C
Church_Militant
Guest
To me it’s pretty simple. St. John Chrysostom is not infallible.
- Status
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
For Chrysostom Adams sin is the fountain from which flowed everything that is ungodly. This includes the guilt of sin, but more broadley it turned mankind away from God and so the original mission to popluate the world imaging the True blessed Creator, now we flare in rebellion and alienation from God. Death, the reign of sin in the passions of the flesh, the satanic dominion over the sons of disobedience, demonic and unclean spirit possession, eternal hell, etc etc.
However Chrysostom is focused on one facet in the typology between Adam and christ and it is concerning their one act which either brings life or death. Adams one sin brought death I to the world not originally because he makes all others sin thsemaelves but because they are included in the guilt of Adams sin and are already on death row before they are born. Likewise Christs death brings the gift if justification (remission of sins and the Grace of being righteous in God’s eyes) not because everyone contributed to his death but it is their for them freely.
There are other facets of the typology between Adam and christ. However Romans 5 is dealing with the forensic legal aspects and its consequences on all of humanity.
However Chrysostom is focused on one facet in the typology between Adam and christ and it is concerning their one act which either brings life or death. Adams one sin brought death I to the world not originally because he makes all others sin thsemaelves but because they are included in the guilt of Adams sin and are already on death row before they are born. Likewise Christs death brings the gift if justification (remission of sins and the Grace of being righteous in God’s eyes) not because everyone contributed to his death but it is their for them freely.
There are other facets of the typology between Adam and christ. However Romans 5 is dealing with the forensic legal aspects and its consequences on all of humanity.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
So you at least recognize he goes contrary to catholic teaching?
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
R
Richca
Guest
O
onemangang
Guest
Sorry, I don’t except your interpretation of what St. John Chrysostom is REALLY saying here, in light of St. John Chrysostom holding to an Eastern view of Ancestral sin and a Christus Victor view of the Atonement. I think you are going great lengths to try to prove otherwise but can’t.
You have not sufficiently made the case for St. John Chrysostom holding to an Augustinian view of Original sin, and the Penal Substitution view of atonement that flows from the Augustinian view of Original sin, therefore your argument falls flat!
You keep trying to present it as it’s true and clear, but it is no more than you trying to justify your own beliefs. Sorry, but it’s getting tired, old and boring.
Your preconceived notion of Penal Substitution is true, so I must reconstruct historical writings to show this, is not being objective!
History, and Culture will show that St. John Chrysostom is much more in concert with Eastern Orthodox thought, than 18th century Protestantism, or modern day Latin Rite Catholicism for that matter!
Like it was said before. The Protesters of old looked East to undue the West, but misunderstood the East and ended up with what they have today, a fine mess!
R
Richca
Guest
So you acknowledge that Chrysostom believed that Sacred Tradition is worthy of belief, in fact he says so. Also, Chrysostom was speaking about the Sacred Tradition within the Catholic Church which Church still existed after the great schism. As far as what Sacred Tradition means, Chyrsostom explains that in the homily I posted as does St Paul in 2 Thessolians. It is the unwritten word of God handed down from the apostles and which the fathers of the Church handed down which fathers of the Church lived long before the great schism. I’d recommend a study of the fathers of the Church to understand what this Sacred Tradition is or means. Christ himself didn’t commit any of his teaching to writing.
I think its worthy of belief. I accept the 7 general councils, even though there is dispute regarding things like the level of primacy of the pope. So, yes.
I believe what was then, prior to the Great Schism, the Catholic Church is still the Church, the congegation of saints, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. And it still resides both east and west, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and those not. So, yes, but probably not in the same way you mean it.
as you can see, I’m not necessarily argung against that. What I am saying is that Sacred Tradition is now interpreted, at least in part, differently amongst the patriarchates.
Jon
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
I take it that Chrysostom is not representing catholic exegesis?
O
onemangang
Guest
Catholic yes, Eastern Catholic! Latin Rite Catholic, no!
R
Richca
Guest
If my above analysis is correct concerning the protestant view of justification by faith alone, then I can see how they have an issue with the “good works” of catholicism. The grace of justification in the catholic view can be resisted by man’s free will including the graces after justification. Thus, in the catholic view, justification or salvation is synergenistic. If I’m not mistaken ( I could be here), the protestant view of justification or salvation is monergenistic.
O
onemangang
Guest
To get to the meat of the subject you would have to address the active and passive will. That relationship between God and man!
What you have said leaves it open ended enough for people to wiggle there ways through its openess with terminology. Get them to explain active and passive will of God and man!
R.C Sproul tried pointing out how Catholics are going against the 6th? ecumenical council? With what was said at Trentn but that was refuted pretty well over at called to communion dot com
R
Richca
Guest
To get to the meat of the subject you would have to address the active and passive will. That relationship between God and man!
I don’t think the active and passive will have to be addressed here to get to the meat of the subject. It’s not necessary and can get confusing.What you have said leaves it open ended enough for people to wiggle there ways through its openess with terminology. Get them to explain active and passive will of God and man!
R.C Sproul tried pointing out how Catholics are going against the 6th? ecumenical council? With what was said at Trentn but that was refuted pretty well over at called to communion dot com
If what I have said is not clear, I’ll try to clarify.
Synergism-------- God’s grace which is needed for salvation requires the cooperation of the human free will. Grace is not irresistable, it can be resisted by the free will of man.
Monergism--------God’s grace is needed for salvation. It is irresistable. Grace infallibly moves man’s free will to accept it.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
I haven’t read anyone responding along the lines of the main thread.
