Was John Chrysostom Catholic?

[thenobes]

You are at odds with our Lord Himself!
.
John 6
28 Then they said to him, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

But with regards to Chrysostom, check Homily 8, on Romans 4, verses 4-8.

You will see that faith results in 3 things, forgiveness of sins (entry into righteousness), spiritual gifts, and a heart willing to resist sin.

Now it seems that to be willing to resist sin naturally leads to works that follow Gods will: resisting the temptations todo evil, and assenting to the promptings of the spirit to do good works (the works of God.)

And no it’s not just in chapter 1. Read 3,4,5,6,9,10 on all the justification passages. He defines faith as not a work, but the conviction that God can do the impossible. Chrysostom teaches that justification comes out of the one time sacrifice of Jesus by faith apart from works, since the law keeps us deep in sin.

Faith is the beginning of a relationship between god and man. Its something that very few have, according to Jesus a gentile centurion had more than any Jew at one point.

You are right to say that it, faith, is a conviction, but wrong to separate that from works.

For Chrysostom says about faith:

Ver. 5. “To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly.”
For reflect how great a thing it is to be persuaded and have full confidence that God is able on a sudden not to free a man who has lived in impiety from punishment only,

but even to make him just, and to count him worthy of those immortal honors.

So justification is not just forgiveness, that is, not just release from punishment.

peace
steve

 

[Bookcat]

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.

…the understanding you have of what we hold etc is not quite there yet.

(but as I noted …I do not fully understand various Protestant teachings)

Being holy…long before “good works (behavior)”

 

[onemangang]

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.

I dissagree. The way St. Thomas Aquinas defined faith, there has to be an assent to divine truth, albeit by grace, but man is there! If man can accept or reject the supernatural grace that is moving his will toward belief, then that is a work, the only ways around that truth is irresistable grace, which has been condemed at Trent. Unless you posit that faith is not part of our initial justification, that it is an irresistable grace alone, Sola Gratia!

I by no means am trying to imply that God is justifying us BECAUSE of our role in assenting to divine truth, just saying that man has a role, to assent, and if man has a role in faith, it is not faith ALONE!

Grace is given, faith is given, but the supernatural grace that we are given can be rejected!

Do you think that man does not need to assent to divine truth, or the assenting to divine tfruth revealed is somehow not a work?

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”.

Is assenting to divine truth a good work?

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.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

You are assuming that to be “made just” in Chrysostom is referring to the change in one’s conduct, person, and behavior. Chrysostom clearly argues against this if you read all of his writings in romans, 2 corinthians 5:21, and galatians.

To be justified isn’t just to be freed from punishment, it is also to be seen in conformity to the law. And this we receive through the blood of his cross. Since it says we are “justified by His blood” (Rom 5:9).

And if anyone thinks that Protestants believe that God simply puts an outward external cloak of righteousness and life, you are not really in touch with protestant soteriology. If you think that one is justified long before he actually performs works, then you are mistaken.

Again, many of you think that Luther and Calvin taught that we are saved by a simple belief in the truth of the gospel and that no internal change ever happens. It could and it should, but doesn’t have to. Luther and Calvin both taught it was necessary.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

You can’t take Chrysostom’s words at face value. Because you have to interpret the words according to the prevailing theology of the Church he belongs to, and that is the Orthodox Church. He shaped Orthodox theology, it is impossible that the current faith of the Orthodox is different from what he taught. The words he used are used in a context of the 4-5th century Christian understanding. That context is maintained in the tradition of the Orthodox Church.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I disagree. He wrote in Greek and he was interpreting the New Testament. This is the broader background, as greater than this little orthodox context within he was bound to write in. Chrysostom is not trying to be an innovator, he is trying to interpret Paul, which is the take of every reader of the NT in all the world. Now some are reading him better than others, that is obvious. Chrysostom should not be read with some grid of orthodoxy, he is taking the words of Paul, ancient koine greek, and using those same words to explain it. He does not take Paul’s words and then morph them into different words or the same words with intended different meanings.

 

[Bookcat]

I dissagree. The way St. Thomas Aquinas defined faith, there has to be an assent to divine truth, albeit by grace, but man is there! If man can accept or reject the supernatural grace that is moving his will toward belief, then that is a work, the only ways around that truth is irresistable grace, which has been condemed at Trent. Unless you posit that faith is not part of our initial justification, that it is an irresistable grace alone, Sola Gratia!

