Was John Chrysostom Catholic?

[Erick_Ybarra]

Look, the question of how it all works comes after the exegesis of the text.
If we can just focus on what Paul is saying and what Chrysostom is saying then we can talk later about how we don’t like it or how we are to integrate it into a systematic thought.

If Abraham was justified by works the. Why does Paul exclude them in the act of being justified? Why does Chrysostom exclude works from justification?

Does God grant salvation and give faith? Absolutely.

We are getting a bit sidetracked. We have established a forensic meaning to the word ‘‘justified’’ and we have established chrysostoms protestant exegesis of Romans. How are we to construe this?

 

[Bookcat]

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.

Such yes is what takes place in the Catholic Church.

Yes a sinner comes to God Freely by his grace. They by grace repent, turn from iniquity, believe in Jesus Christ, are baptized into Christ and are yes forgiven and in a right relationship with God (made a new creation etc)

Justification occurs for such a penitent person because of what Christ has done for them. And so it is NOT from their works that such justification comes. Even repentance does not “earn” justification. It is part of the way such happens --but justification is by the grace of God.

“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

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9877051&postcount=290

 

[onemangang]

Look, the question of how it all works comes after the exegesis of the text.
If we can just focus on what Paul is saying and what Chrysostom is saying then we can talk later about how we don’t like it or how we are to integrate it into a systematic thought.

If Abraham was justified by works the. Why does Paul exclude them in the act of being justified? Why does Chrysostom exclude works from justification?

Does God grant salvation and give faith? Absolutely.

We are getting a bit sidetracked. We have established a forensic meaning to the word ‘‘justified’’ and we have established chrysostoms protestant exegesis of Romans. How are we to construe this?

Paul and St John Chrysostom include faith in justification, which requires man’s will.

**
Definition of faith
"the actof the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God
**
No Erick, you have not proven a forensic view, it has been shown that you imput that into St. John Chrysostoms theology. It was shown that St. John didn’t hold to Original sin that is Augustinian, (which you assumed, and then you make the great leap to show its forensic in nature due to you perceiving that St.John Chrysostom held to an Augustinian view of original sin! So, NO you haven’t proven that at all, furthermore, you posit that St John Chrysostom held that faith is not a work, when St. John Chrysostom has been accused of semi-pelagianism. So it is more like Erick talking to Erick, about what Erick already has counted as truth. To draw the conclusions that St. John Chrysostom was some sort of monergist, when speaking about faith and repentance is a far cry from reality, one would have to be BLINDED by “reform” doctrines seared into their conscience by man made traditions to make such great leaps. Sorry you are more interested in proving “reformed” doctrine to be true, then truth itself !

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Your escaping an explanation of chrysostoms comment on Romans 4:1-4. I’m sorry until you do that or explain from Chrysostom that we are justified by infusion of divine will or even that we are ontologically made righteous, there is nothing else to say to rectify the discussion

 

[onemangang]

Your escaping an explanation of chrysostoms comment on Romans 4:1-4. I’m sorry until you do that or explain from Chrysostom that we are justified by infusion of divine will or even that we are ontologically made righteous, there is nothing else to say to rectify the discussion

If our faith is reckoned unto us as righteousness, what role does man have in faith, if any?

I understand that faith is a gift of grace, I don’t believe in some sort of Pelagian easy believism!

**
Definition of faith
"the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God
**

If you are saying we are justified by the act of grace that God gives us, **in itself, **apart from mans response, by the movement of the Holy Spirit moving already in him, than I object, and think St. John Chrysostom would as well, due to his view of free will

ST. John Chrysostom on grace and free will

“All indeed depends on God, but not in such a way that our free will (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον) be hindered…. It is both up to us (ἐφ᾽ ἠμῖν) and up to Him (ἐφ᾽ αὐτῶ).* For we must first choose the things that are good, and when we have chosen, then He brings in His own part.* He does not anticipate our acts of will, lest our free will should suffer indignity;* but when we have chosen, then He brings great assistance.”

