of their dissertation. He continues to this day. His library is going to end up being one of the greatest private collections of books in this century. I am not saying you have to acknowledge him as a scholar, but he is no mere apologist. And if you have not read anything from him, or attended one of his conferences, what do you know about him that would allow you to come to such a conclusion?

 

[Redbandito]

It is not grandstanding, but stating the facts. After telling me to knock it off you basically admit it, because you have been arguing that Chrysostom is dealing with more than initial justification which is why God is our debtor. Now you state Michael is only dealing with initial justification, because he states God is NOT our debtor. But here is what you initially said:

What the heck? I have been making this argument for 15 freakin’ pages. You agree with it now?.

You present these facts as if there is some contradiction in saying that “I have been making this argument” about initial justification and that I have also been talking about what happens afterward. Care to explain how I contradicted myself there SS?

So there is nothing grandstanding about what I said. I just refuting your point and you seem to agree that you have not been the same argument as Michael for “15 freakin’ pages” and no I don’t agree with it now and I never did.
BTW, I explicitly stated in this post that Michael and I would disagree if we pressed the details as you and I have done, so if anyone is grandstanding and becoming melodramatic it is you my friend…

Actually, I have. Simply going further, does not mean I have not made that same argument. Surely you can agree with that? And you are right. I have been melodramatic at times. I have been on this thread for probably over a month now. I am tired. Yet, I really want to stick with it to it’s conclusion. Thus, I stick around. I am human. I get impatient. Sue me! (Oh come on. The legal vocabularly takes on a bit of irony in this conversation doesn’t it?) But most importantly, forgive me!

This is besides the point. Micheal stated Chrysostom was dealing with initial justification and Chrysostom statement about God “making us just” then not equate to God being our debtor. You said the opposite…

No, I didn’t. I agree with Michael that Chrysostom does not mean God is our debtor prior to initial justification. My assertion has been, from the beginning, that God is our “debtor” only in the sense that he has promised to reward us for the good we do. He didn’t have to make this promise. And it is not a strict contractual payment. Nor is this work we do, done apart from His grace. Since the Catholic believes we are infused with God’s grace in our initial justification, I have not contradicted Chrsysostom or Mike in any way, shape or form.

Yes, but Michael says something different about Chrysostom and he is more in agreement with me than you. I contended that Chrysostom was only talking about what you call initial justification. You are importing all your Catholic theology into his words. I have made a case for that in my 3 part post on what Chrysostom was saying…

Sorry, I just don’t think you did. You made a noble attempt, but you fell short.

We are discussing the quote you provided from Chrysostom on Romans 4. My argument is that Chrysostom is only dealing with what you call initial justification and God is not our debtor. It is only faith that is the cause of our justification. You are arguing that Chrysostom is discussing initial justification and the rest of the Catholic theology on justification therefore God is our debtor. Chrysostom has in mind the Catholic concept of infusion. So I understand your argument, but I disagree with it…

I just don’t see how you came to the conclusion that Chrysostom is NOT saying God is our debtor when he clearly does. So, while you disagree with me, I also disagree with you. Great, it only took us 10 pages of this to get to the same place we started!

Actually, I’ve already provided the evidence. Have you not read my 3 part post where I pointed out what Chrysostom meant in context? This board can move fast sometimes you may have missed it, but it is there.

I responded to it. I just disagree. I think you read your theology into the other passages. Furthermore, while you addressed those passages that you felt supported your case, you never really addressed the 8-10 other ones that clearly rejected your line of reasoning.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Who cares!!! If you want to go on with this argument, knock yourself out. It is completely irrelevant to the thread. I had no idea you would make such a big deal out of this when I mentioned it. We will just have to agree to disagree, because I am certainly not going to spend a bunch of time trying to prove something that is completely subjective anyway.

At the time you were using it to prop up your argument so I knocked it down. You made the point that I was relying only on apologists while you were relying on scholars. I just demonstrated that wasn’t true. Actually, if we want to talk about true Roman Catholic scholars, definitely one of the best NT scholars is Joseph Fitzmyer. And guess what? He is on my side

I admitted Fr. Brown contributed a lot. The fact that I don’t want him speaking for me on all matters pertaining to the Bible, when he didn’t even necessarily believe in the literal virgin birth, doesn’t mean I wouldn’t ever be able to appreciate his positive contributions. One can bring a lot of good things out in his research and still not be the guy you want as your spokesman. Further, my whole point was that there are a lot of people in both camps on Fr. Brown. I try to stay to the middle. I don’t think he was all bad, but I certainly disagree with the Historical-Critical method of exegesis in isolation from other methods.
Please don’t presume to talk for me. I actually, DID say something positive about him. You just want to be petty. Go ahead, knock yourself out on this one too. Again, it is completely irrelevant to the thread.

Well, it was relevant. You attempted to discredit the scholars and apologist that agreed with me and pump up Scott Hahn because I agreed with you. Once again, I knocked down that prop. If you want to drop it fine, but don’t make it seem as it didn’t play a part in your argument when it definitely was.

Do I? It really doesn’t matter what you believe. I am not basing this statement on that. I understood precisely what you were trying to say. I kept trying to make the point that Chrysostom is writing a HOMILY on this topic. This is not strictly on exegesis on this text. You can argue that all you want, but is really a ridiculous argument since the title of the writing are"HOMILIES on Rom, Tim, etc…"

I never said it was “strictly exegesis”, my point is a Homily doesn’t mean one is NOT exegeting the text. Surely you don’t want to make that ridiculous argment.

As for Paul, I am not wrong. You brought in Chrysostom to back your exegesis up, it backfired. Now you admit the “jury is still out” on him. So, if the jury comes back and proves I am correct on Chrysostom, will you reconsider your position on Paul? If not, why bother with the discussion? You are already set in stone in this case.

That is a silly question. If I am correct on Chrysostom will you reconsider your position on Paul? If not why bother with the discussion?