Was John Chrysostom Catholic?

[Erick_Ybarra]

I am not saying that Chrysostom would be a protestant. I am saying that his view of justification, if it was fully developed, was not the same as a catholic’s if we were looking at his interpretation of Paul.

As I have said, no one here, including JonC has dealt with the homilies of romans, galatians, and 2 corinthians.

What box am I trying to put Chrysostom in? I’m reading him just like any catholic here would read Calvin and then begin to ridicule him. I understand Chrysostom’s other views, but I am speaking of his view of justification.

 

[JonNC]

I am not saying that Chrysostom would be a protestant. I am saying that his view of justification, if it was fully developed, was not the same as a catholic’s if we were looking at his interpretation of Paul.

As I have said, no one here, including JonC has dealt with the homilies of romans, galatians, and 2 corinthians.

What box am I trying to put Chrysostom in? **I’m reading him just like any catholic here would read Calvin and then begin to ridicule him. **I understand Chrysostom’s other views, but I am speaking of his view of justification.

Why do you feel the need to do this?

You are trying to bring his words forward into a debate he had no knowledge of. If, however, St. John Chrysostom’s words confirm your belief, ok. Noticealso, I’ve made no negative comments toward you. I only responded where I felt it necessary.

Jon

 

[Bookcat]

. I am saying that his view of justification, if it was fully developed, was not the same as a catholic’s if we were looking at his interpretation of Paul.
.

I would need to note here that the understanding of the Catholic Teaching that you currently have is not quite there yet.

But I could say the same for myself regarding many of the various approaches of the different Protestant teachings and schools of thought.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

To JohnC, no personal attack on you. Apologize it you took it this way. I just dislike the way it sounds as if people are warning me that I’m enclosing him into my own circle of modern terminology. Well I am very well aware if this, it was for this kind of care in reading ancient texts that have led me out if protestant denominations. However, does this mean the modern reader is impossible to find the meaning of ancient texts. Possibly. But we don’t put this restrictions on those who say what want them to say, right? I’m really the one who has the advantage for I bear no inherent loyalty to the traditional protestant understanding of justification or the catholic, whereas some here have the motive behind their heart in admiration to sustain good conscience in submitting to the papapacy. It makes no difference to me what Chrysostom says. I’m just observing with the same tools and resources that have been used by all doctors and scholars throughout the history of the church

 

[onemangang]

To JohnC, no personal attack on you. Apologize it you took it this way. I just dislike the way it sounds as if people are warning me that I’m enclosing him into my own circle of modern terminology. Well I am very well aware if this, it was for this kind of care in reading ancient texts that have led me out if protestant denominations. However, does this mean the modern reader is impossible to find the meaning of ancient texts. Possibly. But we don’t put this restrictions on those who say what want them to say, right? I’m really the one who has the advantage for I bear no inherent loyalty to the traditional protestant understanding of justification or the catholic, whereas some here have the motive behind their heart in admiration to sustain good conscience in submitting to the papapacy. It makes no difference to me what Chrysostom says. I’m just observing with the same tools and resources that have been used by all doctors and scholars throughout the history of the church

The theology of St. John Chrysostom will be best brought to light in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. They call it the Ancient faith for a reason

orthodoxinfo.com/search.aspx?q=st+john+chrysostom

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

And yet he teaches something different. Just compare his comments on 2 Corinthians 5:21 with the modern orthodox comments

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

From St. John Chrysostom’s homily on St. John’s Gospel:
““Is it then enough,” says one, “to believe in the Son, that one may have eternal life?” By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, “Not every one that says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” Matthew 7:21; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? **Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. **Therefore when He says, “This is life eternal, that they may know You the only true God” John 17:3, let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, “He that believes in the Son has eternal life,” and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: “He that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him”; ) yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation.”

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

From St. John Chrysostom’s homily on St. John’s Gospel:
““Is it then enough,” says one, “to believe in the Son, that one may have eternal life?” By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, “Not every one that says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” Matthew 7:21; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? **Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. **Therefore when He says, “This is life eternal, that they may know You the only true God” John 17:3, let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, “He that believes in the Son has eternal life,” and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: “He that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him”; ) yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation.”

Thank you for this quote. However, this quote does not add anything to our discussion. For I myself as well as protestants comment the same thing. See D.A. Carson’s commentary on the gospel of John.

