This post will answer the question, “Did St. John Chrysostom believe in justification by faith alone?”  As in the previous post answering the same question of St. Ambrose, the answer will be in the negative. Before reading either this or that previous post, the reader should be familiar with the points I made in this post: How Are We Saved.  

To summarize the relevant points made in the previous two posts:

1. When I say “sola fide’” or “faith alone” I mean most specifically as it was condemned by the Council of Trent.
2. It is possible to say that we are saved “by faith alone” in a way that is not contrary to the condemnations of the Council of Trent, but the Reformers did not use it in this way.
3. St. Ambrose operated within a sacramental framework that included things that the Reformers viewed as incompatible with sola fide. He was therefore a hypocrite or he did not mean faith alone in the way mentioned above (#1).
4. Aside from the one time St. Ambrose used the phrase “faith alone,” he wrote many other things that illustrate that he meant “faith alone” in the “Catholic” way, compatible with the Council of Trent.

With St. John Chrysostom, as well as every other Catholic saint, points numbers 3 and 4 are equally as applicable. ¹ So why am I bothering to write this separate blog post if it is redundant? There are two reasons: 1. This recent post at First Things listed St. John Chrysostom along with St. Ambrose as appearing to be closer to the ‘sola fide’ of the Reformers than to Rome. 2. St. John Chrysostom, unlike any other father that I know of, does use the phrase several times.  So let’s turn to an examination of his writings.

St. John Chrysostom is venerated among St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Athanasius as one of the four Church fathers supporting the cathedra (throne) of St. Peter at the basilica in Rome. Did this Church who canonized him as a Doctor of the Church, and who until this day celebrates his divine liturgy,² later change her mind and anathematize his teachings at the Council of Trent?  That seems unlikely prima facie, but let’s investigate. 

For this post I will change the format from the previous post to avoid redundancy and extrapolate additional argumentative points.  As I said, the arguments of the previous two posts, taken together, would suffice to show that St. John Chrysostom did not believe in sola fide as condemned by Trent if he wrote and believed similar things as his contemporary St. Ambrose, which he did. For example, in the previous post I pointed out that St. Ambrose interpreted the parable of the talents soteriologically and I explained the significance of this relating to sola fide.  St. John Chrysostom has the same interpretation of that parable, concluding “I mean about diligence in almsgiving, and about helping our neighbor by all means which we are able to use, since it is not possible to be saved in another way.” ³ What I will do below is examine some of the most relevant canons of the Sixth Council of Trent and compare them to the writings of St. John Chrysostom.

St. John Chrysostom and the Council of Trent on Justification

Salvation by faith apart from works is an important doctrinal emphasis for St. Chrysostom in a way that stands out among other fathers.  Of course, he is merely following the lead of St. Paul in the New Testament, but you could produce more quotations in support of “faith alone” from St. John Chrysostom than from St. Paul.  As bible students will know, St. Paul never actually used that phrase but St. John Chrysostom does, and he does so several times. There are other places where, although he doesn’t use the exact phrase, he clearly refers to the same principle.  The fundamental emphasis in both Sts. Paul and John Chrysostom, is that salvation is a free gift of God, not merited by man’s righteousness. This general principle is fully compatible with the Council of Trent:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. ⁴ 

Contrary to the implication of certain lists of Church father quotes circulating on the internet, St. John Chrysostom uses the phrase “faith alone” to deny its sufficiency at least as often as he uses it to affirm. These passages using the term “faith alone” can be divided up into two categories: 1. Those that avail themselves to be interpreted in either the Catholic or Protestant way and 2. Those that avail themselves only to the Catholic interpretation. The second type are at least as numerous or perhaps more numerous than the first type. Below are two of the strongest quotes of the first type:

That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor.⁵

And:

“By grace you have been saved,” says he, “through faith”;  Then, that, on the other hand, our free-will be not impaired, he adds also our part in the work, and yet again cancels it, and adds, “And that not of ourselves.”⁶

