The same John Chrysostom who also said:
Let us, then, put all these considerations into practice by our deeds. If we do not perform them rightly, to no purpose and in vain have we come into the world, or, rather, we have come for the sake of evil. Faith is not enough to bring us into the kingdom; on the contrary, even because of it, those who live bad lives can be most severely condemned. For, ‘He who knows the will of his master and does not fulfill it, will be beaten with many stripes.’ And again He says: ‘If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin.’12 What defense shall we have, then, we who are within the royal palace and who have been deemed worthy to penetrate into the Holy of Holies, and who have been made sharers in the mysteries that free us from sin, if we become worse than the pagans who have had no share at all in these privileges?
John Chrysostom, Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist: Homilies 48–88, trans. Thomas Aquinas Goggin, vol. 41, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1959), 424–425.
I have also just recently read his letters (the last writings of St John Chrysostom that I know of) which contains the advice he gave to Saint Olympias and the language he uses, the advice he gives is not one that a modern Protestant might approve of. He seems of the opinion generally that it is within our power to sort out our meloncholy and depression and he only ever rarely speaks of grace in those letters.
Quoting a Father who did not think in the categories or terms of latter theologians doesn't prove they held to the latter doctrine. I still think I am quite justified to pointing to Luther's definition as the first Protestant definition of Sola Fide and the insistence on it. The earliest fathers do speak of faith and at times even to the exclusion of works from it, but then they will insist on works at the same time. One example from the Philokalia (called Those who think they are made righteous by works) speaks thus on the question:
2. Wishing to show that to fulfill every commandment is a duty, whereas sonship is a gift given to men through his own Blood, the Lord said: 'When you have done all that is commanded you, say: "we are useless servants; we have only done what was our duty"'. Thus the kingdom of heaven is not a reward for works, but a gift of grace prepared by the Master for his faithful servants.
Sounds very Protestant eh? Continuing...
18. Some without fulfilling the commandments think that they possess true faith. Others fulfil commandments and then expect the Kingdom as a reward due to them. Both are mistaken.
19. A master is under no obligation to reward his slaves: on the other hand, those who do not serve him well are not given their freedom.
43. If we are under an obligation to perform daily all the good actions of which our nature is capable, what do we have left over to give God in repayment for our past sins?
I see this sort of apparent contradiction all throughout the Fathers. The speak of grace but also of the necessity of doing good.
I would still ask my question, is Luther's definition necessary for the Christian?