Protestants have always believed that faith alone as the only thing brought to God is not sufficient for salvation. This is where the non-equivalency of justification and eternal salvation come to be important in protestant theology.

A man is justified by faith alone, per Paul, but if this faith is not accompanied by works it never saves anyone.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Thank you for this quote. However, this quote does not add anything to our discussion. For I myself as well as protestants comment the same thing. See D.A. Carson’s commentary on the gospel of John.

Protestants have always believed that faith alone as the only thing brought to God is not sufficient for salvation. This is where the non-equivalency of justification and eternal salvation come to be important in protestant theology.

The quote proves that you aren’t applying the entirety of John’s thought to the discussion. That you seem to be just picking and choosing those passages that agree with you and applying your definition of “faith alone” onto his passages.

The object of interpretation is to conform your mind to the intent of the person your are interpreting, not conform his words according to your views. That’s called “eisegesis.”

I don’t know which “Protestants” you are referring to, because I know many protestants who would say that what you are saying is NOT biblical. That you are adding “works” to faith. That you are violating not only the Bible truth and God’s will but the spirit of Luther and Calvin as well. That “faith alone” means faith alone. That to add anything to faith is anti-Biblical. Works are irrelevent to salvation. Etc, ad-nauseum.

I wouldn’t bother listing your protestant sources either, because for every protestant source you cite as agreeing with you I can cite another which says doesn’t.

A man is justified by faith alone, per Paul, but if this faith is not accompanied by works it never saves anyone.

Again, you keep asserting that as if it were true and its not. Paul says we are justified by faith. In another passage he says we are justified by grace through faith.

I agree with what Paul says. I DON’T agree with what you’re saying Paul says. Because what Paul says, and what you are saying he says, are completely different.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’y say that Paul says “we’re justified by faith alone” and in the same breath say that “if faith is not accompanied by works it never saves anyone.”

The positions are mutually exclusive, Erick. Its either “faith alone”-because by adding “alone” you are making faith an absolute.

Or it is “faith working through love.” Which means it cannot possibly be “faith alone”, because has been added to faith and thus negates the term “alone”-just as James and the rest of the Apostles, the ECF’s, the Bishops of the Council of Trent, have continually testified to down through the ages.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Ok, as far as Protestantism goes, you should just read the Westminster Catechism, the Augsburg Confession, what the original Lutheran believed, and what the Original Baptist and Puritans believe. You would not consider it fair if I read a modern day catholic who believes Hinduism is an accurate expression of devotion to the true God or the many Catholics that I’ve come across with some weird teaching, right? You would advise me to go by the Catechism as reflecting what they believe. Well then, trouble yourself with some time, just as I am, on reading the documents which founded the break from the Roman Catholic Church as I am reading the Catholic Catechism, to know precisely what they believe. There are millions of Protestant Churches that have these Confessions as their standard for faith and practice.

Therefore, get your hands on the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 for starters ,or the Westminster Confession of Faith. A true Catholic who knows his faith and the historicity of the arguments will know what these Protestant Confessions teach and why exactly they are wrong.

Luther and Calvin NEVER said that we are justified by faith alone in the sense that the single act performed by the human being who is saved is simply to acknowledge and accept the truths of the gospel as factual and real. So if this is what you mean by “faith alone” , then true Protestants reject it.

You see, the modern day apostacy, not only in Protestantism but also Catholicism, has blurred each sides understanding of the other. Because there are Protestants out there who propose this “Just ask Jesus in your heart” and “Pray this little Prayer” and “once saved always saved” , etc,etc Catholics are bolstered and strengthened even 10 times more so than the scholars of Trent because they are watching a wrong reflection of what the original Protestants taught, which many solid Churches HAVE kept faithfully to, despite their rarity. Likewise, many Protestants see wayward Catholics and then form their opinion based off of that.

It is the documents.

Calvin taught that union with Jesus Christ in His death burial and resurrection is the major structure of salvation, under which there are many sub-structures. Justification is one of those sub-structures which do not make up the whole structure. Justification is by faith alone because faith is the only thing that God accounts for righteousness (Rom 4:1-4) as in Abraham’s case. Chrysostom believed this as well, confessing Abraham had many works but that God put them aside and only reckoned faith for righteousness. This is very in keeping with Calvin’s points on Romans. However, Calvin also believe another sub-structure of salvation is sanctification, definitive and progressive without which a person cannot be said to have been or to receive salvation. Therefore, faith and good works are there in the saved person, but the good works are not contributing payments for appeasing God’s wrath or making one holy and pure enough to enter heaven.