I by no means am trying to imply that God is justifying us BECAUSE of our role in assenting to divine truth, just saying that man has a role, to assent, and if man has a role in faith, it is not faith ALONE!

Grace is given, faith is given, but the supernatural grace that we are given can be rejected!

Do you think that man does not need to assent to divine truth, or the assenting to divine tfruth revealed is somehow not a work?

Is assenting to divine truth a good work?

I refer you to Pope Benedict XVI’s three audiences on the subject for a fuller treatment.

This is not a question of-- if man’s assent is involved etc.

He is discussing faith and works in Paul.

And yes “assenting to divine truth” is not a “work” in what Paul is discussing …nor is it a “good work” that brings a person into justification (not that you are asserting it does). Is it part of what happens when an person of a certain age becomes a Christian? Sure - but what Paul and Pope Benedict XVI are talking is not such questions.

"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

As to “faith alone” --the phrase that Luther used – the Pope notes that it is true “if” …(well read the audience–too long to try to put here).

 

[Bookcat]

If you think that one is justified long before he actually performs works, then you are mistaken.
.

Such is not mistaken --such is what Paul teaches.

So if a person repents --believes and is baptized – but then dies of a heart attack there in excitement – too bad? Cause he did not get to produce any fruit in good works?

etc.

No the person is justified by grace – as a gift (Rm 3:24) and it happens not because of ones deeds --it does not depend on ones good works. It depends on the blood of Christ…on the Resurrection …on the grace of God. Tis gifts.

But perhaps as often happens in these sorts of discussions --one can talk past the other or take things differently. I suppose if one took “repentance” for example in the case of one who is of a certain age as “a work” (which not what Paul does there I would think) then I could see what they were trying to say – but such is not in that category. Paul is getting at the fact that it is the grace of God --not something we “earn” by works…

Yes works play into the Christian life as it goes forward…yes of course.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

No what I meant was if you think protestants teach that one is justified/saved and then can live on for years in iniquity, then your understanding of protestantism is wrong. Whether Protestantism is wrong or right, it just doesn’t teach this. I’m not saying you say this, I understand what you are saying.

 

[Bookcat]

N

not sure whom your addressing …

 

[onemangang]

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

One of the first books I read after my conversion of faith was The Bondage of The Will.

I agree with Luther on much of what he said in response to Erasmus. It seemed Erasmus gave to much credence to man apart from grace, and Luther spoke of grace preceding action, with which I agree. My contention is not so much with Luther per-se, as it is with Calvin. Some of which Martin Luther said can be taken to extremes I suppose.

Calvin"s Institutes Book 2 Chapter 3 section 7. But perhaps there will be some who, while they admit that the will is in its own nature averse to righteousness, and is converted solely by the power of God, will yet hold that, when once it is prepared, it performs a part in acting. This they found upon the words of Augustine, that grace precedes every good work; the will accompanying, not leading; a handmaid, and not a guide, (August. ad Bonifac. Ep. 106.) The words thus not improperly used by this holy writer, Lombard preposterously wrests to the above effect, (Lombard, lib. 2, Dist. 25.) But I maintain, that as well in the words of the Psalmist which I have quoted, as in other passages of Scripture**, two things are clearly taught, viz., that the Lord both corrects, or rather destroys, our depraved will, and also substitutes a good will from himself. In as much as it is prevented by grace I have no objection to your calling it a handmaid; but in as much as when formed again, it is the work of the Lord, it is erroneous to say, that it accompanies preventing grace as a voluntary attendant. Therefore, Chrysostom is inaccurate in saying, that grace cannot do any thing without will, nor will any thing without grace, (Serm. de Invent. Sanct. Crucis) as if grace did not, in terms of the passage lately quoted from Paul, produce the very will itself**.

 

[carlos19]

ok Erick, thanks

as you know Chrysostom believed in the priesthood, Child Baptism, he embraced the real presence but you dispute that he is not truly Catholic…because he makes an argument in his homilies on Romans of salvation by faith alone.

so in order to make a case that Chrysostom is truly Catholic (of the Eastern persuasion), we would have to make a case that he believed in theosis…would you agree?