“that you might know that it is not in your labors only and in dangers that this grace stands beside you, but that it cooperates (συμπράττει) even in things that seem to be easiest, and on all occasions bears its part in the alliance

“If you will (θελήσεις), then He will make your will effective (ἐνεργήσει τὸ θελεῖν).* Do not fear or be distressed;* He gives us both the hearty desire (προθυμίαν) and the accomplishment.* For when we will, thenceforward He makes the will to grow.* For instance, I determine to do something good;* He made the good itself actual (ἐνέργησεν αὐτὸ τὸ ἀγαθό), and through it He rendered my will effective (ἐνέργησε τὸ θελεῖν).”13*

In what sense, then, does God elect some and not others? To answer this question Chrysostom uses the analogy of a horse breeder.

19* The horse breeder alone is able to recognize the truly fine and noble horses, and chooses them on that basis.* In the case of God’s election, what corresponds to preeminence among the horses is faith, virtue, and “nobility of free will” (προαιρέσεως)—in other words, the quality of responding, rightly and with perseverance, to the divine call.20* What corresponds to the horse breeder’s special expertise is divine foreknowledge, which enables God to know, even as He calls us, how we will ultimately respond.* Thus, although the call is universal, in another sense God may be said to have “called”— that is, effectively called—only those who ultimately will respond properly.* Since God already knows who these people are, Scripture refers to them as the “elect” (ἐκλεκτοί).*

orthodox-stl.org/grace_freewill.html

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

But Chrysostom differentiates works and faith. For him, faith is not works and works are note not faith. And we cannot define works as ceremonial works because he admits Abraham was adorned with works but was nonetheless justified aside from them, do you see. This is exactly the challenge posed to the catholic who believes that Chrysostom held to trent

 

[onemangang]

But Chrysostom differentiates works and faith. For him, faith is not works and works are note not faith. And we cannot define works as ceremonial works because he admits Abraham was adorned with works but was nonetheless justified aside from them, do you see. This is exactly the challenge posed to the catholic who believes that Chrysostom held to trent

Why insist on faith being completely monergistic? It is not nessasary especially concernig St. John Chrysostom’s view on free will. Yes Faith is God given, but if one must respond for faith to be complete, then why separate sanctification from justification?

Is St. John Chrysostom in opposition to trent? No, do the views of St. John Chrysostom look like the Latin rite Catholicism that produced trent? Not particularly, I find he is far more Eastern Catholic (Orthodox) than the Latin rite of today! Original sin, satisfaction atonement views, would not be St. John Chrysostom’s patristic tradition!

 

[carlos19]

Hi Erick, I am trying to understand what you’re position is. Can you tell me if I am understanding you correctly.

You believe in an imputed righteousness but not in the classical reformed sense, where Christ’s righteousness is imputed, correct?

Therefore would I be correct to assume that the imputed righteousness is real and internal to the believer as opposed to Christ’s righteousness. Did I understand you correctly?

Lastly, you have mentioned before in this post and others that works do play a role. This is the part that confuses me the most. What do you think the role of works is then if not salvific?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Hi Carlos,

You are correct that I do not accept the imputation of Christs righteousness.
However I do not understand the gift righteousness that we receive to be an internal change in us that fills us with love, which fulfills the law. This internal infusion of love absolutely happens, and it does fulfill the law, and it is immediate upon conversion with the power of the holy spirit. But this divine action is never called justification or the imputation of righteousness. This internal transformation is spelled out more clearly in terms of causes in Romans 6. Our new life is not directly caused by theimputation of righteousness but by entering into the power of the resurrection in our 2nd Adam.

We must u derstand the definition of righteousness in Romans. It is not the behavior or practice of righteousness that Paul means in romans 3-5 but the quality of righteousness or the status of being righteous. This status or quality of righteosness is not the practice of righteousness. Human being normally would reach this status AFTER doing works of righteousness. Paul is teaching, as realized by Chrysostom, that this quality is given immediately apart from works.

 

[onemangang]

Hi Carlos,

You are correct that I do not accept the imputation of Christs righteousness.
However I do not understand the gift righteousness that we receive to be an internal change in us that fills us with love, which fulfills the law. This internal infusion of love absolutely happens, and it does fulfill the law, and it is immediate upon conversion with the power of the holy spirit. But this divine action is never called justification or the imputation of righteousness. This internal transformation is spelled out more clearly in terms of causes in Romans 6. Our new life is not directly caused by theimputation of righteousness but by entering into the power of the resurrection in our 2nd Adam.

