C
carlos19
Guest
my thoughts exactly.This thread though, finally clarifies that erick believes in alien imputed righteousness.
- Status
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
That was a very bold statement, knowing that you have no idea what I am doing on my free time. In fact, I’ve read through Chrysostom and I can prove thoroughly that he did not believe in the catholic view of justification. Line after Line. I’ve provided enough for you to deal with. Respond to me, then, if you know they are taken out of context? It’s very easy to tell everyone they are ripping quotes out of contexts…but if I keep coming with more and more quotes that are next to each other in the original, and then add more corroborative verses which show the same conclusions…maybe you should begin to wonder if you can even show that Chrysostom believes in the Catholic view of justification. If the infallible Church has claimed him a saint and doctor, could he fall under the excommunications of Trent? Do you think this is what is motivating you to deny the teaching of Chrysostom on Justification?
Consider again St. John Chrysostom’s whole comment on Rom 10:4
Ver. 4. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believes.
See the judgment of Paul. For as he had spoken of a righteousness, and a righteousness, lest they of the Jews which believed should seem to have the one but be excluded from the other, and to be accused of lawlessness (for even these there was no less cause to fear about as being still newly come in), and lest Jews should again expect to achieve it, and should say, Though we have not at present fulfilled it, yet we certainly will fulfil it, see what ground he takes. He shows that there is but one righteousness, and that has its full issue in this, and that he that has taken to himself this, the one by faith, has fulfilled that also. But he that rejects this, falls short as well of that also. For if Christ be the end of the Law, he that has not Christ, even if he seem to have that righteousness, has it not. But he that has Christ, even though he have not fulfilled the Law aright, has received the whole. For the end of the physician’s art is health. As then he that can make whole, even though he has not the physician’s art, has everything; but he that knows not how to heal, though he seem to be a follower of the art, comes short of everything: so is it in the case of the Law and of faith. He that has this has the end of that likewise, but he that is without this is an alien from both. For what was the object of the Law? To make man righteous. But it had not the power, for no one fulfilled it. This then was the end of the Law and to this it looked throughout, and for this all its parts were made, its feasts, and commandments, and sacrifices, and all besides, that man might be justified. But this end Christ gave a fuller accomplishment of through faith. Be not then afraid, he says, as if transgressing the Law in having come over to the faith. For then do you transgress it, when for it thou dost not believe Christ. If you believe in Him, then you have fulfilled it also, and much more than it commanded. For you have received a much greater righteousness. Next, since this was an assertion, he again brings proof of it from the Scriptures.
Consider again St. John Chrysostom’s whole comment on Rom 10:4
Ver. 4. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believes.
See the judgment of Paul. For as he had spoken of a righteousness, and a righteousness, lest they of the Jews which believed should seem to have the one but be excluded from the other, and to be accused of lawlessness (for even these there was no less cause to fear about as being still newly come in), and lest Jews should again expect to achieve it, and should say, Though we have not at present fulfilled it, yet we certainly will fulfil it, see what ground he takes. He shows that there is but one righteousness, and that has its full issue in this, and that he that has taken to himself this, the one by faith, has fulfilled that also. But he that rejects this, falls short as well of that also. For if Christ be the end of the Law, he that has not Christ, even if he seem to have that righteousness, has it not. But he that has Christ, even though he have not fulfilled the Law aright, has received the whole. For the end of the physician’s art is health. As then he that can make whole, even though he has not the physician’s art, has everything; but he that knows not how to heal, though he seem to be a follower of the art, comes short of everything: so is it in the case of the Law and of faith. He that has this has the end of that likewise, but he that is without this is an alien from both. For what was the object of the Law? To make man righteous. But it had not the power, for no one fulfilled it. This then was the end of the Law and to this it looked throughout, and for this all its parts were made, its feasts, and commandments, and sacrifices, and all besides, that man might be justified. But this end Christ gave a fuller accomplishment of through faith. Be not then afraid, he says, as if transgressing the Law in having come over to the faith. For then do you transgress it, when for it thou dost not believe Christ. If you believe in Him, then you have fulfilled it also, and much more than it commanded. For you have received a much greater righteousness. Next, since this was an assertion, he again brings proof of it from the Scriptures.
C
carlos19
Guest
thank you bookcat!!!
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
This is St. John Chrysostom’s whole comment on Romans 4:1-3. Not taken out of context:
Romans IV. 1, 2
What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory; but not before God.
