Was John Chrysostom Catholic?

[onemangang]

If you read this large quote from Chrysostom, it is almost clear as pure glass that he believes that Abraham was justified alone and apart from any works. No one has really looked at this issue and responded accordingly.

Here is a something that may shed some light on what we mean by faith from Peter Kreeft

For one thing, even if the two sides did disagree about the relationship between faith and works, they both agreed (1) that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation and (2) that we are absolutely commanded by God to do good works. Both these two points are unmistakably clear in Scripture.

For another thing, the terms of the dispute are ambiguous or used in two different senses. When terms are ambiguous, the two sides may really disagree when they seem to agree because they agree only on the word, not the concept. Or the two sides may really agree when they seem to disagree because they agree on the concept but not the word. The latter holds true here.

When Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone, he meant by salvation only the initial step, justification, being put right with God. But when Trent said we are saved by good works as well as faith, they meant by salvation the whole process by which God brings us to our eternal destiny and that process includes repentance, faith, hope, and charity, the works of love.

The word faith was also used in two different senses. Luther used it in the broad sense of the person’s acceptance of God’s offer of salvation. It included repentance, faith, hope, and charity. This is the sense Saint Paul uses in Romans. But in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul uses it in a more specific sense, as just one of the three theological virtues, with hope and charity added to it. In this narrower sense faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, for hope and charity must be present also. That is the sense used by the old Baltimore Catechism too: faith is “an act of the intellect, prompted by the will, by which we believe what has been revealed on the grounds of the authority of God, who revealed it”.

This “faith”, though prompted by the will, is an act of the intellect. Though necessary for salvation, it is not sufficient. Even the devils have this faith, as Saint James writes: “Do you believe that there is only one God? Good! The demons also believe — and tremble with fear” (James 2: 19). That is why James says, “it is by his actions that a person is put right with God, and not by his faith alone” (James 2:24). Luther, however, called James’ epistle “an epistle of straw”. He did not understand James’ point (applied to Abraham’s faith): “Can’t you see? His faith and his action worked together; his faith was made perfect through his actions” (James 2:2 2).

**Faith is the root, the necessary beginning. Hope is the stem, the energy that makes the plant grow. Love is the fruit, the flower, the visible product, the bottom line. The plant of our new life in Christ is one; the life of God comes into us by faith, through us by hope, and out of us by the works of love. **That is clearly the biblical view, and when Protestants and Catholics who know and believe the Bible discuss the issue sincerely, it is amazing how quickly and easily they come to understand and agree with each other on this, the fundamental divisive issue.

 

[Richca]

The much later devotion doctrines of Mary and indulgences were not even spoken about! How do I know this? Because the modern devotion is in all the Catholic writings. Mary and the Saints are everything now. I heard and read a quote on this forum that said “when will souls breath mary as the body breathes air”?. How blasphemous is this? St. Paul would have looked at this quote and be appalled.

If you understood the Blessed Virgin Mary’s place and role in the redemption and salvation of the human race then you would understand the saying “when will souls breath Mary as the body breathes air” and take it to heart.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Thats what protestants have always been trying to argue

And (if you said this as reply to my previous post) this is what Catholics have always said.

I just cannot fathom how a Catholic would agree with St. John Chrysostom at this point. For not only does Chrysostom say that a man is justified by faith alone, but he also indicates that Abraham was adorned with many good works WHEN he was justified and yet he was not justified by these good works, but rather by faith only.

And where in the Catholic Catechism does it say otherwise?

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism.

1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion…

Goodness, I don’t know where you are getting your Catholic “teachings”…

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Just because we can find statements in John Chrysostom which say that in salvation God renews us, sanctifies, justifies, adopts, makes us new creatures, participants in the mystical body of jesus Christ, raises us up to a resurrection with His Son, out of the kingdom of darkness and into the light where Satanic forces have no rule and reign, etc,etc. Protestants do not teach that salvation is all forensic. But that justification, as a small fact to the diamond of salvation, is forensic.

With regard to John Chrysostom’s view of the original sin it is clear he has in mind a forensic understanding and the traditional reformed protestant view:

Ver. 13. For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law.