We must u derstand the definition of righteousness in Romans. It is not the behavior or practice of righteousness that Paul means in romans 3-5 but the quality of righteousness or the status of being righteous. This status or quality of righteosness is not the practice of righteousness. Human being normally would reach this status AFTER doing works of righteousness. Paul is teaching, as realized by Chrysostom, that this quality is given immediately apart from works.

I have no disagreement with what you have stated. I would only posit that by faith, we are in Christ, and the Modus Operandi is God working in us, making faith a movement of the will, (thus making it a work) moved by grace, which is supernatural gratuitus gift of God!

I don’t think this would have been defined a “work” and only is defined as such to point of demarcation between the Church, and the “reformers”

The point of dissagreement we have lies in how we define faith, as far as I can see it anyways.

 

[Bookcat]

Is justification given “immediately apart from works”? --sure.

 

[Bookcat]

I have no disagreement with what you have stated. I would only posit that by faith, we are in Christ, and the Modus Operandi is God working in us, making faith a movement of the will, (thus making it a work) moved by grace, which is supernatural gratuitus gift of God!

I don’t think this would have been defined a “work” and only is defined as such to point of demarcation between the Church, and the “reformers”

The point of dissagreement we have lies in how we define faith, as far as I can see it anyways.

Faith is not “a work” in the Pauline sense.

(thus too as we would say --it is not our deeds that render us just)

There can be much confusion when it come to terms such as justification, faith (in the Church even faith can be used in differing senses).

 

[Richca]

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

Erick_ybarra: greetings

Since a lot of this thread seems to be focusing on the concept of justification according to St John Chrysostom and Holy Scripture, let me try to make it clear to you what is the catholic doctrine concerning justification versus the protestant doctrine. I believe you are misinterpreting scripture especially St Paul as well as St John Chrysostom as I have tried to show in previous posts. I also believe that you do not fully understand the catholic doctrine of justification nor the protestant doctrine of justification and if you do, it may be you don’t want to admit it, because the protestant doctrine is incoherent. However, I’m not critizing you, as it takes the grace of God to accept catholicism but catholicism is not unreasonable.

Firstly, 'faith alone" is never mentioned in Holy Scripture. That is an invention of Martin Luther. If you interpret St Paul as saying that we are saved or reckoned righteous before God by “faith alone” that is to put words in St Paul’s mouth which he never uses.

St Paul does say “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast” ( Ephesians 2:8-9). And again, " But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" ( Romans 11:6). Notice how he doesn’t say “by grace alone” or “by faith alone.” Notice also that St Paul says “for by grace you have been saved… it is the gift of God.” Faith is also the gift of God but it doesn’t precede grace.

Both catholics and protestants agree that the gift of grace which saves or justifies us is a free gift of God. What is this gift of grace? In catholic doctrine the gift of grace that justifies and sanctifies us in baptism is sanctifying grace which Adam and Eve lost because of their disobedience to God. Now sanctifying grace is a supernatural gift which sanctifies us, makes us righteous before God, as well as making us the adoptive sons and daughters of God. Since sanctifying grace is supernatural, it is beyond the powers of human beings to obtain. That’s why it is a free gift from God. No matter what we do, no matter how many good works we perform, it can only be bestowed on us by God freely as in baptism. Thus, St Paul says “it is not from works.” I’m not sure whether the protestants have the concept of sanctifying grace like the catholics or whether they simply identify grace with justification. Either way it is a free gift.

Now, though mankind is offered this grace of sanctification or justification, for God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, which is bestowed in baptism ( though it can also be bestowed outside the sacrament of baptism), , it is clear that not all men accept it. So it begs the question why are not all men saved? This is where the protestant doctrine is incoherent and breaksdown with their “Sola fide,” by faith alone, and “Sola gratia,” by grace alone. For you can’t reasonably hold at one and the same time that God wants all men to be saved and that it is only by “grace alone” that men are saved because it is clear that not all men are saved. This is precisely where the protestant doctrine of justification and salvation diverges from the catholic doctrine. Does St John Chrysostom have anything to say about this? Yes, he says:
“If salvation is by grace,” someone will say, “why is it that we are not all saved?” Because you did not will it; for grace, even though it be grace, saves the willing, not those who are not willing and who turn away from it and who constantly fight against it and oppose themselves to it." ( Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans).
“But since everything depends, after grace from above, upon our own choice, so too are punishments prepared for sinners and recompense and reward for those who do right.” ( Homilies on Genesis).
These passages from Chrysostom are in conformity with catholic doctrine which teaches that man by his own free will can either accept or reject God’s offer of grace.