The reader can visit this blog post “John Chrysostom on Justification by Faith” to see a list compiled by a Protestant scholar attempting to show St. John’s coherence in thought with the Protestant doctrine. Note that all the quotes that this author lists in his compilation are of the first type mentioned above (they can be interpreted either according to the Protestant way or the Catholic way) but not all of them use the term “faith alone” (it appears in 5 of the 11 quotations). However, the author did not include any of the second type of quotation (those that can only be interpreted in the Catholic way) that we will examine below. If one wanted to truly understand the thought of a Church father on a particular subject, it would be prudent to look both at passages that appeared to confirm a certain position and those that appeared to deny it.  Thus, here we are examining both types.⁷ Let’s look at the most relevant canon from Trent:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.⁸

The two passages of St. John Chrysostom that I quoted, along with those listed in the link provided, can be categorized as the first type of quotation mentioned above. Thus, it is possible to interpret these passages according to the Protestant way such that he would be guilty of anathema per that canon IX, had he been alive. We cannot ask him directly what he meant by “faith alone,” and whether he meant it “in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required,” but we can look to his other writings for evidence of the way in which he meant it. While I believe I have offered a fairly thorough list of the first type of quotation (potentially Protestant or Catholic), below I will offer a sample, not a complete list, of the second type (exclusively Catholic).

That you may not then, when you hear that He has chosen us, imagine that faith alone is sufficient, he proceeds to add life and conduct. To this end, says he, has He chosen us, and on this condition, that we should be holy and without blemish.⁹

Here he explicitly denies that faith alone is sufficient for salvation.  Thus, he is either a confused and self-contradicting writer, or the first type of quotations ought to be interpreted in the Catholic way.  Again he comments on the Gospel of John:

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. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, This by itself is eternal life, nor, He that does but believe in the Son has eternal life, but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing does contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment.¹⁰

From these two quotations, it is clear that St. John Chrysostom did not believe in the kind of justification by faith alone that was condemned at Trent. Let’s look at another aspect of the distinct Catholic position on justification:

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema. 

So would St. John Chrysostom fall on the Protestant side of this anathema or would he affirm the Catholic position? While commenting on the gospel of Matthew, he explains that Christ exhorts even believers that wicked actions will be judged precisely in order that they not put confidence in their faith alone. 

Then in order that not even these should put confidence in their faith alone, He discourses unto them also concerning the judgment to be passed upon wicked actions;¹¹

As mentioned already, St. John Chrysostom, like his contemporary St. Ambrose, is an eminent bishop in the early Catholic Church which is thoroughly sacramental in her soteriology.  Some aspects of that sacramentalism could be interpreted as compatible with certain Protestant versions of sola fide, but others cannot. For example, Martin Luther, while recommending Confession as a laudable practice, also says, “We have always urged that Confession should be voluntary and that the pope’s tyranny should cease.”¹² It was Martin Luther’s “theological novum”¹³ of sola fide that gave him the ability to consider confession to a priest as an optional, if laudable, practice.  But this is in tension with St. John Chrysostom’s quotation above. Further, the historical reality of the time in which he writes is that the sacrament of Penance (Confession) was always understood by the Catholic Church to be strictly necessary for the forgiveness of post-baptismal mortal sins. The only controversies about the sacramental forgiveness of sins were not concerning whether it was necessary for salvation but whether it was even possible. ¹⁴ But again, even if we are ignorant of history we can look to his own writings.

St. John Chrysostom confirms that the priest offers forgiveness of sins owing to authority that has been granted him by Christ writing, “What priests do here below God ratifies above,”¹⁵ and again “For not only at the time of regeneration, but afterwards also, they have authority to forgive sins.”¹⁶ But according to most versions of sola fide, the man who believes in Christ and yet sins after baptism is not actually in danger of condemnation. If that were the case, then the sacrament of Confession wouldn’t strictly be necessary. Well what does St. Chrysostom believe about it?