 

[onemangang]

Modern day “Monergist” are not the John Calvin’s and Martin Luthers of the “reformation”

Here is Calvin, in his own words

Calvin said, “When we say a man is justified by faith alone, we do not fancy a faith devoid of charity, but we mean that faith alone is the cause of justification.” Again Calvin makes this remarkable statement “I wish the reader to understand that as often as we mention Faith alone in this question, we are not thinking of a dead faith, which worketh not by love, but holding faith to be the only cause of justification. It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone.”

And Here is Martin Luthers view of Faith from R.C Sproul’s site

Martin Luther’s Definition of Faith
by Martin Luther
Faith is not what some people think it is. Their human dream is a delusion. Because they observe that faith is not followed by good works or a better life, they fall into error, even though they speak and hear much about faith. “Faith is not enough,” they say, “You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved.” They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working, creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, “I believe.” That is what they think true faith is. But, because this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn’t come from this `faith,’ either.

Instead, faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words.

Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God’s grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they’re smart enough to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools. Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.

So modern day people that call themselves “reformed” are a far cry from ones in the past, for sure!

These links may provide insight to our differences

calledtocommunion.com/2012/09/did-the-council-of-trent-contradict-the-second-council-of-orange/

calledtocommunion.com/2011/05/imputation-and-infusion-a-reply-to-r-c-sproul-jr/

 

[carlos19]

Hi Erick, I promise to get back to John Chrysostom but before I move forward I want to make sure that I am clear as to what you are stating.

Thank you for clearing up the imputation of righteousness.

So you do not believe in Christ Righteousness being imputed but you also do not believe it the Catholic view of righteousness being infused. What you are saying is that righteousness after being justified is a change of status, a declaration that we are righteous.

As far as I know, I have only heard of either Christ’s righteousness being imputed or the Catholic view of infusion of righteousness/holiness.

I have read about the Orthodox view of theosis and it somewhat resembles Catholic righteousness/holiness, not quite but it is similar.

Your view I have never heard of.It seems to be a third way. Is this view of righteousness something that you have been contemplating or is it something that has is also held by a Christian tradition/denomination?

I ask with utmost charity my friend. I ask because I cannot see St. John Chrysostom write what you feel. I am trying to understand you points

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Hey Carlos,

I appreciate your questions.

The view that I have put forward here was held by Calvin and Luther in the beginning of their endeavors, but once they pushed the analogy of Adam and Jesus farther than the text allowed, this is when they went farther than just saying “gift of righteousness” and began expanding to the phrase “righteousness of Jesus Christ”.

Really, I understand Adam and Christ to both be 1 human being who does 1 thing which has an effect on “All” of humanity. Adam’s one sin brought forth condemnation and the sentence of death upon of human beings. Likewise, Christ’s sacrificial death brings forth justification and the title to eternal life. I do not expand the analogy to include the “righteousness of Christ” which was accumulated throughout his earthly incarnational life, which modern Protestant scholars are zealous to push.

I do not believe that we are justified by an infused righteousness that is put into our souls and makes us love. I reject this notion because of the close proximity between the Death of Jesus and our Justification. So close are these two things that Paul sees justification as even occurring in the actual event of the death and resurrection of Christ itself (Rom 4:25). There is such a close cause and effect relationship between what Christ accomplished on the cross and our justification before God that to put between it an infusion of divine love that fulfills the law is just unwarranted from the text of Scripture.

Now the Tridentine scholars could not fathom God justifying a person who is not intrinsically and ontologically just. The Hebrews would have had the same problem. But the scholars of Trent were not stupid, they were well aware of how close the relationship between Christ’s death and our justification were, but they could not conclude that it is simply that for fear of moral license and the fact that God performs a legal fiction. Calling something righteous which is not in fact righteous. Therefore, being scholars and being aware of Paul’s teaching on justification in the death of Jesus (Rom 5:9) they inserted other causes to justification in order to avoid the idea of a legal fiction which incorporated the death of Jesus and also the love and obedience that the Holy Spirit brings into our hearts (Rom 8). Therefore, as an additional cause to justification, already noticing the Pauline insistence on Jesus’ sacrifice bringing us to a “just” position before God, they put forth not just the forgiveness of sin but also the actual putting of “righteousness” into the soul of man (described in Rom 6-8) to be that additional component that makes up justification.