Catholics could accept the protestants 'Sola gratia," by grace alone, only with this qualification that by it the protestants mean to say that God’s offer of grace can be either accepted or rejected by man’s own free will. However, this is not the meaning that Luther and the early protestants gave it nor does it appear to be the meaning that the protestants give it today.

 

[steve_b]

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.

But Luther had no business translating the bible for himself without the Church approving it. It’s not his book.
J:

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

Heresies and heretics are always with us, practicing their evil… Luther was a heretic as was Henry VIII, and Calvin, etc etc. . Influencing many to follow them into sedition. An act which is roundly condemned in scripture as are those who do it. No one can dispute that.

**Rom 16:**17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Luther certainly knew this passage from Paul.
J:

Indeed, but they go together.

Not so. Faith alone is anti scriptural
J:

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.

What kind of works? Certaily not apart from good works, or Paul would contradict himself and he would conrtradict James.
J:

Faith is way we access justification, there is no other way.

Grace comes first. Without grace, nothing happens. Without good works one has a dead faith. If one has a dead faith, are they justified?
J:

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

i.e. good works must be with faith, ergo faith is not alone
J:

, 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

iow faith alone is dead.

Chrysostom in his day, had his own heretics to deal with. If Luther was living in that day he would have been a target for Chrysostom

 

[Bookcat]

What kind of works? Certaily not apart from good works, or Paul would contradict himself and he would conrtradict James.

Yes – apart from good works too.

Not that good works will not then later play into the life of the Christian* if he does not drop dead* from the excitement or a heart attack …etc.

"…Paul helps us to understand the absolutely basic and irreplaceable value of faith. This is what he wrote in his Letter to the Romans: “We hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (3: 28).

This is what he also wrote in his Letter to the Galatians: “[M]an is not justified by works of the law but only through faith in Jesus Christ; even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified” (2: 16).

“Being justified” means being made righteous, that is, being accepted by God’s merciful justice to enter into communion with him and, consequently, to be able to establish a far more genuine relationship with all our brethren: and this takes place on the basis of the complete forgiveness of our sins.

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

"Seen in this perspective, the centrality of justification without works, the primary object of Paul’s preaching, does not clash with faith that works through love; indeed, it demands that our faith itself be expressed in a life in accordance with the Spirit. Often there is seen an unfounded opposition between St Paul’s theology and that of St James, who writes in his Letter: “as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead”(2: 26). In reality, while Paul is primarily concerned to show that faith in Christ is necessary and sufficient, James accentuates the consequential relations between faith and works (cf. Jas 2: 24). Therefore, for both Paul and James, faith that is active in love testifies to the freely given gift of justification in Christ. Salvation received in Christ needs to be preserved and witnessed to “with fear and trembling. For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure… Do all things without grumbling or questioning… holding fast the word of life”, St Paul was to say further, to the Christians of Philippi (cf. Phil 2: 12-14, 16).

– Pope Benedict XVI

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9854321&postcount=39

 

[JonNC]

Glad the Lutherans copied some true teachings from us.

Is there any more?

Baptism, The Real Presence, Confession/Holy Absolution. To name a few.

Jon

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

The protestant view of justification is simply that a sinful person is accounted righteous by the extra nos imputation of Christ’s righteousness, something which is totally outside and remains totally outside the sinner, but is nevertheless theirs and theirs to keep forever. Now the protestant view of salvation does not mean that the human being remains sinful inside their heart, but that they are also renewed cleansed and internally sanctified (what catholics call justification) but yet that compartmentalize this into a different component under the broader structure of salvation, where justification is a small substructure.

The Catholic view believes that we are justified by an infusion of divine agape which puts into the heart and mind of man the fulfillment of the law, as Paul says Rom 13:10; 8:1-3. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, God pours out his love into our hearts and we by that instant are loving and this disposition is what God declares to be righteousness because it is given from him and by His grace alone, apart from the works of the human beings. Now, because Paul directly connects the sacrifice of Jesus to our justification, what the scholars of Trent had to do is come up with a variety of causes. They ground justification in the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus because this is simply unavoidable, however because they still knew that the internal aspect of the human being must change for God not to be at rick of a lie or a legal fiction, they separated a different cause which is the infusion of divine love.

