Was John Chrysostom Catholic?

[Bookcat]

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!

Yes justification is a gift (not merited by some “work” by one) and yes there is of course the role of assenting (which still involves grace…).

 

[onemangang]

Is assent to divine truth, even if it is God working in you to do so, not a good work?
It is an action of man, and if man has a role, even if by grace, it is a work of man?

Let’s look at how the “Reformers” looked at man’s assent to divine truth, even by grace!

John Calvin
.) 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**.

 

[onemangang]

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!

Sorry I misquoted bookcat somehow in a previous post and could not fix it due to lack of knowledge of the way to fix, plus my inability to use this smart phone

 

[Bookcat]

Is assent to divine truth, even if it is God working in you to do so, not a good work?
It is an action of man, and if man has a role, even if by grace, it is a work of man?

]

(setting aside what various Protestant leaders said or did not say…I am a Catholic)

Is a persons “assent” involved? yes in the case of one who is of an older age --certainly (though grace of course is still involved here).

It is not though a “work” that justifies one.

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

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.

One is justified – indeed one is holy, is “in Christ” is a “saint” prior to the fruit of “good works”.

And then there is on going being more and more conformed to Christ (works by the grace of God yes are involved much here…even to the point of heroic sanctity (Saint))

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

But that is your interpretation. If you take his words at face value, then it is easy to insert what you believe as opposed to what he is trying to say.

 

[Richca]

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

Catholic doctrine agrees with the teaching that without the grace of the Holy Spirit man cannot work any good condusive to his salvation. The point at issue however, with the Lutheran doctrine versus the catholic doctrine at the time of the protestant reformation and which is still today is whether man by his own free will cooperates or not with the grace of the Holy Spirit. Luther simply denied that man by his own free will can cooperate with the grace of the Holy Spirit. Luther thought that due to original sin, man’s free will has become so corrupt that it is not free anymore in regard to the work of his salvation. Thus, Sola gratia, by grace alone became one of the five pillars or solas by which the protestants distinguished their doctrine from catholic doctrine. Sola gratia is defined in the Book of Concord in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord.

John Calvin took Luther’s doctrine to its logical conclusions in his double predestination of man either to heaven or hell. Indeed, there is no place for merit in the Lutheran doctrine.

The Lutheran doctrine of Sola gratia, by grace alone, can easily be refuted throughout all of Holy Scripture and by reason. Sirach 15: 14-15 says: “God in the beginning created human beings and made them subject to their own free choice. If you choose, you can keep the commandments; loyalty is doing the will of God.”

“I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

Again, can it be said that God justly punished the Israelites for not keeping his commandments by exiling them if they were completely unable too keep his commandments?

As I have mentioned in previous posts, St John Chrysostom does not hold the protestant doctrine of Sola gratia.

To be honest, the more I think about it, the more I see that Martin Luther was indeed a very troubled man. His theology is unbiblical, eratic, incoherent and the product of a very proud, troubled and illogical mind. For the protestants out there, please don’t take this as an insult to you as that is not my intention. However, the truth must be told “whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.” ( 2 Timothy 4:2).

 

[onemangang]

Yes justification is a gift (not merited by some “work” by one) and yes there is of course the role of assenting (which still involves grace…).

No arguement there!

I know that man’s justification is not merited by man, and that the work performed by his assent to divine truth is only by grace, what I am saying that one can not remove faith from works, unless man has no role in faith irresistible grace! So to say faith alone, as was intended by the “Reformers” is misleading.

Justification is a gift freely given by God, unmerited by man, by faith, but faith is never alone!

I, by no means, am trying to imply that God only chooses to give the grace needed to assent to divine truth, by some sort of foreknowledge, knowing man would respond, so the grace is only given by a foreknowledge to those who would assent (work). God gives grace freely, and desires none should perish and come to a knowledge of the Truth.