The Protestant scholars kept their finger on the text a bit more carefully and noticed that Paul never had this additional cause to the justification of sinners. They were keen to keep pointing to the Pauline statements that we are “justified in His blood” (Rom 5:9) and that we are “justified by faith apart from works” (Rom 4:1-4), that even Abraham and David, as righteous and obedient as they were in God’s eyes by their works, were not officially “just” at the end of the day because of that but because of “faith” (Rom 4:5-9).
Therefore, this careful keeping with the pen of Paul is what drove them to place the Tridentine additional cause of divine infusion to be under the word “sanctification”, because this is more appropriate to the text of the NT, putting justification solely under the work of Jesus that was done outside of us, while never denying the inward work of God’s grace in transforming the inner man to love.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Ok, as far as Protestantism goes, you should just read the Westminster Catechism, the Augsburg Confession, what the original Lutheran believed, and what the Original Baptist and Puritans believe.

Erick, I know what they believed. I was a protestant.

You would not consider it fair if I read a modern day catholic who believes Hinduism is an accurate expression of devotion to the true God or the many Catholics that I’ve come across with some weird teaching, right? You would advise me to go by the Catechism as reflecting what they believe. Well then, trouble yourself with some time, just as I am, on reading the documents which founded the break from the Roman Catholic Church as I am reading the Catholic Catechism, to know precisely what they believe. There are millions of Protestant Churches that have these Confessions as their standard for faith and practice.

Nor do I consider it “fair” that a protestant is applying his protestant definitions to a Catholic saint who clearly did NOT teach-as the protestant is claiming he did-the “protestant” view on justification. It was my extensive reading of the ECF’s that brought from atheism to the Catholic Church. Just as sheer confusion of protestantism-as you so testified to by your remark of “millions of churches”-drove me to become an atheist.

Therefore, get your hands on the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 for starters ,or the Westminster Confession of Faith. A true Catholic who knows his faith and the historicity of the arguments will know what these Protestant Confessions teach and why exactly they are wrong.

You may insist they are wrong, that your assertion. I posit that modern protestantism is the result of the shortsightedness of Luther and Calvin to see the logical conclusions to their doctrines.

Modern protestantism is-while it may have been unintentional- the logical consequence of the Reformers doctrines. I know the falsehood of protestantism by what it has produced.

Luther and Calvin NEVER said that we are justified by faith alone in the sense that the single act performed by the human being who is saved is simply to acknowledge and accept the truths of the gospel as factual and real. So if this is what you mean by “faith alone” , then true Protestants reject it.

Luther didn’t-at first. He saw “faith alone” as the means to set man free from dervile fear of God. Yet when he started attacking the Church and the sacraments he took his doctrine quickly to its logical conclusions.

Calvin immediately rejected works as having any consequence and he had to later correct himself when in France many Calvinists started immorally acting out; another logical consequence to his doctrine. They eventually didn’t like his rule and shortly split off and formed their own church apart from Calvin.

Thus many Lutherans and Calvinists affirm that baptism is NOT necessary to be justified or saved. Some do. This confusion is laid directly at the feet of the Reformers(I call them the Revolutionaries).

I don’t care what they “intended”, its about what they DID. They taught “faith alone” and their followers took them at their word.

You see, the modern day apostacy, not only in Protestantism but also Catholicism, has blurred each sides understanding of the other.

Uh, no. One, there is no “apostacy” on the part of the Catholic Church. I showed you over on the Catholic-Convert forum how Peter Kreeft in his “Handbook” demonstrated that between Lutherism and the Catholic Church the whole thing about justification is really a distinction without a difference.

IOW, biblical justification was something that the Catholic Church already held. Luther didn’t want to understand the Church, he wanted to rip it asunder. He apostacised from the Church and created the ambiguity, not the other way around.

