Was John Chrysostom Catholic?

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

We are speaking to the voice of Catholicism which says that we are justified by faith and works. That both faith and works contribute. What we are saying is the faith alone brings the free gift of God of being righteous, but the works are there not as contributory but as the obedience of faith.

Here we go again with your weird Catholic “teachings”. Show me an official Catholic document that says “we are justified by faith and works”.

 

[steve_b]

Depends on one’s understanding of what the “alone” means, what it refers to.

When Luther taught “faith alone” and scripture says NOT by faith alone, then Luther placing alone there is wrong. To show it’s wrong just look at the consequences and fall out for Luther putting it there.
J:

The “alone” is in oppostion to pelagian and semi-pelagian views.

The Catholic Church wasn’t having any problems regarding those heresies at the time of the Protestant revolt. The Orthodox have a problem with semi Palagianism, but not the Catholic Church. One only has to look at the Catholic Church response to Luther to know that the CC was solid and consistant in her teaching.
J:

It states the fact that the only way we can come to justification is by grace alone through faith in Christ. It is the gift by which we can access justification. It is not a statement claiming we can exclude works from the Godly life.

Jon

Grace alone, is a far different statement than faith alone.

when faith isn’t alone, and scripture contradicts faith alone, why insist faith alone?.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;9874835]When Luther taught “faith alone” and scripture says NOT by faith alone, then Luther placing alone there is wrong. To show it’s wrong just look at the consequences and fall out for Luther putting it there.

You’re speaking of Luther’s translation of Roman 3:28? ITs a translation, not a tranliteration. Luther’s translation aside, no English translation has it because it isn’t necessary in the English.

The Catholic Church wasn’t having any problems regarding those heresies at the time of the Protestant revolt. The Orthodox have a problem with semi Palagianism, but not the Catholic Church. One only has to look at the Catholic Church response to Luther to know that the CC was solid and consistant in her teaching.

the Church may have been solid in the teaching, but the practice, at least in central Europe, was not.

Grace alone, is a far different statement than faith alone.

Indeed, but they go together.

when faith isn’t alone, and scripture contradicts faith alone, why insist faith alone?

First, I dont think scripture contradicts faith alone, but if the term is bothersome, as it is for Catholics, then look instead to the teaching: that we are justified by faith apart from works. Faith is way we access justification, there is no other way. But as both James and Paul rightly say, a saving faith must be a faith that works through love, or it is a dead faith, and not a saving faith. Therefore, we are justified by grace alone through faith in Christ, but it must be a faith that works through love.

Jon

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Faith is way we access justification, there is no other way. But as both James and Paul rightly say, a saving faith must be a faith that works through love, or it is a dead faith, and not a saving faith. Therefore, we are justified by grace alone through faith in Christ, but it must be a faith that works through love.

Couldn’t find a better Catholic overview of Justification anywhere, Jon

 

[onemangang]

We are speaking to the voice of Catholicism which says that we are justified by faith and works. That both faith and works contribute. What we are saying is the faith alone brings the free gift of God of being righteous, but the works are there not as contributory but as the obedience of faith.

I asked a simple question that could be answered Yes or No, there is no ambiguity in between.

Again, are believing and repenting part of INITIAL justification?

Are graced works, done in Christ by a believer, EFFICACIOUS in a mans FINAL justification?

Are REPENTING and BELIEVING good works?

These are not very deep theological questions, all they require is a Yes or No Answer!

 

[carlos19]

Erick, I think that a huge percentage of what you are attributing to Chrysostom and what you attribute as protestant thought is very Catholic.

Can I be so bold as to try to summarize what I think you view as the difference.I don’t think Catholics would quarrel with you as to righteousness being imputed to us by faith. However, Catholics feel that a real righteousness is imputed where I think you are stating that Jesus’s righteousness is imputed.

is that pretty much it?

 

[Richca]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick_Ybarra
Hey folks,

I’ve been reading through the homilies on Romans in John Chrysostom, and I cannot help but notice the protestant interpretations that come line after line after line.