God DOES, that is what I am discussing, not the HOW, that would be a whole other discussion on predestination, free-will, Molinism vs Thomism, I don’t want to get in to

God’s grace and man’s response to grace is all I am concerned with expressing! If man responds, it is not alone! That’s all I’m saying! I am not trying to imply the assent is meritorious unto receiving grace, I am just implying that faith, is never alone!

I think we are talking past each other honestly, probably due to my Calvinism hangover, I am a revert Catholic to agnostic to “reformed evangelical” to Catholic! Maybe I am still in the mindset that, if man is involved, its not God alone, but a work! Sorry for the confusion

 

[Richca]

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.

Erick_ybarra: I will get to this but right now I have to go. God bless…

 

[Bookcat]

No arguement there!

Well then… I will just propose (to all readers!) – take some time with those three audiences from Pope Benedict XVI

They are so beautifully written and very rich.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9867552&postcount=235

 

[onemangang]

One can’t build a whole systematic theology on St. John Chysostom, by exegeting a few passages of the good Doctors writtings, he must be taken as a whole!

 

[JonNC]

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**.

I appreciate your separating Luther from Calvin.

Jon

 

[thenobes]

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).

I’m not sure if this was directed to me, but I did a scan of the first 17 Homilies for the word “law” to see if he considered fulfilment of the law as the basis of our righteousness. I found many many references to the fact that the law cannot save. I found two to the effect that Christ’s fulfilling the law is a part of our righteousness, but by no means the basis of our righteousness. Rather, faith is the basis.

Homily 13
Ver. 4. “That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh.”
What meaneth this word, righteousness? Why, the end, the scope, the well-doing. For what was its design, and what did it enjoin? To be without sin. This then is made good to us now through Christ.
And the making a stand against it, and the getting the better of it, came from Him.
But it is for us to enjoy the victory. Then shall we never sin henceforth? We never shall unless we have become exceedingly relaxed and supine.
And this is why he added, “to them that walk not after the flesh.” For lest, after hearing that Christ hath delivered thee from the war of sin, and that the requisition of the Law is fulfilled in thee, by sin having been “condemned in the flesh,” thou shouldest break up all thy defences; therefore, in that place also, after saying, “there is therefore no condemnation,” he added, “to them that walk not after the flesh;” and here also, “that the requisition of the Law might be fulfilled in us,” he proceeds with the very same thing; or rather, not with it only, but even with a much stronger thing. For after saying, “that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us that walk not after the flesh,” he proceeds, “but after the Spirit.”So showing, that it is not only binding upon us to keep ourselves from evil deeds, but also to be adorned with good. For to give thee the crown is His; but it is thine to hold it fast when given. For the righteousness of the Law, that one should not become liable to its curse, Christ has accomplished for thee.

What meaneth this word, righteousness? Why, the end, the scope, the well-doing. For what was its design, and what did it enjoin? To be without sin. This then is made good to us now through Christ.

Both removal of sin and the mind to do the will of God, make one able not to sin. Not just the fact that Christ perfectly fulfilled the Law.

Be not a traitor then to so great a gift, but keep guarding this goodly treasure. For in this passage he shows that the Font will not suffice to save us, unless, after coming from it, we display a life worthy of the Gift. And so he again advocates the Law in saying what he does. For when we have once become obedient to Christ, we must use all ways and plans so that its righteousness, which Christ fulfilled, may abide in us, and not come to naught.

Homily 17.