Because there are Protestants out there who propose this “Just ask Jesus in your heart” and “Pray this little Prayer” and “once saved always saved” , etc,etc Catholics are bolstered and strengthened even 10 times more so than the scholars of Trent because they are watching a wrong reflection of what the original Protestants taught, which many solid Churches HAVE kept faithfully to, despite their rarity.

No, its as I have said, modern evangelical/fundamentalist protestantism is the result of the logical conclusions of early protestant doctrines. If they took “faith alone” more literally than Luther or calvin intended then, again, its their fault. They disreguarded the authority of the Church and made individual interpretation an absolute. Luther and Calvin-their doctrine-was the “wolf” that scattered the sheep.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

concluded…

Calvin taught that union with Jesus Christ in His death burial and resurrection is the major structure of salvation, under which there are many sub-structures. Justification is one of those sub-structures which do not make up the whole structure. Justification is by faith alone because faith is the only thing that God accounts for righteousness (Rom 4:1-4) as in Abraham’s case.

Calvin, in his typical legalistic style, applied legal structual terms where they simply weren’t necessary. By trying to be clear he only wound up muddying the waters even more.

Justification is not a “sub-structure”. I dismiss any terminology that relegates justification as some sort of legal or business transaction. A covenant is more than just a contract.

Chrysostom believed this as well, confessing Abraham had many works but that God put them aside and only reckoned faith for righteousness.

Again, without Abraham’s comtinuation in faith by circumcising his household his faith would have become un-faith, or sin. God “reckoned” Araham’s faith because in His omnipotence God knew that he had given through grace a level of faith such that Abraham would follow through and thus complete his justification.

If god had “put them(works) aside” then God’s command that Abraham circumcise himself and his household is pointless. And God doesn’t do pointless things.

So either God gave a pointless command and forced Abraham to bloody himself and his household for no reason, or (as James says in his letter) that for Abraham to be justified he had to complete the command God had given him in order to be in a covenant relationship with God. That Abraham showed his faith through his works and was therefore justified.

This is very in keeping with Calvin’s points on Romans. However, Calvin also believe another sub-structure of salvation is sanctification, definitive and progressive without which a person cannot be said to have been or to receive salvation. Therefore, faith and good works are there in the saved person, but the good works are not contributing payments for appeasing God’s wrath or making one holy and pure enough to enter heaven.

Again you, and Calvin, are wrong:
““Which He freely bestowed on us,” he says. He does not say, “Which He has graciously given us,” (ἐ χαρίσατο) but, “wherein He has shown grace to us.” (ἐ χαρίτωσεν) That is to say, He has not only released us from our sins, but has also made us meet objects of His love. It is as though one were to take a leper, wasted by distemper, and disease, by age, and poverty, and famine, and were to turn him all at once into a graceful youth, surpassing all mankind in beauty, shedding a bright lustre from his cheeks, and eclipsing the sun-beams with the glances of his eyes; and then were to set him in the very flower of his age, and after that array him in purple and a diadem and all the attire of royalty.** It is thus that God has arrayed and adorned this soul of ours, and clothed it with beauty, and rendered it an object of His delight and love. **”

Again, John demonstrates how our souls are transformed by God through his grace and NOT merely an imputation.

“Please the leader under whom you serve, for from him you receive your pay. May none of you turn out to be a deserter. let your baptism be ever your shield, your faith your helmet, your charity your spear, your patience your panoply. Let your works be your deposits, so that you may receive the sum that is due to you.”
St Ignatius. Letter to Polycarp, Chpt 6.

'Why was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he performed justice and truth through faith?"
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, chpt 31

“What merit, then, has man before grace which could make it possible for him to receive grace, when nothing but grace produces good merit in us; and what else but His gift does God crown when He crowns our merits?” St. Augustine, Letters, 194:4:6

“Buy for yourself a white garment, that you, who according to Adam had been naked and were before frightful and unseemly, may be clothed in the white raiment of Christ. And you who are a rich and wealthy matron anoint your eyes not with the stibium of the devil but with the eye-salve of Christ, that you can come to see God, when you merit God by character and good works.”
St. Cyprian, Works and Almsgiving, chpt 14.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Actually, there are many Catholics out there, including I myself, being one born and raised in the Catholic Church, in a large catholic family, knowing many Catholics growing up, I can tell you that there is a difference of opinion amongst everyone I knew, I’d imagine.