My first question, if someone had to prove that John Chrysosotom was Catholic, how would you go about it ? I am not aware if there is a book about this. And I am not speaking of the Eucharist. But more particularly, do we have evidence that he believed some of the other doctrines that evangelicals highly question such as infant baptism, the process of justification, the priesthood, etc,etc

“Is it not perfectly clear that anyone can, by his own free choice, choose either wickedness or virtue? For if this were not the case, and if such a faculty did not pertain to our nature, it were not right that some be punished while others receive the reward of virtue. But since everything depends, after grace from above, upon our own choice, so too are punishements prepared for sinners and recompense and reward for those who do right.” ( St John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis)

In the above quote above from St John Chrysostom, it is quite clear that he holds to catholic doctrine as opposed to protestant or Lutheran doctrine.
Firstly, he says that it is within the power of man by his own free choice to choose between good and evil and even that good that leads to salvation. The Lutheran doctrine is that due to original sin, man’s free will is so corrupted that it is completely powerless to choose any good whatsoever or to contribute anything that would lead to salvation. Chrysostom believes that man, by his own free will, contributes or cooperates with grace in the work of his salvation.
Secondly, from the above it is clear that Chrysostom is at odds with the Lutheran doctrine concerning original sin and its effects.
Thirdly, it is clear that Chrysostom is at odds with the protestant doctrine of “Sola gratia,” i.e., by grace alone.
Fourthly, Chysostom holds to the catholic doctrine of rewards and punishments or merit which protestants deny.

Fifthly, from the foregoing it’s pretty clear that Chrysostom is not an advocate of the protestant doctrine of “Sola fide,” i.e. faith alone.

 

[JonNC]

+JMJ+

Couldn’t find a better Catholic overview of Justification anywhere, Jon

Lutheran, too.

Jon

 

[carlos19]

Fifthly, from the foregoing it’s pretty clear that Chrysostom is not an advocate of the protestant doctrine of “Sola fide,” i.e. faith alone.

just trying to tie back to the first question

St. Chrysostom is catholic in his view of infant baptism, the priesthood,

so the only thing that we have been discussing if the process of justification…right?

 

[carlos19]

Fifthly, from the foregoing it’s pretty clear that Chrysostom is not an advocate of the protestant doctrine of “Sola fide,” i.e. faith alone.

I think Erick’s quarrel lies chiefly on true righteousness being imputed vs Christ’s righteousness being imputed. I think he he holds to Christ’s righteousness being imputed. I think…

 

[pneuma07]

Hey folks,

I’ve been reading through the homilies on Romans in John Chrysostom, and I cannot help but notice the protestant interpretations that come line after line after line.

Dear Erick,

if we can have a time out from keeping on accumulating quotations after quotations… consider please what assumptions you and we all would need in order to state that St. John Chrysostom teaches protestant interpretations of Romans and the Corpus Paulinum at large, with a particular focus on justification.

He was proclaimed Doctor of the Church in 1568. Note the date.

The Council of Trent, had been closed in December 1563, and the Church was just starting its full implementation.

One of the main results of Trent as you know, from a dogmatic point of view, was the definition of the doctrine of Justification.

What is, according to you, the plausibility that the early tridentine Church proclaimed a new Doctor whose interpretations on justification come up line after line as *ante litteram *Protestant ?

I am no way referring to the Church’s authority, mind you, or anything you cannot accept at the present moment. The questions in front of us are just more or less at this level:

"Was the Magisterium able to understand St. Chrysostom’s homilies ?
Was it able to understand its own fresh tridentine decrees and canons ?
Was it then able to detect whether the former are manifestly at odds line after line with the latter ? "

In case you share my impression on whether affirmative or negative answers are plausible here, then another possible explanation as to why he who had written those homilies was proclaimed doctor of the Church just after Trent, is that

*Catholic doctrine, in particular about justification, admits of a wider range of expressions than it is often imagined. *

Could we then work on this assumption in this or other threads ?

I guess that we could get a second very useful step too, if you wanted to summarize for us which ones of your concerns somehow connected with the exegesis of Chrysostom’s pauline exegesis remain to be tackled and which ones, if any, have been answered so far to your satisfaction, here or in previous threads.