Now, you will notice that Chrysostom says we are “made just or righteous” in the act of justification, but you must read his whole commentary to know that this gift is not the catholic interpretation, but the protestant because he explicity rejects the “behavioral” sense of “righteousness” and argues for a quality or status of “righteousness”.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;9878737]But Luther had no business translating the bible for himself without the Church approving it. It’s not his book.

No, its God’s.

Heresies and heretics are always with us, practicing their evil… Luther was a heretic as was Henry VIII, and Calvin, etc etc. . Influencing many to follow them into sedition. An act which is roundly condemned in scripture as are those who do it. No one can dispute that.

Would you consider Tetzel a heretic?

**Rom 16:**17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Luther certainly knew this passage from Paul.

I’m sure he did.

Not so. Faith alone is anti scriptural

We’ll have to disagree.

What kind of works? Certaily not apart from good works, or Paul would contradict himself and he would conrtradict James.

Justification, as Paul says, comes apart from works. Based on reading the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, the Catholic Church teaches this, too.

.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. **The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. **Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works

We also agree that good works follow.

Grace comes first. Without grace, nothing happens. Without good works one has a dead faith. If one has a dead faith, are they justified?

Agreed with the first sentence. On your question, no. A dead faith is not a saving faith.

i.e. good works must be with faith, ergo faith is not alone

Agreed. Faith is not alone, cannot be alone, but only faith justifies.

iow faith alone is dead.

Luther makes it clear that faith, without works, serves no purpose. But only faith, because of grace, justifies.

Chrysostom in his day, had his own heretics to deal with. If Luther was living in that day he would have been a target for Chrysostom

You’re missing my point. I am not siding with Erik here, because it is my belief that he is trying to put St. John Chrysostom in a box where he doesn’t fit. I don’t see how we can reflect backward a second millennium dispute that he would have no knowledge of to write about.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yes – apart from good works too.

Not that good works will not then later play into the life of the Christian* if he does not drop dead* from the excitement or a heart attack …etc.

"…Paul helps us to understand the absolutely basic and irreplaceable value of faith. This is what he wrote in his Letter to the Romans: “We hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (3: 28).

This is what he also wrote in his Letter to the Galatians: “[M]an is not justified by works of the law but only through faith in Jesus Christ; even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified” (2: 16).

“Being justified” means being made righteous, that is, being accepted by God’s merciful justice to enter into communion with him and, consequently, to be able to establish a far more genuine relationship with all our brethren: and this takes place on the basis of the complete forgiveness of our sins.

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

"Seen in this perspective, the centrality of justification without works, the primary object of Paul’s preaching, does not clash with faith that works through love; indeed, it demands that our faith itself be expressed in a life in accordance with the Spirit. Often there is seen an unfounded opposition between St Paul’s theology and that of St James, who writes in his Letter: “as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead”(2: 26). In reality, while Paul is primarily concerned to show that faith in Christ is necessary and sufficient, James accentuates the consequential relations between faith and works (cf. Jas 2: 24). Therefore, for both Paul and James, faith that is active in love testifies to the freely given gift of justification in Christ. Salvation received in Christ needs to be preserved and witnessed to “with fear and trembling. For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure… Do all things without grumbling or questioning… holding fast the word of life”, St Paul was to say further, to the Christians of Philippi (cf. Phil 2: 12-14, 16).

– Pope Benedict XVI

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9854321&postcount=39

Agreed.

Jon

 

[onemangang]

You’re missing my point. I am not siding with Erik here, because it is my belief that he is trying to put St. John Chrysostom in a box where he doesn’t fit. I don’t see how we can reflect backward a second millennium dispute that he would have no knowledge of to write about.

Jon

That is my biggest problem with this whole thread! You cannot try to assign modern terms to St. John Chrysostom. Much of the writing pertaining to an Ordo Salutis, was birthed out of the protestant “reformation” and Catholic “counter-reformation” as I said you would need to have his Living voice today, to address these theological arguments over what St. John Chrysostom REALLy was saying.

If St.John Chrysostom was to have a living breathing voice today it would be the Church. Now many Othodox brothers and sisters would claim that they are they living voice to speak for him, but that a whole different discussion.