It really doesn’t matter if what is written down on paper is the same, you have a priest here who is a universalist and another priest over here who submits to traditional catholicism and you have another over here who says Vatican II was the great falling away and that they see Jesus every night on their front yard, etc,etc it goes on and on.

I was a protestant for 5 years, and I performed 4-10 hours of door-to-door, personally confrontational, and open air evangelism that included surveys on what people believe. I cannot tell you how many different “catholics” I’ve come across.

And you may say that there is more amongst the protestants. I would say, how are we to tell? The numbers are so high amongst both!

With regard to faith and works, they relate to one another as a body and soul. If a body does not have a soul, it is a dead body and is useless (i.e. brings no salvation). Only a body which has a soul is alive, and this is compared to a faith that has works, and it is only when faith has works that one can be saved.

Justification, in Paul, is the initial acceptance of the ungodly into the family of God where there is forgiveness and remission and reconciliation.

However, since coming into this grace is an act of repentance and conversion, two facets of saving faith, works play out in the life of those who are saved in order to bring them to eternal life. This is why Jesus warns and exhorts to have good works so that one might enter the kingdom of God.

 

[Bookcat]

A man is justified by faith alone, per Paul, but if this faith is not accompanied by works it never saves anyone.

A man is justified by “faith apart from works of law”, per Paul (Rm 3:28) (Paul does not use the phrase “Faith alone”), and it actually can be said that it is possible for one to be “saved” (in the sense of go to Heaven) without a single good work. (Such is the “work of grace” not the persons “work”).

For example – a person who never gets a chance to do the “good works” that can then be done when one is “in Christ” --for he dies prior to such.

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

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

 

[Bookcat]

As to the use of the term “faith alone”:

“Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).”

–Pope Benedict XVI

See above link -the full context of this quote is important – as it comes towards the end of two splendid audiences on Faith and Works in Paul and presumes what went before.

 

[Richca]

e.

Now the Tridentine scholars could not fathom God justifying a person who is not intrinsically and ontologically just. The Hebrews would have had the same problem. But the scholars of Trent were not stupid, they were well aware of how close the relationship between Christ’s death and our justification were, but they could not conclude that it is simply that for fear of moral license and the fact that God performs a legal fiction. Calling something righteous which is not in fact righteous. Therefore, being scholars and being aware of Paul’s teaching on justification in the death of Jesus (Rom 5:9) they inserted other causes to justification in order to avoid the idea of a legal fiction which incorporated the death of Jesus and also the love and obedience that the Holy Spirit brings into our hearts (Rom 8). Therefore, as an additional cause to justification, already noticing the Pauline insistence on Jesus’ sacrifice bringing us to a “just” position before God, they put forth not just the forgiveness of sin but also the actual putting of “righteousness” into the soul of man (described in Rom 6-8) to be that additional component that makes up justification.

The Protestant scholars kept their finger on the text a bit more carefully and noticed that Paul never had this additional cause to the justification of sinners. They were keen to keep pointing to the Pauline statements that we are “justified in His blood” (Rom 5:9) and that we are “justified by faith apart from works” (Rom 4:1-4), that even Abraham and David, as righteous and obedient as they were in God’s eyes by their works, were not officially “just” at the end of the day because of that but because of “faith” (Rom 4:5-9).
Therefore, this careful keeping with the pen of Paul is what drove them to place the Tridentine additional cause of divine infusion to be under the word “sanctification”, because this is more appropriate to the text of the NT, putting justification solely under the work of Jesus that was done outside of us, while never denying the inward work of God’s grace in transforming the inner man to love.

Erick_ybarra: Somehow it seems you think that the Tridentine fathers invented something new in the catholic doctrine of justification such as the divine infusion of sanctification or charity which sanctifies man. The Tridentine fathers were only restating what had long been the traditional catholic doctrine. One has only to read the Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas who lived four centuries earlier to see this.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

No they did not invent anything. They used some of the major philosophical works of Thomas including his teaching on the variety of senses to causes. In fact one can find this in Augustine as well. But it is rare that before this you had such a view. Chrysostom is one example. Again, if you read his comments on Romans and Galatians, it resembles nothing of modern day catholic nor medivevil exegesis