He had said (5 manuscripts εἶπεν), that the world had become guilty before God, and that all had sinned, and that boasting was excluded and that it was impossible to be saved otherwise than by faith. He is now intent upon showing that this salvation, so far from being matter of shame, was even the cause of a bright glory, and a greater than that through works. For since the being saved, yet with shame, had somewhat of dejection in it, he next takes away this suspicion too. And indeed he has hinted at the same already, by calling it not barely salvation, but righteousness. Therein (he says) is the righteousness of God revealed. Romans 1:17 For he that is saved as a righteous man has a confidence accompanying his salvation. And he calls it not righteousness only, but also the setting forth of the righteousness of God. But God is set forth in things which are glorious and shining, and great. However, he nevertheless draws support for this from what he is at present upon, and carries his discourse forward by the method of question. And this he is always in the habit of doing both for clearness sake, and for the sake of confidence in what is said. Above, for instance, he did it, where he says, What advantage then has the Jew? Romans 3:1 and, What then have we more than they? Romans 3:9 and again, where then is boasting? It is excluded Romans 3:27: and here, what then shall we say that Abraham our father? etc. Now since the Jews kept turning over and over the fact, that the Patriarch, and friend of God, was the first to receive circumcision, he wishes to show, that it was by faith that he too was justified. And this was quite a vantage ground to insist upon (περιουσία νίκης πολλἥς).*** For for a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just* from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder**, and to set the power of faith in a strong light. And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him father, as pertaining to the flesh, to throw them out of the genuine relationship (συγγενείας γνησίας) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship with him. And then he says, For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory: but not before God. After saying that God justified the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith, and making the same sufficiently sure in what he said before, he now proves it by Abraham more clearly than he promised, and pitches the battle for faith against works, and makes this righteous man the subject of the whole struggle; and that not without special meaning. Wherefore also he sets him up very high by calling him forefather, and putting a constraint upon them to comply with him in all points. For, Tell me not, he would say, about the Jews, nor bring this man or that before me. For I will go up to the very head of all, and the source whence circumcision took its rise. For if Abraham, he says, was justified by works, he has whereof to glory: but not before God. What is here said is not plain, and so one must make it plainer. For there are two gloryings, one of works, and one of faith. After saying then, if he was justified by works, he has whereof to glory; but not before God; he points out that he might have whereof to glory from faith also, yea and much greater reason for it. For the great power of Paul is especially displayed in this, that he turns what is objected to the other side, and shows that what seemed rather to be on the side of salvation by works, viz. glorying or boldness of claim (παρρησιάζεσθαι) belonged much more truly to that by faith. For he that glories in his works has his own labors to put forward: but he that finds his honor in having faith in God, has a much greater ground for glorying to show, in that it is God that he glorifies and magnifies. For those things which the nature of the visible world tells him not of, in receiving these by faith in Him, he at once displays sincere love towards Him, and heralds His power clearly forth. Now this is the character of the noblest soul, and the philosophic spirit, and lofty mind. For to abstain from stealing and murdering is trifling sort of acquirement, but to believe that it is possible for God to do things impossible requires a soul of no mean stature, and earnestly affected towards Him; for this is a sign of sincere love. For he indeed honors God, who fulfils the commandments, but he does so in a much greater degree who thus follows wisdom (φιλοσοφὥν) by his faith. The former obeys Him, but the latter receives that opinion of Him which is fitting, and glorifies Him, and feels wonder at Him more than that evinced by works. For that glorying pertains to him that does aright, but this glorifies God, and lies wholly in Him. For he glories at conceiving great things concerning Him, which redound to His glory. And this is why he speaks of having whereof to glory before God. And not for this only, but also for another reason: for he who is a believer glories again, not only because he loves God in sincerity, but also because he has enjoyed great honor and love from him. For as he shows his love to Him by having great thoughts about Him, (for this is a proof of love), so does God also love him, though deserving to suffer for countless sins, not in freeing him from punishment only, but even by making him righteous. He then has whereof to glory, as having been counted worthy of mighty love.
Romans IV. 1, 2
What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory; but not before God.