Just because there is a Church doctor who is eastern does not mean that he believes or accepts everything the modern day Eastern Greek Orthodox Church believes…to make this assertion requires some heavy duty corroborative evidence.
But we are not here concerned with this issue. I am working off the principle of what I heard from a man named Dave Anders in an interview he had at Catholic answers where he made the comment that nobody believed in justification by faith alone in the first 1500 years of the church, and therefore it is a novelty in the church.
Well, I have many more instances where the Church father clearly teach that we as sinners are justified before God by faith, a faith that of course has works and has love and has hope, but God has chosen faith to be the vessel counted for righteousness, nothing else. This is why we say we are justified by faith alone, for there are many other things involved in our salvation which are required such as good works, loves, mercy, hope, perseverance through trials, picking up our cross daily, but faith runs through all of these activities in our lives and it alone maintains the reckoning of righteousness.
Just because there is a Church doctor who is eastern does not mean that he believes or accepts everything the modern day Eastern Greek Orthodox Church believes…to make this assertion requires some heavy duty corroborative evidence.
But we are not here concerned with this issue. I am working off the principle of what I heard from a man named Dave Anders in an interview he had at Catholic answers where he made the comment that nobody believed in justification by faith alone in the first 1500 years of the church, and therefore it is a novelty in the church.
Well, I have many more instances where the Church father clearly teach that we as sinners are justified before God by faith, a faith that of course has works and has love and has hope, but God has chosen faith to be the vessel counted for righteousness, nothing else. This is why we say we are justified by faith alone, for there are many other things involved in our salvation which are required such as good works, loves, mercy, hope, perseverance through trials, picking up our cross daily, but faith runs through all of these activities in our lives and it alone maintains the reckoning of righteousness.
O
onemangang
Guest
Never said he did, but it is highly more likely his views on Sin, the Fall, Faith, Righteousness, Justification, Works, Love and Charity are most likely to have Eastern meaning within the context of his eastern terminology. Far more than 18th Century Protestantism or the Scholasticism of the Latin Churches.
St.John Chrysostom had a historical context that was tied into culture, language, and tradition when he was writing to the Churches!
Justification by faith alone as meant by whom? Luther? Calvin? or St. John Chrysostom.
Define the terms of the meaning within the historical, and cultural context of St. John Chrysostom’s writings.
If you can not do that, why must we accept your ethnocentric terms, and impute them into St. John Chrysostom’s writings, because I’m sure all the forensic and legal terms would be alien to him…pun intended!
I’m sure you will try to do the same old game, take ethnocentric terms and apply them into past Saints writings in order to show everybody the “reformers” were right!
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
St. John Chrysostom was trying to interpret Paul the apostle. Therefore he was not trying to use his own categories and cultural wisdom to throw into the information. This is clear because we does a very good job following Paul’s argument and logic. Much better than some protestants.
Justification by faith alone simply put is that we have “righteousness” before God because of “faith” in His word and promise. This is the means of receiving a right-standing with God. Although works ALWAYS are present with it, faith remains to be among the qualities that is accounted for righteousness.
John Chrysostom said that even though Abraham was adorned with many works, he was not justified by them, but rather his faith alone.
You cannot get much more clear on the matter. I’m sorry.
Justification by faith alone simply put is that we have “righteousness” before God because of “faith” in His word and promise. This is the means of receiving a right-standing with God. Although works ALWAYS are present with it, faith remains to be among the qualities that is accounted for righteousness.
John Chrysostom said that even though Abraham was adorned with many works, he was not justified by them, but rather his faith alone.
You cannot get much more clear on the matter. I’m sorry.
O
onemangang
Guest
I accept that prima facie, especially in the light of the Eastern Tradition of Theosis/deification!
I however will not impute a legal, forensic view into what St. John Chrysostom said.
It would be foolish for me to bind St. John Chrysostom to MY theology, so I will take the whole of the culture, language and Tradition in which St. John Chrysostom was a part of into consideration, in order for his voice to resonate clearly!
Why not look up " Justification by Faith Alone?
The Reply of Patriarch Jeremiah II to the Lutheran Tubingen Theologians, Concerning the Augsburg Confession (16th cent.)"
Perhaps they can better explain orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/faithalone.aspx
This may help too stpaulsirvine.org/html/Justification.htm
Or this orthodox-stl.org/grace_freewill.html
Don’t mean to send you on a rabbit trail with all the links, but if you are interested
C
carlos19
Guest
"He that believes in the Son has everlasting life [John 3:36]… “Is it ENOUGH, then, to BELIEVE in the Son,” someone will say, “in order to have everlasting life?” BY NO MEANS! Listen to Christ declare this Himself when He says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” [Matt 7:21]; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a PART of our teaching? For if a man BELIEVE rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not LIVE RIGHTLY, his faith will avail him NOTHING TOWARD SALVATION. (Homilies on John 31:1)
John Chrysostom believed that faith and works were necessary for salvation. It cannot get get any clearer than that I am sorry…
John Chrysostom believed that faith and works were necessary for salvation. It cannot get get any clearer than that I am sorry…
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Quote??
Ah, here’s a quote…although, it seems to say the opposite of what Erick is claiming. Interesting.
C
carlos19
Guest
no you are taking quotes out of content. I say this in the most charitable way that I can find. You did it when you quoted Clement in another post. Take your time. Pick a church father and study his writings. It will take time.Not at all. It is my life’s desire to become Catholic. I’m just making sure to the best of my ability that its claims are historical. And I’m finding out disappointing things all over the place
- Status