B
Bookcat
Guest
One can discuss a subject from “various” angles --such discussion does not change the reality of the thing.
- Status
R
Richca
Guest
Faith does not make us righteous. God’s gift of grace is what makes us righteous otherwise grace is no longer grace as St Paul says. And in catholic doctrine, this gift of God’s grace that makes us righteous is sanctifying grace. Faith is a means, albiet not the only means, whereby we receive God’s free gift of sanctifying grace which makes us pleasing to him and which is usually given in baptism.
Take a look at these scripture passages:
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life” ( John 3:36)
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” ( Romans 6:23)
“Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature” ( 2 Peter 1:4)
“So whoever is in Christ is a new creation” ( 2 Corinthians 5:17)
“Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” ( John 6:54)
Now the protestant’s view of justification which Erick states would have us believe that the gift of God’s grace and eternal life is something totally outside of us, something like a cloak God places over us. Is it even reasonable to think that the gift of eternal life is something not internal but totally external to us? How do you reconcile that view with the above scriptural passages especially the words of Jesus “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.” It is obvious from Jesus’s words that eternal life is something that is in us for at communion we internalize Christ’s flesh and blood which preserves or gives life, i.e. eternal life to the soul as Jesus said “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
You have totally missed the point. I never, never, never once said that when God saves the soul that it is like putting a cloak over someone. The greatest aspect of salvation is that we receive a new heart which keeps and fulfills the law! I am speaking of the smaller component of salvation which consists of the gift of righteousness.
You said faith does not make one righteous by Gods grace? Then how do you understand the imputation of faith for righteousness?
You said faith does not make one righteous by Gods grace? Then how do you understand the imputation of faith for righteousness?
R
Richca
Guest
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
The main point of this thread is what Chrysostoms belief is. You obviously have a very deficient view of the protestant soteriology which definitely includes the internal transformation of the human being into Gods likeness.
Deal with chrysoatoms comments on Romans 4:1-4 and the thread will actually have a purpose
Deal with chrysoatoms comments on Romans 4:1-4 and the thread will actually have a purpose
R
Richca
Guest
I understand it is very difficult, albiet impossible according to catholic faith and doctrine, to reconcile the protestant view of justification with Holy Scripture and with what I said in post #332 which you seem to have no explanation for.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Justification is attained by faith, not by works. There you go that’s scripture. Can we live in sin? Only if you wish to go to hell for those who have been justified are also sanctified and required the will to preservers in holiness. This also is the grace if God which empowers us to work out our salvation, something nit yet complete. Such thinking is very protestant
B
Bookcat
Guest
*Indeed *
(and such is from the grace of God).
"…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
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Well I accept those statements from the pope astrue. I a bit tired now lol. I can that means I’m not that different in thought than catholics
O
onemangang
Guest
TheCouncil of Trent assigns the first and most important place tofaith , which is styled "the beginning,foundationand root of all justification" (Trent, l.c., cap.viii).
**
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
**
Is, by the grace of God, man’s assenting to divine truth a good work?
If man has a role in faith, it is a work!
Is faith a part of initial justification?
Is faith a byproduct of regeneration?
Can you separate regeneration from faith in initial justification?
The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also it must precede faith.* Because of the moral bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration’s fruit, not its cause.
R.C. Sproul:*Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will, pages 23
Ok, so is it possible to be regenerated without faith, and be justified?
R.C. Sproul:*Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will, pages 73
Regeneration, then, is to be conceived monergistically. God alone works, and the sinner has no part in it whatsoever. This, of course, does not mean, that man does not co-operate in later stages of the work of redemption. It is quite evident from Scripture that he does.
That means even by grace, man can NOT assent to divine truth!
Would that be something St. John Chrysostom would teach?