He had said (5 manuscripts εἶπεν), that the world had become guilty before God, and that all had sinned, and that boasting was excluded and that it was impossible to be saved otherwise than by faith. He is now intent upon showing that this salvation, so far from being matter of shame, was even the cause of a bright glory, and a greater than that through works. For since the being saved, yet with shame, had somewhat of dejection in it, he next takes away this suspicion too. And indeed he has hinted at the same already, by calling it not barely salvation, but righteousness. Therein (he says) is the righteousness of God revealed. Romans 1:17 For he that is saved as a righteous man has a confidence accompanying his salvation. And he calls it not righteousness only, but also the setting forth of the righteousness of God. But God is set forth in things which are glorious and shining, and great. However, he nevertheless draws support for this from what he is at present upon, and carries his discourse forward by the method of question. And this he is always in the habit of doing both for clearness sake, and for the sake of confidence in what is said. Above, for instance, he did it, where he says, What advantage then has the Jew? Romans 3:1 and, What then have we more than they? Romans 3:9 and again, where then is boasting? It is excluded Romans 3:27: and here, what then shall we say that Abraham our father? etc. Now since the Jews kept turning over and over the fact, that the Patriarch, and friend of God, was the first to receive circumcision, he wishes to show, that it was by faith that he too was justified. And this was quite a vantage ground to insist upon (περιουσία νίκης πολλἥς).*** For for a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just* from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder**, and to set the power of faith in a strong light. And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him father, as pertaining to the flesh, to throw them out of the genuine relationship (συγγενείας γνησίας) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship with him. And then he says, For if Abraham were justified by works, he has whereof to glory: but not before God. After saying that God justified the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith, and making the same sufficiently sure in what he said before, he now proves it by Abraham more clearly than he promised, and pitches the battle for faith against works, and makes this righteous man the subject of the whole struggle; and that not without special meaning. Wherefore also he sets him up very high by calling him forefather, and putting a constraint upon them to comply with him in all points. For, Tell me not, he would say, about the Jews, nor bring this man or that before me. For I will go up to the very head of all, and the source whence circumcision took its rise. For if Abraham, he says, was justified by works, he has whereof to glory: but not before God. What is here said is not plain, and so one must make it plainer. For there are two gloryings, one of works, and one of faith. After saying then, if he was justified by works, he has whereof to glory; but not before God; he points out that he might have whereof to glory from faith also, yea and much greater reason for it. For the great power of Paul is especially displayed in this, that he turns what is objected to the other side, and shows that what seemed rather to be on the side of salvation by works, viz. glorying or boldness of claim (παρρησιάζεσθαι) belonged much more truly to that by faith. For he that glories in his works has his own labors to put forward: but he that finds his honor in having faith in God, has a much greater ground for glorying to show, in that it is God that he glorifies and magnifies. For those things which the nature of the visible world tells him not of, in receiving these by faith in Him, he at once displays sincere love towards Him, and heralds His power clearly forth. Now this is the character of the noblest soul, and the philosophic spirit, and lofty mind. For to abstain from stealing and murdering is trifling sort of acquirement, but to believe that it is possible for God to do things impossible requires a soul of no mean stature, and earnestly affected towards Him; for this is a sign of sincere love. For he indeed honors God, who fulfils the commandments, but he does so in a much greater degree who thus follows wisdom (φιλοσοφὥν) by his faith. The former obeys Him, but the latter receives that opinion of Him which is fitting, and glorifies Him, and feels wonder at Him more than that evinced by works. For that glorying pertains to him that does aright, but this glorifies God, and lies wholly in Him. For he glories at conceiving great things concerning Him, which redound to His glory. And this is why he speaks of having whereof to glory before God. And not for this only, but also for another reason: for he who is a believer glories again, not only because he loves God in sincerity, but also because he has enjoyed great honor and love from him. For as he shows his love to Him by having great thoughts about Him, (for this is a proof of love), so does God also love him, though deserving to suffer for countless sins, not in freeing him from punishment only, but even by making him righteous. He then has whereof to glory, as having been counted worthy of mighty love.
C
carlos19
Guest
This is what is confusing about you Erick, you say radically different things in your posts.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
No, they are harmonious.
For someone to say that we are justified in God’s sight by faith and works is equivalent to saying that the man is justified by works (in my understanding) since I assume the working person believes in the God to whom he works for. Therefore, when someone harps that they believe not in a justification by works alone, but by faith also, I regard this as a superfluous addition for it is insanity if the one working has no belief in the object for whom he is working. Therefore the catholic assertion that we are justified by the works that we do as well as faith is teaching a justification of works.
For someone to say that we are justified in God’s sight by faith and works is equivalent to saying that the man is justified by works (in my understanding) since I assume the working person believes in the God to whom he works for. Therefore, when someone harps that they believe not in a justification by works alone, but by faith also, I regard this as a superfluous addition for it is insanity if the one working has no belief in the object for whom he is working. Therefore the catholic assertion that we are justified by the works that we do as well as faith is teaching a justification of works.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
You see somehow no one can argue from a passage of Scripture, or from an early church father, or from any ancient writings, that the greek work dikaioo means to “transform into righteous” or “to ontologically make righteous”.
The word dikaioo is always declarative. If you are so easily persuaded that it is not, and by that for any other reason other than the Catholic church says so, please share.