The phrase till the Law some think he used of the time before the giving of the Law— that of Abel, for instance, or of Noah, or of Abraham— till Moses was born. What was the sin in those days, at this rate? Some say he means that in Paradise. For hitherto it was not done away, (he would say,) but the fruit of it was yet in vigor. For it had borne that death whereof all partake, which prevailed and lorded over us. Why then does he proceed, But sin is not imputed when there is no law? It was by way of objection from the Jews, say they who have spoken on our side, that he laid this position down and said,** if there be no sin without the Law, how came death to consume all those before the Law?** But to me it seems that the sense presently to be given has more to be said for it, and suits better with the Apostle’s meaning. And what sense is this?*** In saying, that till the Law sin was in the world, what he seems to me to mean is this, that after the Law was given the sin resulting from the transgression of it prevailed, and prevailed too so long as the Law existed. For sin, he says, can have no existence if there be no law. If then it was this sin, he means, from the transgression of the Law that brought forth death, how was it that all before the Law died? For if it is in sin that death has its origin, but when there is no law, sin is not imputed, how came death to prevail? From whence it is clear, that it was not this sin, the transgression, that is, of the Law, but that of Adam’s disobedience, which marred all things. Now what is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law all died:*** for death reigned, he says, from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned.

Notice how if what John Chrysostom taught here was that we all became morally corrupt and suffered the penalty of death for it because in Adam we become corrupted (which we all did) he would not have a need to question “Why did those human beings who lived in between Adam and Moses die”?. The reason he is asking this because he is exegeting Paul. Where there is no law there is no transgression, evenso all died from Adam to Moses. Death is a result of the law bringing forth sin, but this did not happen for those who lived from Adam to Moses. Therefore they die and become mortal because they are imputed with Adam’s disobedience. That is what Paul has in mind. The guilt that was incurred from eating the forbidden fruit is shared by all of humanity, and we suffer the legal consequences of that, which is death. Of course there is a sense in which we became dead in sin from Adam, but this is not what Paul has in mind here about original sin.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

v14
How did it reign? After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come. Now this is why Adam is a type of Christ. How a type? It will be said. Why in that, as the former became to those who were sprung from him, although they had not eaten of the tree, the cause of that death which by his eating was introduced; thus also did Christ become to those sprung from Him, even though they had not wrought righteousness, the Provider of that righteousness which through His Cross He graciously bestowed on us all. For this reason, at every turn he keeps to the one, and is continually bringing it before us, when he says, As by one man sin entered into the world— and, If through the offense of one many be dead: and, Not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; and, The judgment was by one to condemnation: and again, If by one (or, the one) man’s offense death reigned by one; and Therefore as by the offense of one. And again, As by one man’s disobedience many (or, the many) were made sinners. And so he lets not go of the one, that when the Jew says to you, How came it, that by the well-doing of this one Person, Christ, the world was saved? You might be able to say to him, How by the disobedience of this one person, Adam, came it to be condemned? And yet sin and grace are not equivalents, death and life are not equivalents, the Devil and God are not equivalents, but there is a boundless space between them. When then as well from the nature of the thing as from the power of Him that transacts it, and from the very suitableness thereof (for it suits much better with God to save than to punish), the preëminence and victory is upon this side, what one word have you to say for unbelief, tell me? However, that what had been done was reasonable, he shows in the following words.

MY WORDS: Do you see how Chrysostom understands the “cause of death” to be Adam’s sin? Well, many catholics understand this to mean that we are created in Adam and because of that we are born with an original unholiness of ourselves. We have lost out original righteousness. This is true. But this is not what Paul is teaching here and this is not what Chrysostom is teaching here. Notice how he asks “How is Adam a Type of Christ”? and “Why in that, as the former became to those who were sprung from him, although they had not eaten of the tree, the cause of that death which by his eating was introduced; thus also did Christ become to those sprung from Him, even though they had not wrought righteousness, the Provider of that righteousness which through His Cross He graciously bestowed on us all.”. Notice how Chrysostom also understands “righteousness” to come from the cross of Jesus, whereas the Catholics are more to join the cross with the holy Spirit (for in their view it means a re-creation into holiness). Also understand how this “righteousness” is not wrought in the saved just as the sin of Adam was not wrought in humanity (at least for the sake of the argument- we know that we were). It is clear that what chrysostom has in mind is the forensic legal consequences that both Adam and Christ have on us. And it is clear because you can see how Chrysotom argues that it is not the present sin or righteousness in human beings that cause our death or life, but rather Adam’s one sin and Christ’s one sacrifice.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

And if anything I have said above is unconvincing, then this below quote will suffice:

**
Ver. 19. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.**

What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offense of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. ***What then does the word sinners mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death.