Free will and the Protestant Reformers
A leading feature in the teaching of theReformersof the sixteenth century, especially in the case ofLuther andCalvin , was the denial offree will. Picking out from theScriptures, and particularly fromSt. Paul, the texts which emphasized the importance and efficacy ofgrace, the all-rulingprovidence of God , Hisdecreesofelectionorpredestination
, and the feebleness ofman, they drew the conclusion that thehumanwill, instead of being master of its ownacts, is rigidly predetermined in all its choices throughoutlife. As a consequence,manispredestined before his birth toeternalpunishment or reward in such fashion that he never can have had any real free-power over his ownfate. In his controversy withErasmus, who defendedfree will,Luther frankly stated thatfree will is a fiction, a name which covers no reality, for it is not inman’spower to think well or ill, since all events occur bynecessity. In reply toErasmus’s"De Libero Arbitrio", he published his own work, “De Servo Arbitrio”,gloryingin emphasizingman’shelplessness andslavery. Thepredestination
of all futurehuman acts byGod is so interpreted as to shut out any possibility of freedom. An inflexible internalnecessityturnsman’swillwhithersoeverGodpreordains. WithCalvin
,God’s preordination is, if possible, even more fatal tofree will.Mancan perform no sort ofgoodactunlessnecessitatedto it byGod’s grace which it is impossible for him to resist. It is absurd to speak of thehumanwill"co-operating" withGod’s grace, for this would imply thatmancould resist thegrace of God. Thewill of God is the verynecessityof things. It is objected that in this caseGodsometimes imposes impossible commands. BothCalvin
andLutherreply that thecommands of God show us not what we can do but what we ought to do. In condemnation of these views, theCouncil of Trent declared that thefree will ofman,moved and excited byGod, can by itsconsentco-operate withGod, Who excites and invites itsaction; and that it can thereby dispose and prepare itself to obtain thegraceofjustification**. Thewillcan resistgraceif it chooses. It is not like a lifeless thing, which remains purely passive.Weakenedand diminished byAdam’s*fall,*free will is yet not destroyed in the race (Sess. VI, cap. i and v).
Martin Luthersaid, “It is not irreligious, idle, or superfluous, but in the highest degree wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know whether or not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation. Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us; our aim is, simply, to investigate what ability “free will” has, in what respect it is the subject of Divine action and how it stands related to the grace of God. If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatsoever of Christianity, and shall be in worse case than any people on earth! He who dissents from that statement should acknowledge that he is no Christian; and he who ridicules or derides it should realize that he is the Christian’s chief foe”
(The Bondage of the Will)
**
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
**
Is, by the grace of God, man’s assenting to divine truth a good work?
If man has a role in faith, it is a work!
Is faith a part of initial justification?
Is faith a byproduct of regeneration?
Can you separate regeneration from faith in initial justification?
The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also it must precede faith.* Because of the moral bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration’s fruit, not its cause.
R.C. Sproul:*Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will, pages 23
Ok, so is it possible to be regenerated without faith, and be justified?
R.C. Sproul:*Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will, pages 73
Regeneration, then, is to be conceived monergistically. God alone works, and the sinner has no part in it whatsoever. This, of course, does not mean, that man does not co-operate in later stages of the work of redemption. It is quite evident from Scripture that he does.
That means even by grace, man can NOT assent to divine truth!
Would that be something St. John Chrysostom would teach?
Free will and the Protestant Reformers
A leading feature in the teaching of theReformersof the sixteenth century, especially in the case ofLuther andCalvin , was the denial offree will. Picking out from theScriptures, and particularly fromSt. Paul, the texts which emphasized the importance and efficacy ofgrace, the all-rulingprovidence of God , Hisdecreesofelectionorpredestination
, and the feebleness ofman, they drew the conclusion that thehumanwill, instead of being master of its ownacts, is rigidly predetermined in all its choices throughoutlife. As a consequence,manispredestined before his birth toeternalpunishment or reward in such fashion that he never can have had any real free-power over his ownfate. In his controversy withErasmus, who defendedfree will,Luther frankly stated thatfree will is a fiction, a name which covers no reality, for it is not inman’spower to think well or ill, since all events occur bynecessity. In reply toErasmus’s"De Libero Arbitrio", he published his own work, “De Servo Arbitrio”,gloryingin emphasizingman’shelplessness andslavery. Thepredestination
of all futurehuman acts byGod is so interpreted as to shut out any possibility of freedom. An inflexible internalnecessityturnsman’swillwhithersoeverGodpreordains. WithCalvin
,God’s preordination is, if possible, even more fatal tofree will.Mancan perform no sort ofgoodactunlessnecessitatedto it byGod’s grace which it is impossible for him to resist. It is absurd to speak of thehumanwill"co-operating" withGod’s grace, for this would imply thatmancould resist thegrace of God. Thewill of God is the verynecessityof things. It is objected that in this caseGodsometimes imposes impossible commands. BothCalvin
andLutherreply that thecommands of God show us not what we can do but what we ought to do. In condemnation of these views, theCouncil of Trent declared that thefree will ofman,moved and excited byGod, can by itsconsentco-operate withGod, Who excites and invites itsaction; and that it can thereby dispose and prepare itself to obtain thegraceofjustification**. Thewillcan resistgraceif it chooses. It is not like a lifeless thing, which remains purely passive.Weakenedand diminished byAdam’s*fall,*free will is yet not destroyed in the race (Sess. VI, cap. i and v).