At best, the catholic must say that God constantly and genuinely continues to make declarations concerning us that we righteous. Or that we remain righteous in His eyes. To be justified is to be righteous according to the standard of who is judging. And that as we continue to live our lives in good works and the sacramental liturgical loving and hoping life, we are constantly seen as righteous by God.
The word dikaioo is always declarative. If you are so easily persuaded that it is not, and by that for any other reason other than the Catholic church says so, please share.
At best, the catholic must say that God constantly and genuinely continues to make declarations concerning us that we righteous. Or that we remain righteous in His eyes. To be justified is to be righteous according to the standard of who is judging. And that as we continue to live our lives in good works and the sacramental liturgical loving and hoping life, we are constantly seen as righteous by God.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
If you actually read my posts I have clearly shown that faith without works will never bring anyone to salvation.Quote??
Ah, here’s a quote…although, it seems to say the opposite of what Erick is claiming. Interesting.
I believe all the teachings of Jesus. Only fruit-bearers enter the kingdom of God. Out of all the protestants I have studied from, I have never read one that would deny this.
Of course it is not good enough simply to believe without the corresponding life of good works and service toward Christ. This is not saving faith, this is a dead faith.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Chrysostom does not hold to a “faith alone” salvation in the sense of having “faith” and at the same time an unrighteous life.
However Chrysostom does hold to a “faith alone” salvation when faith is God’s given, and which will be mixed with righteous behavior, love, and good works. But faith remains the virtue that God chooses to reckon as righteousness.
However Chrysostom does hold to a “faith alone” salvation when faith is God’s given, and which will be mixed with righteous behavior, love, and good works. But faith remains the virtue that God chooses to reckon as righteousness.
C
carlos19
Guest
What you post if bold too. You misunderstand Catholic teaching. Most of what you are posting here is so unbelievably Catholic, yet you have the gall to tell us it isn’t. I have read most of your posts and you have taken contradictory positions on many things.
In thread after thread you ignore what people bring up. you either say good point I am going to have to think about that and then you discard it and move right ahead without ever getting back to it. Or you refuse to answer questions and just go on cutting, pasting and quoting.
C
carlos19
Guest
how is that harmonious…the catholic view of justifications is one of works???
You have been here on this board long enough to know that this isn’t true. There is something disingenuous about your threads. You did not come here to learn. You came here with predispositions and want to rubber stamp the Church with erroneous assumptions about what She teaches.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
What I said is true if one assumes faith is always in the worker.
I’ve not been able to read every response. But those I had time to answer I did.
I think it’s plain in Chrysostom that faith is what made Abraham righteous, not his works.
The whole idea that one can have faith and be saved and never have works is the background to the 2nd chapter in James. In a sense, a man is also justified by works, for because those who are originally justified by faith alone are those whose faith is never alone but always accompanied with works. So in this sense, we are justified by faith and works.
Chrysostom teaches that we receive a gift of righteousness, not the habit or practice of doing the right thing, but the gracious quality of being righteous by faith without any contributing works.
I’ve not been able to read every response. But those I had time to answer I did.
I think it’s plain in Chrysostom that faith is what made Abraham righteous, not his works.
The whole idea that one can have faith and be saved and never have works is the background to the 2nd chapter in James. In a sense, a man is also justified by works, for because those who are originally justified by faith alone are those whose faith is never alone but always accompanied with works. So in this sense, we are justified by faith and works.
Chrysostom teaches that we receive a gift of righteousness, not the habit or practice of doing the right thing, but the gracious quality of being righteous by faith without any contributing works.
O
onemangang
Guest
Sure, faith alone is not a new concept to Catholics either, when it is in its proper context.
That context is faith, works, love, hope, charity all pour forth from the well spring of grace.
When you start referring to the protestant notion of justification by grace, through faith alone, (which is forensic and legal) and apply that paradigm to those of Eastern thought (like St. John Chrysostom) you end up doing a grave injustice to them, by taking such liberties.
They had (have) a Holistic view, which is not to be broken down into modern scholasticism. Theosis is a path not to be broken down in parts. It begins withy God’s Essence-Energies which is not an Actus Purus as it is in the west, furthermore synergism is man working with God’s divine grace (Essence-Energies)
St. John Chrysostom has often been accused of Semi-Pelagianism, because of his synergistic view of theoisis. Which is a false claim to make, but his view is so profoundly different from that of the Protestant “Reformers”, it is naive, or disingenuous to apply modern day legal terms!
Ok so what is the grounds of justification, imputed Righteousness?
What’s the ground of regeneration?
Do they proceed justification?
Are we imputed Justification?
Are we imputed regeneration?