I hope this can help.

In Christ
P7

 

[mikelionheart]

Lutheran, too.

Jon

Glad the Lutherans copied some true teachings from us.

Is there any more?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I am sorry that I have been late in coming to respond.

This is what I am saying. My understanding of justification has been formed over the years from reading the Old and New testaments. I do not believe that in the act of justification that we are given, as a treasury bank account, the good obedience and works of Jesus Christ that he performed throughout his earthly ministry, which is what most reformed people think. Therefore the phrase that the “righteousness of Christ” is imputed to believers has very little evidence from Scripture and history, and therefore it must be taken with some doubt. Of course if one sees this clearly, he/she must be confident. However, I for years have doubted this assertion.

Having said that, I still do not believe that justification is a process. The catholic doctrine of justification is equivalent to the doctrine of sanctification. Moreover, the term sanctification has been systematized over the years for the word itself hagiodzo and its cognate hagios, do not really have a progressive connotation in the greek. For instance, if you read the verse couple of verses in 1 Corinthians 1, Paul says the Corinthians are “sanctified in Christ Jesus” (v1-3) but if you consider the moral lapse these Christians have taken: sexual immorality, taking brothers/sisters to court, greed coveting in the Eucharist, total disbelief in the physical resurrection, forbidding people to marry, divisions in the church,etc,etc. One could find some good reasons why they haven’t exactly started off on the right foot. However, Paul calls them “sanctified”, which in the greek means “make holy”. The word has more of a one-time event meaning. They have been sanctified, which just means they have through believing the gospel been transferred over to God’s property. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they are in a constant state of growth in holiness, it just means they are God’s, and this transfer has happened at once. Indeed, if you take a concordance and review all of the terms you will see that it more has this one-time event meaning. Therefore the process of sanctification, which would be the process of being made holy, also has sometimes a one-time event meaning. In other words, sometimes the biblical authors use the word referring back to people’s conversion, not necessarily the button which automatically starts the conveyor belt of more and more progressive holy behavior. But this paragraph is not as important as the next.

The word “justified” and “justification” in the both the old and new testaments, do not have this progressive idea of conforming one’s life unto God’s righteous standards. As far as the datum goes, the word “justified” (dikaioo) is a word attributed to the man who is “just” (Dikaios) and the man who is “just” (dikaios) is a man who has become so by performing “righteousnes/justice” (dikaiosune). For the Hebrews, the man who his “justified” before God is the man who is “just” by performing “righteousness”- which of course meant adhering to the Torah laws of righteousness.

The word “justified” or “justification” are forensic terms which have the meaning of pronouncing or declaring that a man is indeed “just”. Normally, this verdict is reached by judges over a man who has performed “justness” or “righteousness”. The word “forensic” means “before the forum” or “before the examiners” and it has the law-court atmosphere meaning attached to it. Therefore, to be justified forensically is simply meaning that someone is examined to see if he/she is in conformity to the law and is he/she is in conformity to the law, then a consensual conclusion is reached that this person (he/she) is “justified” and “freed from any cause of guilt or accusation”. Therefore, since “justification” refers to the process of someone being “justified”, they both carry this forensic meaning.

Having said that, for the Hebrews, justification or justified were terms associated with a judgement passed on someone who has adequately performed “righteousness”, what do we say of Paul who insists that a man is “justified” apart from works!!! This goes contrary to almost any normal society, but especially within the framework of Judaism. For the Hebrews, especially the high end Pharisees or religious scribes, justification is only pronounced before God if that person has performed works of righteousness, the 10 commandments (see the rich young ruler), the food laws, the ritual cleansings, observance of days, etc,etc… Paul’s doctrine of a justification on a man who has no works to contribute is simply unacceptable and quite frankly it gives way to moral debauchery and a license to sin (Rom 3:1-3; 6:1-2). However for Paul, no man, Jew or Gentile, is really “just” or “righteous” before God! No man has “righteousness” in the sense that it is enough for God to pronounce you “just”!