Ver. 4. “For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

See the judgment of Paul. For as he had spoken of a righteousness, and a righteousness, lest they of the Jews which believed should seem to have the one but be excluded from the other, and to be accused of lawlessness (for even these there was no less cause to fear about as being still newly come in), and lest Jews should again expect to achieve it, and should say, Though we have not at present fulfilled it, yet we certainly will fulfil it, see what ground he takes. He shows that there is but one righteousness, and that has its full issue in this, and that he that hath taken to himself this, the one by faith, hath fulfilled that also. But he that rejects this, falls short as well of that also. For if Christ be “the end of the Law,” he that hath not Christ, even if he seem to have that righteousness, hath it not. But he that hath Christ, even though he have not fulfilled the Law aright, hath received the whole. For the end of the physician’s art is health. As then he that can make whole, even though he hath not the physician’s art, hath everything; but he that knows not how to heal, though he seem to be a follower of the art, comes short of everything: so is it in the case of the Law and of faith. He that hath this hath the end of that likewise, but he that is without this is an alien from both. For what was the object of the Law? To make man righteous. But it had not the power, for no one fulfilled it. This then was the end of the Law and to this it looked throughout, and for this all its parts were made, its feasts, and commandments, and sacrifices, and all besides, that man might be justified. But this end Christ gave a fuller accomplishment of through faith. Be not then afraid, he says, as if transgressing the Law in having come over to the faith. For then dost thou transgress it, when for it thou dost not believe Christ. If thou believest in Him, then thou hast fulfilled it also,** and much more than it commanded.** For thou hast received a much greater righteousness. Next, since this was an assertion, he again brings proof of it from the Scriptures.

I.e., The Righteousness we receive is a greater thing than just being accounted as fulfilling the Law. Unless this being accounted actually changes us to avoid sin as well (the ontological change).

peace
steve

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Chrysostom defines righteousness of God different than the word righteousness in Romans 8:3-4. Read his comment on 2 Corinthians. It is the quality of righteousness that is the usage of Paul defines most of the time. Other times it is the well doing.

And protestants have always said that if justification doesnot result in one fulfilling the law in the spirit, it profits nothing. The fact that Chrysostom says that we must live worthy of the gift received is nothing unprotestant at all, for Protestants believe good works are necessary for eternal life.

 

[thenobes]

Chrysostom defines righteousness of God different than the word righteousness in Romans 8:3-4. Read his comment on 2 Corinthians. It is the quality of righteousness that is the usage of Paul defines most of the time. Other times it is the well doing.

And protestants have always said that if justification doesnot result in one fulfilling the law in the spirit, it profits nothing. The fact that Chrysostom says that we must live worthy of the gift received is nothing unprotestant at all, for Protestants believe good works are necessary for eternal life.

But the righteousness of the law, although fulfilled in us through Christ, is inferior to the righteousness we receive through faith. Thus the difference to Chrysostom. The latter is justification: full righteousness through faith.

peace
steve

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Yes the righteousness of God is certaintly superior to that of the law, because it is ordained and wrought in God in the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus, rather than man created righteousness of the law

 

[thenobes]

Yes the righteousness of God is certaintly superior to that of the law, because it is ordained and wrought in God in the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus, rather than man created righteousness of the law

…or would-be man-created righteousness.

Only the aversion of sin,that is, assent to God’s will, and no other, can be the fulfillment of the law.

In that case the law is dead because all actions we take are then non-sinful.

peace
steve

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

The righteousness of avid, for Chrysostom, is not the deeds done by infusion, but is a status imputed to sinful man so that he is no longer under condemnation but appears just before God. See his comments on Romans 4:1-9 and 2 Corinthians 5:21

 

[Richca]

Bookcat: greetings in Jesus, Mary, and Joseph
Thank you for the links to Pope Benedict XVI addresses, they are beautiful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richca
Consequently, the very act of becoming justified is meritorious on man’s part whereby he freely cooperates with God’s grace

 

[onemangang]

Hey Richca,

As far as I see it, grace proceeds man’s assent to divine truth, moving man’s will towards faith, by grace!

**
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
**

I also agree with bookcat that works are not what merit justification, or not even the assent of man’s intellect to divine truth, because grace is what is moving the will, to the assent in the first place, which God gave freely, out of Love!

So, It is not because of the assent, that God justifies!

It is not because God foreknowing that we would say yes to grace, or assent to divine truth, if you will, that we are chosen either! God gives freely and desires that none should perish, but all be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth!

It’s Grace, unmerited grace, through faith, and grace precedes faith, but faith is not alone, but acts on love!

Sorry for the confusion, I hope this clears things up a bit!

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)