Martin Luthersaid, “It is not irreligious, idle, or superfluous, but in the highest degree wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know whether or not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation. Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us; our aim is, simply, to investigate what ability “free will” has, in what respect it is the subject of Divine action and how it stands related to the grace of God. If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatsoever of Christianity, and shall be in worse case than any people on earth! He who dissents from that statement should acknowledge that he is no Christian; and he who ridicules or derides it should realize that he is the Christian’s chief foe”
(The Bondage of the Will)
S
steve_b
Guest
iow Faith is not alone.
Also, works of law ≠ good works
B:
Paul sandwiches faith between grace and charity (love…good works). Grace is 1st, and charity is the fruit of a true and justifying faith. Without charity (love…good works), Faith is a dead faith. It won’t save, and it won’t justify. Good works, charity, gives evidence one has faith that is true, saves, justifies.
That’s why Paul says, given faith hope and charity, it’s charity that is the greatest.[1 Cor 13:13]
Re: faith
“if it is true it incarnates and fulfils itself in love for neighbour.” And it also is demonstrated in love for Jesus. .Thereby fulfilling the 2 greatest commandments.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.html
One can’t say they have faith in Jesus, and ignore one’s neighbor. A said faith is not faith. Faith without charity is not faith. That’s why James says You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. [2:24]
iow, James says, a person is justified by faith, but** not** faith alone, and** not** without acts of love. .
O
onemangang
Guest
Confused what role faith has in the Ordo Salutis of Justification?
Where does faith sit in the Ordo Salutis of justification?
Would you accept this as a Definition of faith?
Faith is "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
I don’t know about fair or not. I just think to use him in this way presumes he could have known of the current dialogue.
The logical conclusions of Lutheranism are in the Lutheran Confessions.
Of course. but then, it could also be said that the Tetzel types were drving peope to a fear of an angry God.
Not true Lutherans, my friend. Not Lutherans who read Augsburg or tis Apology, or the Small Catechism. If a person who claims to be Lutheran doesn’t acknowledge the necessity of Baptism, they aren’t truly Lutheran. Do you have a source?
Indeed. We still teach faith alone, but we understand what faith alone means.
Well, its a bit more than that - imputed vs. infused righteousness, etc. But I believe we are closer than many wish to believe.
Source please. where did Luther say he wanted to “rip the Church asunder”?
No, they didn’t. they morphed it into something it is not, and the confessions, which I quoted earlier bear that out. And as said, the logical conclusion of Lutheranism is in the Lutheran Confessions, not what someone have distorted into their own thought.
Actually, Leo called Luther a “boar”, but Leo had a great deal to do with scattering the sheep. The question is, how do we bring the flock back together.
Jon
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
St. John’s beliefs are Eastern Orthodox. He is one of the Three Holy Hierarchs of Orthodoxy and a lot of Orthodox theology came out of his teachings. While he is also a Doctor of the Churh per the Roman Catholic Church, the impact of his teachings have affected and shaped the Orthodox more than the Roman Catholic Church. So to get a better understanding of what St. John’s words are, we have to look at contemporary Orthodox teaching, not try to make it seem that St. John is aligned with the Protestant belief. The Protestant mind is completely alien to St. John, and his words are meant to be interpreted in the light of Orthodoxy.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
I disagree. I really don’t think so, he’s sounds much more protestant. Grab an orthodox commentary on Romans and compare it to Chrysostom not only are the words different the concepts and arguments are oppossite.