Are we imputed faith?
So, you have a simultaneous righteousness, regeneration, sanctifying grace, faith, and justification?
Is there any Ordo Salutis ( order of salvation so to speak) or is it simultaneous?
You must have one to be so concerned with a forensic Justification, prior to works, by imputed righteuosness!
Is it Synergistic or Monergistic?
The “Reformers” must of had an Ordo Salutis?
Was theirs Synergistic or Monergistic?
Is yours the same?
Oh wait, I’m implying that theirs wasn’t at conflict with one another and yours isn’t at conflict with theirs!
Where does St. John Chrysostom teach that we are guilty of Adam’s sin?
Where does St. John Chrysostom teach Original sin in an Augustinian view?
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
If you read Chrysostom’s commentary on Romans 5:18 “For by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners”, he rejects the meaning that we are ontologically made sinners, and says that what this means is that we are affected legally, with the punishment of death that belongs to a sinner, even though we did not eat the forbidden fruit. Is this not the imputation of Adam’s guilt to all? Also, the reverse is correct. Chrysostom does not believe to be “made righteous” (Rom 5:18) means to have our behavior change, but that we are given the “quality” of being righteous by His sacrifice on the cross (See Chrysostom’s 2 Corinthians 5:21 and his differentiation between the habit of righteousness and the quality of righteousness)
With regard to your other questions.
Baptism is the place where this all takes place. Through this grace, God grants the person sanctifying grace, the remission of sins, justification (acquittal), regeneration, adoption, incorporation into the body of Christ,etc,etc… Obviously there is a faith and repentance born in the person before they are baptized, but baptism is where the normal oridinary gifts are given.
With regard to your other questions.
Baptism is the place where this all takes place. Through this grace, God grants the person sanctifying grace, the remission of sins, justification (acquittal), regeneration, adoption, incorporation into the body of Christ,etc,etc… Obviously there is a faith and repentance born in the person before they are baptized, but baptism is where the normal oridinary gifts are given.
O
onemangang
Guest
I’ll look into it but for now bed time
Is that the Ordo Salutis?
If so, justification precedes regeneration?
R
Richca
Guest
O
onemangang
Guest
I would expect someone like St.John Chrysostom not to say we are made ontologically sinners from Adam’s sin being that he believed we are not receiving an indellible mark on the soul by being imparted Adam’s guilt. He did not hold to the Augustinian view of original sin, in a view of Ancestral sin, one would become ontologically made sinners by sinning, not by a mark on the soul imparted IN Adam. To call it a legal standing, once again, is imputing a foreign legal concept, that would be alien to eastern thought…again, pun intended
With regard to your other questions.
Ok, baptism
“First,”*It cleanses the soul from the guilt of all preceding sins, whether original or actual.
“Second,”*It frees us from the eternal punishment due to sin, all the temporal punishments, also, which the Justice of God could command for the sins one may have committed before baptism.
“Third,”*It adorns the soul with the grace of Justification, and with all those other graces and virtues which accompany it.
“Fourth,”*It makes us Christians, imprinting the sacred character of a Christian in the soul; and, as a consequence of all this.
“Fifth,”*It regenerates us by a new spiritual birth, making us children of God, members of his Church, and heirs of Heaven, and makes us capable of receiving all the other sacraments, and spiritual benefits which Christ has left in his Church, and gives us a right and title to receive them as our needs may require, as also to receive the necessary helps of actual grace to enable us to live a good Christian life, and preserve the sanctity we have received in baptism.
“Sixth,”*It gives us a right and title to the kingdom of heaven
Baptism,*Through the grace of the Holy Spirit, a person receives supernatural disposition to live and act with God’s call.
It is a pouring forth of sanctifying grace
S
steve_b
Guest
You probably meant mortal sin there. If one dies in mortal sin, scripture says, they go to hell.
EY:
I would say it differently.
God recognizes in us, good works we do, because He crowns in us the good work that He has prepared in advance for us to do.
[eph 2:8-10] 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
iow, If we don’t produce good works that God has created us to do, we are like the fig tree that won’t produce fruit that it was made to produce. That fig tree would be cut down and thrown in the fire. **Matt 3:10 & **Lk 13:6]
grace + faith + good works = salvation. all are necessary.
What if grace is present, but no good works are present, then by definition, faith is a dead faith, and that won’t save. [Jas 2:24] Paul and James are saying the same thing, they’re just saying it differently.
S
steve_b
Guest
It’s BOTH, faith and good works, not either /or.
S
steve_b
Guest
Therefore faith AGAIN, is not alone. The problem is, Protestants insert alone where alone doesn’t belong.
- Status