---

Do you see when he asks 'How would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner"? it is clear from his question that he is not endorsing this view. The Catholic simply reads the verse and notes that it says “made sinners” and they are quite content on taking it to mean that Adam’s sin ontologically made us sinners. However, notice what Chrysostom says afterward. "For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word ‘sinners’ mean here? LEGAL FORENSIC GUILT AND SENTENCE OF DEATH- NOTHING ONTOLOGICAL

 

[Porknpie]

Chrysostom speaks of the "righteousness of God’ as the royal pardon and remission of sins that we receive through the sacrificial death of Jesus, teaching that a man is justified by faith without works.

This goes directly counter to the catholic claim that a man is justified by works and faith.

Add a bit of reason: If he really taught this there would have been an uproar in the church. There was no uproar…

Contrast that with the reformers.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

There was no uproar because everyone was quite clear that justification meant the clearing up of the guilt of sin. The teaching that in salvation a sinner was made alive and freed from the power of Satan and subject to the authority of the Bishop, who back then excommunicated the practice of sin in the church, was no doubt already there, as it is in the protestant churches.

As I have said, protestant churches demand more repentance and a change of life than do Catholics, and they practice excommunications where there is a practice of sin and unrighteousness.

Tell me, how do catholics avoid antinomianism when they do not even stress the necessity of repentance in their homilies, or investigate the lives of people, to excommunicate when necessary??

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Also this quote from Chrysostom’s homiliy on Acts 13 when Paul prnounces justification by faith and understands it exclusively in terms of forgiveness.

Observe what a point he makes of showing that the (whole) thing was a (Divine) Dispensation. See, by saying what did they persuade men? (By telling them) that He was crucified? Why, what could be less persuasive than this? That He was buried— by them to whom it was promised that He should be salvation? **That He who was buried forgives sins, yea, more than the Law (has power to do)? And (observe), he does not say, From which you would not but, from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses. **Acts 13:39 Every one, he says: be who he may. For those (ordinances) are of no use, unless there be some benefit (accruing therefrom.) This is why he brings in forgiveness later: and shows it to be greater, when, the thing being (otherwise) impossible, yet this is effected. Who are His witnesses, he says, unto the people— the people that slew Him. Who would never have been so, were they not strengthened by a Divine Power: for they would never have borne such witness to blood-thirsty men, to the very persons that killed Him. But, He has raised up Jesus again: This day, he says, I have begotten you. Acts 13:33 Aye, upon this the rest follows of course. Why did he not allege some text by which they would be persuaded that forgiveness of sins is by Him? Because the great point with them was to show, in the first place, that He was risen: this being acknowledged, the other was unquestionable. Through this man, nay more, by Him, is remission of sins. Acts 13:38 And besides, he wished to bring them to a longing desire of this great thing. Well then, His death was not dereliction, but fulfilling of Prophecy.— For the rest, he puts them in mind of historical facts, wherein they through ignorance suffered evils without number. And this he hints in the conclusion, saying, Look, you despisers, and behold. And observe how, this being harsh, he cuts it short. Let not that, he says, come upon you, which was spoken for the others, that I work a work which you shall in no wise believe, though one declare it unto you. Acts 13:41 Marvel not that it seems incredible: this very thing was foretold from the first— (that it would not be believed). Behold, you despisers, as regards those who disbelieve in the Resurrection.

 

[JonNC]

God doesn’t need works to identify a disciple of Christ. There must be some other reason He requires them.

He requires them because our fellow man needs them.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Richca;9855798]We need to remind ourselves that justification or salvation by faith alone, Sola Fide, is first of all an invention of Martin Luther in the 16th century. This is historic fact.

Why faith alone? As Luther saw it, due to original sin, man’s will can no longer do any good. All of man’s acts are sin even those that have the appearance of good. This is manifestly false. Why would Jesus tell the woman caught in the act of adultery “Go and from now on sin no more” (John 8:11) if he knew the woman could do nothing but sin?

It isn’t manifestly false. And outside of faith, there are no good works, good in God’s sight.