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

For Paul all have sinned, and this fact puts all at enmity with God and is the condition which he calls “falling short of God’s glory” (Rom 3:23). Therefore, if this is the condition of all mankind, then justification will have to be from a different route than works. And this is where Paul’s doctrine of “faith” comes in. For Paul, justification or being justified cannot be earned or worked or toiled for. One must not work (Rom 4:1-4) and rather have faith (1:16) in God in order to be “just”. This is nothing other than what Habakukk says : “The just shall live by faith” (1:17). Chrysostom sees here in “life” the eschatological life, not just the present. Therefore, if you read his comment throughout romans, the life which leads to eschatological salvation is one of “faith” pre-dominantly. Paul insists that a man is “justified by faith” apart from works. How can this be!

Well, Paul teaches that we are “justified by His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as an expiation for sin by His blood to be received through faith” (Rom 3:24-25). So at this point, justification is something that is worked out for us, not in us, by the death of Jesus Christ, no? The hebrew doctrine of being justified before God by one’s works of torah is combated by this assertion that sinful mankind is only justified by an act of redemption and propitiation, indeed, nothing less than the sacrifice of the Son of God!

But it is not as if Jesus’ death by itself justifies a man, for God does lay a requirement at our feet before we can reap the benefits of what happened on the cross. And this requirement is “faith”. And you will see how Chrysostom teaches that “faith” is even greater than “works” for it requires true love for God and his person. To abandon all hopes in anything else and to be focused on God’s word and promise.

As an aside, we should note that “faith” in Romans should not be understood any different than “faith” in the record of “Acts” by Luke. In the book of Acts, sometimes the apostles tell the people they need to “repent and be converted” (Acts 3) in order to receive the remission of sin. Sometimes they say “Repent” (Acts 17:30-31) only. Sometimes they say “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). And then sometimes they only say “believe” (Acts 9). We should note that when they had only said “believe” that they were not saying this to the exclusion of repentance, conversion, turning from iniquity, being water baptized, and turning to God (acts 15). Therefore, “faith” is a word which must include the presence of “repentance” and “conversion”.

Having said this, when Paul says that we are “justified by faith”, this of course must include all the pre-conditions that the apostles gave to the people recorded in acts: repentance, turning away from iniquity, baptism,etc,etc.

Now to move forward, I recommend just going through the book of Romans and you will see that “justified” is referring to a one-time event that happens at conversion. You see, for Paul to be “justified” is the grace that one steps into from being once “condemned”. For Paul, justification stands between one’s life of sin and guilt to one’s life of forgiveness and grace. One must notice this difference between Paul and James. For James is using the term as any Hebrew, including the apostle Paul, that a man cannot be justified simply by assenting to the facts of the faith.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Paul tells us that Abraham was justified by faith apart from works (Acts 4:1-4). Now I know that in recent scholarship and even among-st some old catholic theology, the word “works” here have been taken to refer exclusively to those outward word of the Torah which the Jews had in their sacred Pentateuch.

But Chrysostom does not read it like that. He recognizes that “works” here refer to any work of devotion to God in general. How do I know this? Because if you read his commentary in the Homily, he says that Abraham was adorned with many works at the point of his life in Genesis 15:6, and yet God put those aside and justified him only on the account of faith! Abraham believed God and this was reckoned to him as “righteousness”. And so Abraham was justified by faith alone, even though he had works which one would normally assign righteousness to him. And Chrysostom already sees this in the text as protestants see this in the text. If anything, it is kind of a disappointment, because as a Doctor and Saint of the Catholic Church, and for someone like me who is looking for the unanimous teaching of the fathers concerning justification, I find only old interpretations that I had while a protestant.

And Paul teaches that just like Abraham and David, one is justified and imputed righteousess apart from works. What is this imputation of righteousness? Well, in the first place, one must see that this phrase actually even exists. Paul says it explicity in Romans 4:7-9, he says “Just as David describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works”. Therefore, if we want to reject any notion of imputed righteousness, we have some personal evaluation to be doing. And the Pslam is describing the man who is pardoned from God by repentance. This man is forgiven and is acquitted from the guilt of sin! This shows that for Paul, righteousness is carrying this initial point of forgiveness.