Chrysoatoms structures Romans as such. Salvation, damnation universal guilt condemnation, gift of righteousness apart from works received by only believing, works are every command of god, Adam and Christs bring us either condemnations original or justification original apart from our contribution, baptism ensures that we cannot live in sin but rather for righteousness, the holy spirit leads us and makes us sons and heirs of heaven
Chrysoatoms structures Romans as such. Salvation, damnation universal guilt condemnation, gift of righteousness apart from works received by only believing, works are every command of god, Adam and Christs bring us either condemnations original or justification original apart from our contribution, baptism ensures that we cannot live in sin but rather for righteousness, the holy spirit leads us and makes us sons and heirs of heaven
B
Bookcat
Guest
Right He does not say that faith is alone. Though he does later explain how the “faith alone” of Luther can be true.
.
C
carlos19
Guest
Hi Erick, I know we have been going all over the place as of late on this thread. I am more than half way through reading St. John’s homilies on Romans…so far I have not noticed anything that is protestant in nature in terms of faith alone.
But here is a follow up question to clarify your positions. Thanks for answering by the way
I will restate them and then ask my question
The very last thing that I wanted cleared up is the role of works. Can you please share your view once again my friend? Make it simple for a slow guy like me please.
Also when you said both Protestants and Catholics went apostate, you did not mean that did you? Cause the implications of this statement are shattering were we to unpack it. ’
I promise that once you clear up the works part, at least I will discuss your statements on St. John Chrysostom. I am not as smart as the others but I can at least read
PS.
I am more than half way on reading the homilies of St. Chrysostom on the letter to the Romans. 32 homilies…my goodness He could have preached for half the year just on the book of Romans.
But here is a follow up question to clarify your positions. Thanks for answering by the way
I will restate them and then ask my question
- You do not believe in either infused holiness and imputed righteousness
- You believe that we are declared righteous but this righteousness is neither infused nor imputed
- I asked if your view of righteousness was also the view of another Christian faith tradition and you said Calvin and Luther at first viewed it this way but then changed their view points to imputed righteousness. So as far as your answer, no other faith tradition whether it be Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox currently holds to the view that you shared with us.
The very last thing that I wanted cleared up is the role of works. Can you please share your view once again my friend? Make it simple for a slow guy like me please.
Also when you said both Protestants and Catholics went apostate, you did not mean that did you? Cause the implications of this statement are shattering were we to unpack it. ’
I promise that once you clear up the works part, at least I will discuss your statements on St. John Chrysostom. I am not as smart as the others but I can at least read
PS.
I am more than half way on reading the homilies of St. Chrysostom on the letter to the Romans. 32 homilies…my goodness He could have preached for half the year just on the book of Romans.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Actually Pope Benedict XVI does not only refer to “works of the law” but other “works”.
"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”. "
–Pope Benedict XVI
“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
One must understand the whole…
Can someone enter into justification by “works” --no. We are not justified by works. As Paul explains.
Are “works” as the fruit etc of faith and charity --of “Faith working in charity” --then later important in ones continuing Christian life and his being more and more conformed to Christ …etc? Yes of course.
Wonderfully Charity is infused at that moment of baptism if not before by the grace of God.
Can a person exit a state of justification by some “grave omission” -say stepping over a dying person and not helping? --yes
(or of course by a grave commission…but I was focusing on good works here)
Are there some particular # of works one must do after one becomes a Christian? no.
Can it even be the case that a person can say die after they are justified --but before any “fruit” of good works takes place? Yes.
There is an initial justification. That is one thing. And then there is on going being more and more conformed to Christ.
One is justified – indeed one is holy, is “in Christ” is a “saint” prior to the fruit of “good works”.
The three audiences there of Pope Benedict XVI are very rich and require several careful readings to see all he says. But they are beautiful and worth the repeated readings. I invite all readers to read them in such a way.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Hey Carlos,
You are almost right.
I do believe in the imputation of righteousness. I do not believe in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as understood by most modern protestants.