Lastly, are you still of the opinion that both protestants and catholics fell into apostasy?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I believe that there is apostacy in both groups. I find more in the Catholic church as far as the porportion of members installed with the number of those who do not serve our Lord.

Chrysostom believed in the priest hood and all that, yes,yes…these are things I’ve come to embrace. But for the life of me, the modern day catholic/orthodox commentaries on Romans and Galatians simply do not align with Chrysostom’s.

 

[carlos19]

Ok so all we have to do is demonstrate Chrysostom’s view of theosis?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Theosis is not a new theology. The transformation of the human being into God-likeness? That we not only regain the glory of Adam before the fall but the very glory of Jesus in communion with God?

Which protestant rejects this? Maybe there are, but I have believed this even since I read Athanasius years ago.

 

[onemangang]

In Theosis (deification), God holds nothing back from us, we become more than just adoptive sons and daughter, but true sons and daughters ( not in ousia, or ontologically) in body, blood, soul and divinity, a true union with God!

I wonder how St. John Chrysostom viewed theosis , and how we actively participate in the divine nature (energeia)?

Did the sacraments play a role?

 

[Richca]

–Pope Benedict XVI

 

[onemangang]

What Pope Benedict is referring to here is the infusion of sanctifying grace which makes us holy, pleasing to God, and just before him. As I’ve said in previous posts, sanctifying grace is a supernatural free gift from God which is beyond the natural powers of man to obtain which is why we cannot obtain it by good works or whatever. Thus, Paul says “We are justified by his grace as a gift.”

.
**However, to obtain this gift of grace from God does Pope Benedict mean to imply that man’s free will plays no part? Absolutely not, or Pope Benedict would be contradicting these words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom” (#1993)

And here, “God’s free initiative demands man’s free response” (#2002).
**
Consequently, the very act of becoming justified is meritorious on man’s part whereby he freely cooperates with God’s grace.

Does this contradict St Paul’s teaching? Absolutely not. Nowhere does St Paul say that man doesn’t play any role in the work of his salvation. Though Paul’s conversion seems to have been immediate, unlike the conversion of most people, when he encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul freely chose to be baptized as well as freely cooperating with God’s grace throughout the rest of his life.

In St Paul’s theology of justification as well as catholic doctrine, one must distinguish betweeen the free supernatural gift of (sanctifying) grace from God that makes us holy, pleasing to God, and righteous and the process on man’s part (conversion) by which we obtain that gift of grace.

Amen, that is what I was trying to get at in regards to post by bookcat (Hi-lighting mine) Justification is a gift, but man has a role to assent or reject grace, thus accepting, man is being justified and sanctified, where the two are not separated, but united by grace, through faith!

 

[Bookcat]

However, to obtain this gift of grace from God does Pope Benedict mean to imply that man’s free will plays no part? Absolutely not

Never said it did not…actually such is always implied. But such is not a “work” that justifies one.

Consequently, the very act of becoming justified is meritorious on man’s part whereby he freely cooperates with God’s grace.

Actually if one means (not that you do) that one “merits” entering into a state of justification --no such is not by our merit -not our work but the “work of God”. A person cannot “merit” even – before he is well-- in the life of grace…living “in Christ”.

Does this contradict St Paul’s teaching? Absolutely not. Nowhere does St Paul say that man doesn’t play any role in the work of his salvation. Though Paul’s conversion seems to have been immediate, unlike the conversion of most people, when he encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul freely chose to be baptized as well as freely cooperating with God’s grace throughout the rest of his life.

No where did I say man does not play a role in his salvation. And as for works – works play into a Christians life certainly. But the point it is not “works” --either “works of the law” or “good works” that brings a person into a state of justification --a state of grace.

There is an “initial justification” to use later theological language and there is yes a continuing to follow Christ and be more and more conformed to him…works by the grace of God yes play a part in following Christ.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Richard you have still failed to show how chrysostoms view of justification in Romans 4:1-4 aligns with your view or the catholic view for that matter.

You attempted to disprove my point by suggesting I believe in salvation as an external cloak of imputation of righteousness where I no where conceded or proposed this in factbive only expressed the oppossite in terms of new creation the indwelling holy spirit, etc.