From what I understand, there are some protestants today whom I think don’t believe that all of man’s acts are sins. I’m not sure about this and I don’t know the poster’s position on this.

God recognizes the good works of the regenerate.

I’ll admit that faith is necessary upon conversion and throughout the christian life, but we are not justified in baptism with a faith devoid of charity or love as St Paul says “For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” (Galatians 5:6). A faith devoid of charity is nothing as St Paul says again “if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:2). Again, if our justification or salvation depends fundamentally on faith alone, why does Paul place faith inferior to charity or love as he says here “So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love” ( 1 Corinthians 13:13). Can it be that we are justified without the greatest virtue, i.e, charity? The point I’m simply trying to make is that we are not justified in baptism by faith alone but by a faith working through charity. Much less can we continue in being justified without charity.

The speaks to a false notion about sola fide. At least from the Lutheran perspective, faith cannot be void of charity. Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:6:

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

St Paul’s teaching of the preeminence of charity over all other virtues agrees with the teaching of Truth itself, Jesus. For Jesus says that the whole law and prophets can be summed up in the two great commandments of love of God and love of neighbor.

Agreed.

Again, love or charity resides in the will while faith resides in the intellect. The whole man, his intellect and will, plays a part in being justified. Not just his intellect.

I can’t see the division of will and intellect in this way, but ok. Faith, however, is far more than an intellectual assent. That kind of faith, mere intellectual assent, is the beleif of demons, where hope does not reside. The saving faith of the regenerate cannot be void of hope and charity.

Jon

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;9862133]Then why was faith “alone” the rallying cry of the Protestant revolt if they know faith is not only not alone, but even scripture says NOT BY “faith alone”. [Jas 2:24]

It was in opposition to the works righteousness abuses being imposed by some in the Church at the time.

Part of the answer is, Luther threw James out of his bible. Problem solved for him…except he ended up putting the book back into his bible.

He never took it, or any other book out. The 1521 NT translation had all 27 books. Luther’s dispute regarding James mirrors the historic dispute about it, dating back to Eusebius - authorship. That’s not to say Luther didn’t question the law-oriented focus of James. He did.

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. - Luther

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

There was no uproar because everyone was quite clear that justification meant the clearing up of the guilt of sin. The teaching that in salvation a sinner was made alive and freed from the power of Satan and subject to the authority of the Bishop, who back then excommunicated the practice of sin in the church, was no doubt already there, as it is in the protestant churches

If St. John contradicted Catholic Church teaching as you state, there would have been an uproar, no?.

As I have said, protestant churches demand more repentance and a change of life than do Catholics, and they practice excommunications where there is a practice of sin and unrighteousness.

I don’t see this at all. Catholic Church teaches the reconciliation is necessary for mortal sin and attending the Mass, receiving the Eucharist for venial sin. The confession line in our church with the priest is nice and long, multiple times during the week. I am witnessing a lot of Catholics confessing their sins on a regular basis. And to what I can observe, they are working out their salvation in fear and trembling as St Paul instructs. The change that you describe is a lifelong process and not a one time event.

Tell me, how do catholics avoid antinomianism when they do not even stress the necessity of repentance in their homilies

Uh oh, i dont know antinomianism. I’m a simple guy from Chicago, but, I’ve heard plenty of homilies on the need for repentance. Where do you get this thought from? No Catholic that I know of would concur with you that repentance is not spoken of in our homilies. Are you picking this up from your church leaders and community ? If so, they are very uneducated in or are lying about the Catholic faith.

or investigate the lives of people, to excommunicate when necessary??

The Lord who knows our hearts is judge. He’ll do the excommunicating. Do you really want to attend a church that investigates the lives of its members? Turn over all medical records and financial records. A pretty self righteous thought for sure, a comment where one doesnt understand or realize the plank in their own eye. Surely you don’t mean this? Thank God this wasn’t true for me. I could have been excommunicated yearly from 14 to 48. Show me the Protestant church where all are without sin. I want to attend.

Lot of people using contraception. Nearly every church condemned this until 1930. You need to start hiring a lot of ministers and investigators at your church because its use is prevelent and according to your direction, the churches need to be emptied. But you’ll need medical records to do so and many interviews. Also, who do you kick out? Just the women? The Lord says the two shall be one so I assume the men go too. Church services will be pretty quiet.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Jesus and St. Paul commanded the inspection of brothers lives in Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5.

