Two questions:He says that the righteousness of God is not a habit of righteous deeds. Rather the quality of being righteous in a forensic sense. This is what Chrysostom teaches
Such would not be an accurate statement.One is of faith and the other is of works.
Faith comes first before works in justification.Well, catholics believe that justification is by works together with faith. Sort of a co-operation together.
What is the difference between justification and sanctification again?And St. John Chrysostom teaches even after years and years of already having faith and works, he was still justified by faith alone. See the quote on Romans 4:1-2.
Incorrect. Infused righteousness states that we can use Jesus righteousness and really cures our unrighteousness, not just cover ourselves with it while letting our unrighteousness fester on in us.Secondly catholics teach that dikaiosune righteousness, even when spoken about as a gift given to man, is not a full gift of Gods righteousness that covers the person (which is what Chrysostom says) rather it is what changes us from being in a habit of sin to being in a habit of good behavior through which Gods declaration is valid. Chrysostom is denying this transformational idea.
Actually I never said anything like that. Read again what I posted please.You are misinterpreting him. He does not say that faith is the way we fulfill good works in order to be justified.
Correct, in a way. Justification is a one time event. That is why a Catholic can never stop being a Catholic ever once he or she is baptized.With regard to the lifestyle after being justified, protestants have always preached that faith must express itself worthy of the gift received in christ Jesus does god make alive the dead when he justifies? Of course. But justification itself is the free gift of righteousness that is not inside of us but remains over us.
People were bound to conduct themselves according to their conscience, and being that man is created in Imageo Deo, they had a conscience before Moses.Just because we can find statements in John Chrysostom which say that in salvation God renews us, sanctifies, justifies, adopts, makes us new creatures, participants in the mystical body of jesus Christ, raises us up to a resurrection with His Son, out of the kingdom of darkness and into the light where Satanic forces have no rule and reign, etc,etc. Protestants do not teach that salvation is all forensic. But that justification, as a small fact to the diamond of salvation, is forensic.
With regard to John Chrysostom’s view of the original sin it is clear he has in mind a forensic understanding and the traditional reformed protestant view:
Ver. 13. For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law.
The phrase till the Law some think he used of the time before the giving of the Law— that of Abel, for instance, or of Noah, or of Abraham— till Moses was born. What was the sin in those days, at this rate? Some say he means that in Paradise. For hitherto it was not done away, (he would say,) but the fruit of it was yet in vigor. For it had borne that death whereof all partake, which prevailed and lorded over us. Why then does he proceed, But sin is not imputed when there is no law? It was by way of objection from the Jews, say they who have spoken on our side, that he laid this position down and said,** if there be no sin without the Law, how came death to consume all those before the Law?** But to me it seems that the sense presently to be given has more to be said for it, and suits better with the Apostle’s meaning. And what sense is this?*** In saying, that till the Law sin was in the world, what he seems to me to mean is this, that after the Law was given the sin resulting from the transgression of it prevailed, and prevailed too so long as the Law existed. For sin, he says, can have no existence if there be no law. If then it was this sin, he means, from the transgression of the Law that brought forth death, how was it that all before the Law died? For if it is in sin that death has its origin, but when there is no law, sin is not imputed, how came death to prevail? From whence it is clear, that it was not this sin, the transgression, that is, of the Law, but that of Adam’s disobedience, which marred all things. Now what is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law all died:*** for death reigned, he says, from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned.
Or, because Adam’s sin it caused a rift throughout the universe. There was a fall, and we inherit a fallen world, because the world has fallen we sin, we are not GUILTY of Adam’s sin, but because of Adam’s sin,(which ushered in a fallen world/nature) we sin! This can be viewed as INHERITED rather than ORIGINAL, which is most likely the view of St.John Chrysostom!Notice how if what John Chrysostom taught here was that we all became morally corrupt and suffered the penalty of death for it because in Adam we become corrupted (which we all did) he would not have a need to question “Why did those human beings who lived in between Adam and Moses die”?.
You are inserting a Western (more specifically Protestant) view of the fall, into St.John Chrysostom’s writings. As I asked before can you show that St.John Chrysostom had a Penal view of the atonement, over a Christus Victor view? NO you can’t, so until you can, all your statements about what St. John Chrysostom was REALLY saying here is no more than a modern day invention, and historical revisionism in an attempt to justify a preconcieved notion, hell bent on poor theology!The reason he is asking this because he is exegeting Paul. Where there is no law there is no transgression, even so all died from Adam to Moses. Death is a result of the law bringing forth sin, but this did not happen for those who lived from Adam to Moses. Therefore they die and become mortal because they are imputed with Adam’s disobedience. That is what Paul has in mind. The guilt that was incurred from eating the forbidden fruit is shared by all of humanity, and we suffer the legal consequences of that, which is death. Of course there is a sense in which we became dead in sin from Adam, but this is not what Paul has in mind here about original sin.