You see, Chrysostom realized that the word dikaisune can be misunderstood as the “habitual” or “practical sense”. If we understand “righteousness” in Romans with the same meaning as, let’s say John, who says “he who practices righteousness is righteous” (1 John), then we will not come to the right interpretations of Paul, because his word dikaisune, even though it is the same word, carries different meaning for different places in different authors. In Paul, he is not speaking of “righteousness” in terms of righteous moral behavior or the practice and habit of doing what is right, rather what he means is the “status” of righteousness or the “quality” of righteousness (see Chrysostom’s notes on 2 corinthians 5:21).
Catholics run into this problem right at the front end because “righteousness” to them is referring to the actual behavior or the moral personality in the conduct of the human being. Therefore to infuse righteousness means to change things around inside the person so that they truly possess righteousness.
Paul, quite differently, does not speak of “righteousness” in this way. Consider Romans 9:30-31 “What shall we say, that Gentiles who never pursued righteousness have attained to righteousness? But Israel, pursuing righteousness, has not attained to righteousness?” Do you see that “righteousness” here is not the actual works and conduct of righteousness but the “status” that one achieves and wins AFTER performing the works. Thus “the one who does them shall live by them”- this is the righteousness which comes from the law. It has this STATUS meaning more than this BEHAVIOR meaning (if you want to read more indepth on this issue, check the Anglican author Leon Morris- Romans commentary, apostolic preaching of the cross, the atonement).
Therefore, when God imputes this “status” to a human being, he is at will to recognize them as he would someone who is righteous. And this is given to someone apart from works, which is abnormal because in the normal human situation, one really does need to have works to be legit called “righteous”. But that would not be a grace situation.
In the gospel , it is a grace situation, a person is imputed righteous even though no works were performed, do you see? And if one pestered Paul on how this could be, he would point to the fact that in the cross of Christ, through baptism, through the making of the new creation, all of our sins are wiped out.
You are almost right.
I do believe in the imputation of righteousness. I do not believe in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as understood by most modern protestants.
You see, Chrysostom realized that the word dikaisune can be misunderstood as the “habitual” or “practical sense”. If we understand “righteousness” in Romans with the same meaning as, let’s say John, who says “he who practices righteousness is righteous” (1 John), then we will not come to the right interpretations of Paul, because his word dikaisune, even though it is the same word, carries different meaning for different places in different authors. In Paul, he is not speaking of “righteousness” in terms of righteous moral behavior or the practice and habit of doing what is right, rather what he means is the “status” of righteousness or the “quality” of righteousness (see Chrysostom’s notes on 2 corinthians 5:21).
Catholics run into this problem right at the front end because “righteousness” to them is referring to the actual behavior or the moral personality in the conduct of the human being. Therefore to infuse righteousness means to change things around inside the person so that they truly possess righteousness.
Paul, quite differently, does not speak of “righteousness” in this way. Consider Romans 9:30-31 “What shall we say, that Gentiles who never pursued righteousness have attained to righteousness? But Israel, pursuing righteousness, has not attained to righteousness?” Do you see that “righteousness” here is not the actual works and conduct of righteousness but the “status” that one achieves and wins AFTER performing the works. Thus “the one who does them shall live by them”- this is the righteousness which comes from the law. It has this STATUS meaning more than this BEHAVIOR meaning (if you want to read more indepth on this issue, check the Anglican author Leon Morris- Romans commentary, apostolic preaching of the cross, the atonement).
Therefore, when God imputes this “status” to a human being, he is at will to recognize them as he would someone who is righteous. And this is given to someone apart from works, which is abnormal because in the normal human situation, one really does need to have works to be legit called “righteous”. But that would not be a grace situation.
In the gospel , it is a grace situation, a person is imputed righteous even though no works were performed, do you see? And if one pestered Paul on how this could be, he would point to the fact that in the cross of Christ, through baptism, through the making of the new creation, all of our sins are wiped out.
Regarding free will in Lutheranism, below is a link to the statement from the Augsburg Confession. Then simply follow the links to the Confutation and Apology.
bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article18
It is interesting that the first sentence in response to the article by the Catholic confutators
is:
In the eighteenth article they confess the power of the Free Will - viz. that it has the power to work a civil righteousness, but that it has not, without the Holy Ghost, the virtue to work the righteousness of God. This confession is received and approved.
Jon
- Status