Right on through the book of Romans, faith, and not works, brings a person into this state of being “right” with God and having one’s sins “forgiven” (Rom 5:9). Nowhere in Romans, do we get this idea that we are justified by faith and works.

Well, then, what about James?

In the first place, I want to say that James also does not teach that justification is a progressive thing either. For Abraham was “justified” once when He offered up Isaac. This was not Abraham’s 567,342,987th justification. Abraham completed the command of God and he was accepted and saved because of doing what God commanded. Just like Abel was justified by bringing the right sacrifice to God. In James, Abraham is justified by works, and it is already implied he believes. Therefore, Abraham is a testimony against the man who says he has faith and yet has no works. For Abraham is the great example of faith in God, and yet he is justified by works, and not just faith.

But James sees the prophetic connection between Abraham’s justification by faith alone and his later justification by works, do you see? Because James says “you see his works were working together with his faith and faith was made perfect. And the scripture was fulfilled ‘Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’.” You see James uses the same verse as Paul to show that Abraham was indeed justified by faith alone, but James sees this as a prophecy that would prove Abraham’s faith was a “saving faith” and that it would bring forth justification. For if Abraham did not have works, then why did God justify him a faith that does not save anyone?

Therefore James understands Abraham to have been justified by faith alone, but also knows that since Abraham is in no question a recipient of salvation he had works with his faith that brought his soul to God.

And also note that James is not teaching that Abraham was guilty and condemned before offering up Isaac. For the word “justification” is used in this way in the Pauline writings. Abraham was already in a right-relationship with God and is nevertheless justified within this already peaceful state. This right here indicates that Paul and James have a bit of a different meaning in their employment of the term dikiaioo.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

It only follows then that since Paul is speaking about a justification of the “ungodly” (Rom 4) that he is speaking a bit different from Abraham being justified at the mountain of sacrifice (Gen 22).

Sinner come to God freely, they repent, turn from iniquity, submit to the Lord Jesus, and they are justified, forgiven and in right relationship with God.

Justification can only occur for such penitent people because of what Christ has done for them, and so works do not contribute to the justification even though there are works there in repentance.

 

[onemangang]

Erick,

So, Abraham’s faith was reckoned to Him as righteousness! Ok

Let’s look at faith, to see Abraham’s role in the divine grace received!

Is faith a work?

Simple questions Erick, that will answer is St. John Chrysostom was Catholic in thought or Protestant, futhermore did St. John Chrysostom believe that the act of (believing) faith, was a work. That should iron this whole thing out for you

Again, are believing and repenting part of INITIAL justification?

Are graced works, done in Christ by a believer, EFFICACIOUS in a mans FINAL justification?

Are REPENTING and BELIEVING good works?

These are not very deep theological questions, all they require is a Yes or No Answer!

Definition of faith
The foregoinganalyseswillenable us todefineanactof Divinesupernatural
faith as "theactof theintellect assenting to a Divinetruth
owing to the movement of thewill, which is itself moved by thegrace of God
" (St. Thomas
, II-II, Q. iv, a. 2). And just as the light offaith is agiftsupernaturallybestowed upon the understanding, so also thisDivine grace moving the willis, as its name implies, an equallysupernatural and an absolutely gratuitousgift. Neithergiftis due to previous study neither of them can be acquired byhumanefforts, but “Ask and ye shall receive.”

From all that has been said two most important corollaries follow:

From all that has been said two most important corollaries follow:

• Thattemptations againstfaith arenaturaland inevitable and are in no sense contrary tofaith, “since”, saysSt. Thomas, "the assent of theintellect
  infaith is due to thewill, and since the object to which theintellect
  thus assents is not its own proper object — for that isactualvisionof an intelligible object — it follows that theintellect’s
  attitude towards that object is not one of tranquillity, on the contrary it thinks and inquires about those things itbelieves, all the while that it assents to them unhesitatingly; for as far as it itself is concerned theintellect
  is not satisfied" (DeVer., xiv, 1).