Of course, Adam’s sin caused the fall, which death is a result. Christus Victor!v14
How did it reign? After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come. Now this is why Adam is a type of Christ. How a type? It will be said. Why in that, as the former became to those who were sprung from him, although they had not eaten of the tree, the cause of that death which by his eating was introduced; thus also did Christ become to those sprung from Him, even though they had not wrought righteousness, the Provider of that righteousness which through His Cross He graciously bestowed on us all. For this reason, at every turn he keeps to the one, and is continually bringing it before us, when he says, As by one man sin entered into the world— and, If through the offense of one many be dead: and, Not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; and, The judgment was by one to condemnation: and again, If by one (or, the one) man’s offense death reigned by one; and Therefore as by the offense of one. And again, As by one man’s disobedience many (or, the many) were made sinners. And so he lets not go of the one, that when the Jew says to you, How came it, that by the well-doing of this one Person, Christ, the world was saved? You might be able to say to him, How by the disobedience of this one person, Adam, came it to be condemned? And yet sin and grace are not equivalents, death and life are not equivalents, the Devil and God are not equivalents, but there is a boundless space between them. When then as well from the nature of the thing as from the power of Him that transacts it, and from the very suitableness thereof (for it suits much better with God to save than to punish), the preëminence and victory is upon this side, what one word have you to say for unbelief, tell me? However, that what had been done was reasonable, he shows in the following words.
MY WORDS: Do you see how Chrysostom understands the “cause of death” to be Adam’s sin?
Sure many Catholics, but No Eastern Orthodox do, and St. John Chrysostom was Eastern in thought. Christus Victor! Inherited sin!Well, many catholics understand this to mean that we are created in Adam and because of that we are born with an original unholiness of ourselves.
Adam’s sin ushered in the fall, which turned us away from God, where Christ death and Resurrection ushered in divine energies (grace) to turn us back towards our Father! Christus Victor!We have lost out original righteousness. This is true. But this is not what Paul is teaching here and this is not what Chrysostom is teaching here. Notice how he asks “How is Adam a Type of Christ”? and “Why in that, as the former became to those who were sprung from him, although they had not eaten of the tree, the cause of that death which by his eating was introduced; thus also did Christ become to those sprung from Him, even though they had not wrought righteousness, the Provider of that righteousness which through His Cross He graciously bestowed on us all.”
No, a legal consequences and forensic view of God is foreign to Eastern thought.Notice how Chrysostom also understands “righteousness” to come from the cross of Jesus, whereas the Catholics are more to join the cross with the holy Spirit (for in their view it means a re-creation into holiness). Also understand how this “righteousness” is not wrought in the saved just as the sin of Adam was not wrought in humanity (at least for the sake of the argument- we know that we were). It is clear that what chrysostom has in mind is the forensic legal consequences that both Adam and Christ have on us. And it is clear because you can see how Chrysotom argues that it is not the present sin or righteousness in human beings that cause our death or life, but rather Adam’s one sin and Christ’s one sacrifice.
Christus Victor!*Ver. 19. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.
What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offense of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word “sinners” mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam’s death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large. But the question now is, for what purpose was this done? But this he does not go on to add: for it contributed nothing to his present object. For it is against a Jew that the contest is, who doubted and made scorn of the righteousness by One. And for this reason after showing that the punishment too was brought in by one upon all, the reason why this was so he has not added. For he is not for superfluities, but keeps merely to what is necessary. For this is what the principles of disputation did not oblige him to say any more than the Jew; and therefore he leaves it unsolved. But if any of you were to enquire with a view to learn, we should give this answer: That we are so far from taking any harm from this death and condemnation , if we be sober-minded, that we are the gainers even by having become mortal, first, because it is not an immortal body in which we sin; secondly, because we get numberless grounds for being religious (φιλοσοφας). For to be moderate, and to be temperate, and to be subdued, and to keep ourselves clear of all wickedness, is what death by its presence and by its being expected persuades us to. But following with these, o*r rather even before these, it has introduced other greater blessings besides. For it is from hence that the crowns of the martyrs come, and the rewards of the Apostles. Thus was Abel justified, thus was Abraham, in having slain his son, thus was John, who for Christ’s sake was taken off, thus were the Three Children, thus was Daniel. For if we be so minded, not death only, but even the devil himself will be unable to hurt us. And besides there is this also to be said, that immortality awaits us, and after having been chastened a little while, we shall enjoy the blessings to come without fear, being as if in a sort of school in the present life, under instruction by means of disease, tribulation, temptations, and poverty, and the other apparent evils, with a view to our becoming fit for the reception of the blessings of the world to com
I was pointing out that in the Eastern view of sin, it is inherited, not Augustinian.The verse that would be most explicit in the teaching that we are not guilty of Adams sin but that we are sinners ourselves from him john Chrysostom actually recanted from this and teaches the exact oppositte. Such a thing is demonstrating that both eastern and catholics, if they understand this verse to teach that we are not guilty of Adams sin but rather we sin and so are guilty, that one is not interested in understanding truth but is committed to some claim to infallibility. John Chrysostom here teaches that Paul is not teaching in Romans 5 that we are sinners ourselves but that we are held liable to the condemnation of death, not in the sense of our own doing, but because of Adams sin. This is protestant theology right in the midst of the teaching of a doctor and a saint in the roman catholic churchchurch
What did sin usher in, Guilt, or Death, according to St. John Chrysostom?Your right. He held that Adams sin and guilt is the sole and grounds cause for our original guilt and mortality. Chrysostom clearly says that in the bold.
St. John Chrysostom would also have had no knowledge of the Great Schism, and the resulting contending views east and west as to what Saced Tradition says and means.From what I understand, protestants believe that Holy Scripture is the sole rule of faith which teaching stems from Martin Luther. Luther disregarded the Tradition of the Catholic Church as also a rule of faith or a source of revelation which catholics believe. Now St John Chrysostom holds the tradition of the Church as worthy of belief as can be seen here:
“Therefore, brethern, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter” ( 2 Thess. 2:15). From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further. ( Homily on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians).
Consequently, Chrysostom does not hold the protestants view that Holy Scripture is the sole rule of faith or source of revelation.