Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
I have been reading John Chrysostom's homilies on Romans. As most of you know, Chrysostom is one of the greatest figures in the early church, a Greek version of Augustine in terms of importance. He developed the liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox church, which is used by hundreds of millions around the world. He was one of Calvin's two favorite sources to cite (the other being Augustine).
From a Reformed Protestant perspective, I so far have not seen anything that I would object to in Chrysostom's homilies on Romans. Indeed, his comments seem consistent with Protestant views of justification. For example, concerning Romans 3 he makes a statement that appears to be a summary statement of sola fide: "Here he [Paul] shows God's power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only." Virtually everything in this particular homily seems consistent with Reformation teaching.
Here is the homily: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm
I routinely hear from many (Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox) that sola fide was unknown to the church from the writing of the New Testament until the time of Luther. People rely on this belief for many things. Catholics for the idea that Protestants are simply wrong and Protestants for the idea that the universal belief of Christ's bride on these central matters can be wrong for long periods of time.
Alister McGrath's Iusti Dei: The History of the Doctrine of Justification is often cited as proof of the absence of sola fide until the time of Luther. I have disagreed with McGrath for awhile and have been more persuaded by Thomas Oden's Justification Reader, in which he demonstrated sola fide and related doctrines in early Patristic writings.
Anyone, first-hand review of Chrysostom's writing on Romans seems to support my views.
Any thoughts?
Scott
[Edited on 4-19-2004 by Scott]
[Edited on 4-19-2004 by Scott]
From a Reformed Protestant perspective, I so far have not seen anything that I would object to in Chrysostom's homilies on Romans. Indeed, his comments seem consistent with Protestant views of justification. For example, concerning Romans 3 he makes a statement that appears to be a summary statement of sola fide: "Here he [Paul] shows God's power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only." Virtually everything in this particular homily seems consistent with Reformation teaching.
Here is the homily: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm
I routinely hear from many (Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox) that sola fide was unknown to the church from the writing of the New Testament until the time of Luther. People rely on this belief for many things. Catholics for the idea that Protestants are simply wrong and Protestants for the idea that the universal belief of Christ's bride on these central matters can be wrong for long periods of time.
Alister McGrath's Iusti Dei: The History of the Doctrine of Justification is often cited as proof of the absence of sola fide until the time of Luther. I have disagreed with McGrath for awhile and have been more persuaded by Thomas Oden's Justification Reader, in which he demonstrated sola fide and related doctrines in early Patristic writings.
Anyone, first-hand review of Chrysostom's writing on Romans seems to support my views.
Any thoughts?
Scott
[Edited on 4-19-2004 by Scott]
[Edited on 4-19-2004 by Scott]