Paul commanded the Corinthians to excommunicate the sinning man, meaning that they needed to physically put him outside the church and to not allow him back into the fellowship.

Paul would forbid the idea that God himself would do the excommunications.

This is the number 1 reason why the Spirit of God is quenched in alot of churches today, they allow un-repentance uncommitted souls to participate in the worship of God. If you read revelation 1-3, you will see the Jesus blesses the churches for practicing church discipline and for not tolerating the presence of sin in the fellowship of the church.

Your life from 14-48, if you failed to produce fruit, if you were not regenerated and made a new creation in Christ, if you did not practice righteousness (1 John) and if you did not continue and persevere then you should have been excommunicated.

If you read the Council of Nicea, you will see how this council teaches this.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Back to the main thread however.

The main point in this thread is twofold: 1) To demonstrate some evidence to argue against the notion that John Chrysostom believed in the protestant doctrine of justification, and 2) In hopes to find that he did in fact not believe the protestant doctrine of justification.

If you consider the following verse, it should be plain that in justification there is an exchange that takes place:

“For God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that we in Him might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

As you know protestants believed that just as our sins were imputed to Jesus Christ and so on account of bearing our sin and transgression he suffered the death of the cross. And also, that we being those who knew sin very well might be made the righteousness of God, meaning that we should be justified and considered worthy of eternal life, not in any infused way of working with God but an immediate gifting of grace and status before God.

Consider how St. John Chrysostom teaches this below:

2 Corinthians 5:21

For Him who knew no sin He made to be sin on our account.

‘I say nothing of what has gone before, that you have outraged Him, Him that had done you no wrong, Him that had done you good, that He exacted not justice, that He is first to beseech, though first outraged; let none of these things be set down at present. Ought ye not in justice to be reconciled for this one thing only that He has done to you now?’ And what has He done? Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you. For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He has both well achieved mighty things, and besides, has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? Him that knew no sin, he says, Him that was righteousness itself , He made sin, that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. For cursed is he that hangs on a tree. Galatians 3:13 For to die thus was far greater than to die; and this he also elsewhere implying, says, Becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross. Philippians 2:8 For this thing carried with it not only punishment, but also disgrace. Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on you. For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dies for sinners; and not dies only, but even as one cursed; and not as cursed [dies] only, but thereby freely bestows upon us those great goods which we never looked for; (for he says, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him what words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things?*** ‘For the righteous,’ says he, ‘He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.’ Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit*, but the quality itself.** For he said not made [Him] a sinner, but sin; not, ‘Him that had not sinned’ only, but that had not even known sin; that we also might become, he did not say ‘righteous,’ but, righteousness, and, the righteousness of God. For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God.

A modern day Catholic would never interpret this verse in this manner. For being “made the righteousness of God” is indeed the habit of being righteous in their life by the sovereign grace of almighty God. But as we see from St. John Chrysostom, we are not transformed into the habit of righteous behavior by faith and grace (which would be true and acceptable if this is what was taught) but also that we are granted the quality of being “righteous” even though we had not worked to be so!

 

[Porknpie]

---

Jesus and St. Paul commanded the inspection of brothers lives in Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5.

Paul commanded the Corinthians to excommunicate the sinning man, meaning that they needed to physically put him outside the church and to not allow him back into the fellowship. .

Yes …but …read on in Matthew 18. At Paul’s words lead also to the church having the power to bind and loose and we are to forgive 70 times 70.

Do you still want to investigate your church members? Where is that in the bible? If you are going to investigate your members, you need to know their hearts. Commandment #1. You shall have no other Gods before me. How do you know? How do you know if a member loves God with all their heart and soul? Good luck understanding this. There are another 9 commandments to investigate.

1 Corinthians 5 does give the church the ability to expel evil as needed, agreed (as it was in the OT) but God does judge. Find and then investigate all the evil people and expel them…and then invite me to your church. I would like to know, how you know, that there are no planks in anyone’s eyes.

1. God will judge those outside. Purge the evil person from your midst

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Yes God will judge those “outside” meaning those who do not pertain to the fellowship of the saints.