There is safety for you too who are strong, and this consists in making your hopes of salvation depend, next to the grace of God, on avoiding every act unworthy of this gift, and of God who gave it.¹⁷

Again he confirms his sacramental soteriology and the necessity of the priesthood: 

For transparent madness it is to despise so great a dignity, without which it is not possible to obtain either our own salvation, or the good things which have been promised to us. For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? ¹⁸

Here he confirms the necessity of baptism and the Eucharist for salvation.  Some Protestants might also affirm as much, but for example the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that while the worthy recipient receives the merit of Christ in these sacraments, he does so only by an inward act of faith. ¹⁹ It is hard to imagine that St. John Chrysostom would agree with such a proposition as in this quote above, he does not say that faith alone saves and that the sacraments are coincidental signs of that faith.  He says rather that baptism and the Eucharist save or more specifically that they are necessary for salvation. Again, there is a way to interpret him as affirming the nominal and representational model of sacramentalism affirmed by the Reformed, but the point is that his writing is perfectly in line with, and more plainly interpreted according to Catholic soteriology.  Further, St. Chrysostom also teaches that sufferings are meritorious towards salvation:

“We who have not undergone any of their innumerable sufferings small or great, neglect our own salvation on account of a scorching sun and a little short lived heat and toil…”²⁰

Here he is teaching that if you are not suffering for Christ as some are, you need to be laboring. He scolds those who neglect this labor due to lack of fortitude because they are neglecting their “own salvation.” And:

Again, they who were not chastened are in no way unjustly treated; for it was possible for them, had they wished, to have used the longsuffering of God, to accomplish a most excellent change, and wondering at his tolerance, to have become ashamed at his exceeding forbearance, and one day to have gone over to virtue, and to have gained their own salvation by the punishment of others.²¹

On punishment of sins, the Council of Trent says:

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema. 

The doctrine of sola fide is in conflict with this canon. But St. John Chrysostom’s writings are not. Commenting on 1 Timothy 5:22 and the rash laying on of hands (which Catholics hold as the Sacrament of Confirmation) he writes:

And he [St. Paul] explained the grievous danger of such a transgression [laying on of hands too quickly], by showing that so men will undergo the punishment of the sins perpetrated by others.²²

And again commenting on 1 Corinthians 3:12 he writes: 

For do not at sound of the word fire imagine that those who are burning pass into annihilation. And though he [St. Paul] call such punishment salvation, be not astonished.²³ 

These two passages clearly illustrate that St. John Chrysostom held the same orthodox position that his contemporaries and forefathers did: post baptismal sins require punishment. ²⁴

Now some of these passages could be written off by appealing to the Reformed distinction between justification and sanctification.  As I mentioned in my earlier post, that is not a good solution because this category of distinction did not exist in the early Church writings.  This is something that the Reformers began to teach in the sixteenth century. Thus, it would be anachronistic to read that distinction back into any of these passages. Moreover, one who is well read in the fathers will conclude, along with virtually every Church historian of note,²⁵ that the teachings of the early Church fathers were not in-line with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide.  Neither can St. John Chrysostom possibly be referring to works of charity, et al, as mere evidence of salvation.  In this final quotation before I conclude, he writes (again in the context of the parable of the talents):

For I am not myself able to believe that it is possible for one who has not labored for the salvation of his fellow to be saved.²⁶ 

The explanation of why this labor cannot possibly refer to mere evidence of salvation was given in the previous post where I examine St. Ambrose making the same point (because this point is made in the context of the parable of the talents).  

Conclusion

In this three part mini series I did three things: 1. Explained how and why the Scriptures, Church fathers, and Catholics today give various explanations for justification 2. I showed that St. Ambrose did not believe sola fide and 3. That St. John Chrysostom also did not believe sola fide.  The methods and explanations used here would apply to every other Church father as well but I do not intend to go through each Church father on the small list of those who appear (to the unlearned) to support the doctrine of sola fide.  I wil leave that task to the skeptic and hope that the reader has been convinced that a serious inquiry into the true teachings of the early Church fathers requires more than copy and pasting a list of quotations that one finds on the internet.