(b) It also follows from the above that anactofsupernatural
faith ismeritorious, since it proceeds from thewillmoved byDivine grace
orcharity, and thus has all theessentialconstituents of ameritoriousact(cf. II-II, Q. ii, a. 9). This enables us to understandSt. James’swords when he says, “Thedevilsalsobelieveand tremble” (ii, 19) . "It is not willingly that theyassent", saysSt. Thomas, “but they are compelled thereto by the evidence of thosesignswhichprovethat whatbelieversassent to istrue, though even thoseproofs do not make thetruths
offaith so evident as to afford what is termedvisionof them” (DeVer., xiv 9, ad 4); nor is theirfaith Divine, but merelyphilosophical andnatural. Some may fancy the foregoinganalysessuperfluous, and may think that they savour too much ofScholasticism
. But if anyone will be at the pains to compare the teaching of theFathers, of theScholastics
, and of thedivinesof theAnglican Church in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with that of the non-Catholictheologians of today, he will find that theScholastics
merely put into shape what theFatherstaught, and that the greatEnglishdivinesowe their solidity and genuine worth to their vastpatristic knowledge and their strictlylogical training.

Let anyone whodoubts this statement compareBishopButler’sAnalogy ofReligion, chaps. v, vi, with the paper on “Faith” contributed toLux Mundi. The writer of this latter paper tells us that “faith is an elemental energy of thesoul", “a tentative probation”, that "its primary note will betrust”, and finally that "in response to the demand fordefinition, it can only reiterate: "Faith isfaith. Believing isjustbelieving’
". Nowhere is there anyanalysisof terms, nowhere any distinction between the relative parts played by theintellect and thewill; and we feel that those who read the paper must haverisenfrom its perusal with the feeling that they had been wandering through — we use the writer’s own expression — “a juggling maze of words.”

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Chrysostom says Abraham was adorned with good works when he was justified but was not justified on account of them, only faith. Therefore on the basis of chrysoatoms distinction between faith and works, then no Chrysostom does not understand faith as a work.

That being said ‘‘faith’’ implies a turning from sin and an abandoning of all other hopes to be devoted to God and seek after his promises with assurance and confidence.

This definitely looks like works, but it is not because it does not labor for a right standing with God but accepts his mercy for acceptance.

This is what protestants have been trying to say for years. And if catholics believe the same thing then we just need to agree

 

[Bookcat]

“Well, Paul states with absolute clarity that this condition of life does not depend on our possible good works but on the pure grace of God: “[We] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3: 24). …”

–Pope Benedict XVI

“Following St Paul, we have seen that man is unable to “justify” himself with his own actions, but can only truly become “just” before God because God confers his “justice” upon him, uniting him to Christ his Son. And man obtains this union through faith. In this sense, St Paul tells us: not our deeds, but rather faith renders us “just”. This faith, however, is not a thought, an opinion, an idea. This faith is communion with Christ, which the Lord gives to us, and thus becomes life, becomes conformity with him.”

–Pope Benedict XVI

(see links above forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9854321&postcount=39)

One does does not become “justified” by ones works.

And heck - it can even happen that one justified - never gets a chance to do* any *good works…yet goes to heaven.

(via repentance, faith, baptism – such are not good works that “earn” one justification --one is justified by the grace of God --by the paschal mystery of Jesus --his death and resurrection…what Paul and Pope Benedict XVI say there --is very wonderfully said…tis not by “works”…)

 

[onemangang]

It only follows then that since Paul is speaking about a justification of the “ungodly” (Rom 4) that he is speaking a bit different from Abraham being justified at the mountain of sacrifice (Gen 22).

Sinner come to God freely, they repent, turn from iniquity, submit to the Lord Jesus, and they are justified, forgiven and in right relationship with God.

Justification can only occur for such penitent people because of what Christ has done for them, and so works do not contribute to the justification even though there are works there in repentance.

So works are not efficatious towards making man just, they are just there in faith and repentance?

In other words, up hold the “reformed” doctrine at all cost, even if it sounds like a bunch of nonsense.

Works are just there in faith and repentance, just ignore them, or re-work your view, to make man have no efficatious role in faith and repentance…MONERGISM