And yes we are to forgive everyone if they are repentant. However, if a 19 year old member of a catholic church conitnues to live in a pattern of fornication, and keeps saying “im sorry” “im sorry” but he keeps doing it. Great wisdom will be needed, but he should be excommunicated from the Eucharist first, and with some major time, should be excommunicated like the man in 1 Corinthians 5.

However, I would like for someone to address the quote I just posed by Chrysostom

 

[StLucchese]

Edit: The only way I could see that having faith while doing absolutely no good works would save us is if you “got the faith” then died immediately, before you had time to do anything good. Otherwise, faith is weakened with each sin we commit, and to avoid doing good works is a sin. So unless we’re constantly striving to do good works, our faith will pretty quickly die (we’ll commit a mortal sin) and then we are no longer justified. As I said, it seems that Sola Fide and Once Saved Always Saved are mutually dependent heresies.

Thanks, needed a basic explanation. Still reading through the repsonses though. Still on pg 3 of 13.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Back to the main thread however.

The main point in this thread is twofold: 1) To demonstrate some evidence to argue against the notion that John Chrysostom believed in the protestant doctrine of justification, and 2) In hopes to find that he did in fact not believe the protestant doctrine of justification.

If you consider the following verse, it should be plain that in justification there is an exchange that takes place:

“For God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that we in Him might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Let me ask this again, Erick_Ybarra, and I will highlight it this time (so you could read this in the hope of you answering me): Where did you get the idea that the Catholic and Protestant views on justification differ at this point? Please site official Catholic teachings that show a different view of justification.

As you know protestants believed that just as our sins were imputed to Jesus Christ and so on account of bearing our sin and transgression he suffered the death of the cross. And also, that we being those who knew sin very well might be made the righteousness of God, meaning that we should be justified and considered worthy of eternal life, not in any infused way of working with God but an immediate gifting of grace and status before God.

Do you even understand what justification by infusion means, Erick_Ybarra? Infused justification is also an “an immediate gifting of grace and status before God.” Indeed, infused justification is even more radical than imputed justification. You see, while imputed justification just transfers Jesus’ righteousness unto us and thus still alien to us but just “covering us of our sins”, infused justification makes Jesus’ righteousness an integral part of us.

That is why the Catholic term for the entire process of justification and sanctification is deification (“becoming god-like”).

As an analogy, if imputed justification makes someone an adopted son/daughter of God, then infused justification makes us a son/daughter of God by flesh and blood.

Consider how St. John Chrysostom teaches this below:

2 Corinthians 5:21

For Him who knew no sin He made to be sin on our account.

‘I say nothing of what has gone before, that you have outraged Him, Him that had done you no wrong, Him that had done you good, that He exacted not justice, that He is first to beseech, though first outraged; let none of these things be set down at present. Ought ye not in justice to be reconciled for this one thing only that He has done to you now?’ And what has He done? Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you. For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He has both well achieved mighty things, and besides, has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? Him that knew no sin, he says, Him that was righteousness itself , He made sin, that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. For cursed is he that hangs on a tree. Galatians 3:13 For to die thus was far greater than to die; and this he also elsewhere implying, says, Becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross. Philippians 2:8 For this thing carried with it not only punishment, but also disgrace. Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on you. For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dies for sinners; and not dies only, but even as one cursed; and not as cursed [dies] only, but thereby freely bestows upon us those great goods which we never looked for; (for he says, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him) what words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things?*** ‘For the righteous,’ says he, ‘He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.’ Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit***, but the quality itself. For he said not made [Him] a sinner, but sin; not, ‘Him that had not sinned’ only, but that had not even known sin; that we also might become, he did not say ‘righteous,’ but, righteousness, and, the righteousness of God. For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God.

A modern day Catholic would never interpret this verse in this manner. For being “made the righteousness of God” is indeed the habit of being righteous in their life by the sovereign grace of almighty God. But as we see from St. John Chrysostom, we are not transformed into the habit of righteous behavior by faith and grace (which would be true and acceptable if this is what was taught) but also that we are granted the quality of being “righteous” even though we had not worked to be so!

No, that is how exactly a Catholic would understand that passage. Indeed, if anything I would say that the Protestant would find St. John Chrysostom’s teachings carry justification too far.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

He says that the righteousness of God is not a habit of righteous deeds. Rather the quality of being righteous in a forensic sense. This is what Chrysostom teaches