The doctrine of sola fide, again, may still be correct in spite of everything I’ve said, and some version of salvation “by faith alone” certainly is. But one who maintains sola fide, as professed by the Reformers and condemned by the Council of Trent, has no claim whatsoever to a continuity with the teachings of the early Christians. On the other hand, the Catholic Church, including the Council of Trent, certainly does. The affirmation of sola fide, especially as the sine qua non of the gospel, is the simultaneous affirmation of the irrational proposition that the apostles failed to pass this vital teaching on to their successors at all and that it was only rediscovered by Martin Luther 1,500 years later.

1. See this post “Salvation from the Perspective of the Early Church Fathers” for more examples from the Church fathers. Also see “St. Irenaeus on Justification” [↩]
2. The divine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, along with the liturgy of St. Basil, is celebrated by the Eastern Catholic Churches as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches throughout the world. [↩]
3. Homily on Matthew 78 ; see also this quotation regarding the same parable: “And the case of the man who buried the talent proves this: he was not reproached at least on account of his own life: for as regarded the deposit itself he did not turn out a bad man, since he restored it intact: nevertheless he did turn out a bad man as regarded his management of the deposit. For he did not double that which was entrusted to him; and so was punished. Whence it is manifest that even if we are earnest and well trained, and have much zeal about hearing the holy scriptures this does not suffice for our salvation. For the deposit must be doubled, and it becomes doubled when together with our own salvation we undertake to make some provision for the good of others.” – Homily on “If your enemy hunger, feed him” [↩]
4. All quotations from the Council of Trent in this post can be found under the Sixth Session [↩]
5. Homily 4 on 1 Timothy [↩]
6. Homily 4 on Ephesians [↩]
7. From this point on, I will examine only type 2 quotations. But I had already listed what I think are the two strongest examples of type 1 and linked to a compilation by a Protestant scholar listing what he presumably believes to be the 11 strongest examples of type 1 quotations. I have already given argumentation explaining why none of those types of passages must necessarily be interpreted in the Protestant way but rather avail themselves to either. This argumentation was given primarily in the post, How Are We Saved? [↩]
8. See the post “Trent and the Gospel” by Bryan Cross for an example of the continued Reformed denial of this and other canons. In the post, Cross proves that the Reformers have not yet shown the canons in question to be in conflict with the relevant Scripture passages. [↩]
9. Homily 1 on Ephesians [↩]
10. Homily 31 on John [↩]
11. Homily 69 on Matthew [↩]
12. See here https://bookofconcord.org/exhortationConfession.php Martin Luther, Book of Concord Concordia Edition [↩]
13. See McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 34,215 for a detailed explanation that Martin Luther’s theory of justification was both new and contrary to the justification believed by the early Church fathers. [↩]
14. cf. the Tertullian controversy, the Novatian schism, and the controversies St. Cyprian of Carthage dealt with after the Decian persecution. See also St. Ambrose, his contemporary, “On Repentance” where he deals with the so-called “rigorists” on this very issue. [↩]
15. On the Priesthood 3.5 [↩]
16. Ibid. 3.6 [↩]
17. Ibid. 4.1 [↩]
18. Ibid. 3.5 [↩]
19. Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 28 & 29 [↩]
20. Homily on “If your enemy hunger, feed him” [↩]
21. – Homily 1 on The Devil 7 – [↩]
22. Homily 1 On the Statutes [↩]
23. Homily 9 on First Corinthians [↩]
24. See St. Ambrose “On Repentance” for a contemporary example. [↩]
25. See especially McGrath, Allister Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) wherein this eminent Protestant scholar characterizes the early Church doctrine as “a ‘works-righteousness’ approach to justification.” Also see the excellent article by David Anders “Tradition I and Sola Fide” ; another general recommendation would be the various works of eminent patristic scholar and former Lutheran Jaroslav Pelikan. [↩]
26. On the Priesthood 6.10 [↩]