Grace: Protestant vs Catholic understanding

[BrianK2007]

Thanks I was trying to remember the authors name, but to lazy to google it.

 

[SyCarl]

oliWHAT do you think you are doing quoting one of my favorite anti-Eternal Security parables?

Anyway, that passage in no way teaches imputation, it is infused grace all the way. The debt was TRULY forgiven such that the debtor became debt-free in the eyes of the king. Through SIN the debt became RE-instated. If it was imputation, there would be no such thing as the king EVER coming back and holding that man guilty of ANYTHING. The individuals OWN account is considered from START to FINISH. Protestants believe that once the Manager’s eyes are off of your own account the Manager never looks to your account again.

So are you saying then that the Catholic view is that if you commit a mortal sin all the previous sin is reinfused into the person again? The parable makes him responsible for the entire original debt again.

No, that is a poetic way of saying forgiven. David wrote other Psalms of forgiveness like the famous Psalm 51 which has explicit references to being washed clean.

But when it comes to justification Paul does not quote this part of Psalm 51, although he does for the purpose of showing all have sinned. And ultimately we will be sin free after death.

 

[teachccd]

Sounds to me like SyCarl is trying really hard to force Protestant theology into the Catholic understanding of Justification and sanctification. Most Protestants see them as one and the same as Catholics and SyCarl do not. I think that a little more understanding of the Catholic perspective and SyCarl will clearly see what he has seen all along.He says that there are four separate parts to salvation and he mentions “working out” your salvation as one of them. Then he says that works merit nothing.

SyCarl, are you on the fence with Catholic theology?? You are so close yet it seems as if you must hang on to Protestant terminlogy in order for you to steer clear of being “Catholic”. Why?? Most Protestants would probably disagree with alot of your explanations as sounding too Catholic. Anyhoot, that’s my two cents…God Bless…teachccd

 

[SyCarl]

The Protestant understanding of “regeneration” is kind of amusing because it IS infused grace…yet for some reason their own account is not considered when it comes to justification.

However regeneration does not make you holy. You still have a sin nature which is why we still sin. If we had truly been made holy then we would no longer sin at all.

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? (Hebrews 10:1-2)

The part in red is not in line with Protestant theology and totally undermines the concept of impuatation. Protestants see Justification as a ONE TIME legal decree in which God NO LONGER considers your own account. To have Him suddenly considering your own account again is dobule jeopardy. To further complicate things, think about how you would “lose faith” in the FIRST PLACE. Certainly it would be linked to a sinful action (eg rape or murder) and rather not waking up one day and decide not to believe anymore.

The one time decree is more a position of the once saved always saved crowd. It is a continuing degree. I don’t know if you have this in the United States but I will use an anology from Canadian law. And it is an anology, not a perfection representation. If you are found guilty of a crime in Canada you can be given a conditional discharge. You remain guilty but are not considered so and are released. If you break the condition you are punished for the original crime. If you done break it you are no longer considered guilty when the period ends. You have no criminal record. Justification is like a conditional discharge with faith as the condition and the duration being this lifetime. One sin will not break it but a continual breaking in such a manner to show lack of faith will.

Think about what you just said, sanctification is where you BECOME holy, yet if you die BEFORE having the chance to become holy…then what? How can you be in heaven if you are unholy? THAT is precisely why Catholics believe being holy and justification are inseparable and that your soul must be made holy for justification in the FIRST place, thus if someone was justified and died suddenly they would go straight to Heaven because they are already holy. Also this is where purgatory comes in as well where even if you are not entirely holy upon death you can be sanctified fully before entering Heaven. Your position leaves no room to be sanctified if someone is justified and dies suddenly.

A poor choice of words. I should have said become holy. It is the process of becoming holy which is not completed in this life. You actually become holy immediately after death.
The concept of suddenly dying and going to Heaven does not fit in with the Catholic doctrine of works meriting more grace and eternal life unless there no actual works are required which would make the doctrine meaningless and effectively mean faith alone.

But your definition of Justification means that the person is NOT ACTUALLY righteous, RATHER they are declared righteous…Thus under your definition in a passage that says “God is justified” that must mean He is not actually righteous, only declared to be!

The definition of justification is not tied to the actual condition of the person or thing justified. Man is justified (declared righteous) even though he is not yet so. God is justified (declared righteous) and actually is. However in both cases the declaration is made.

 

[SyCarl]

Sounds to me like SyCarl is trying really hard to force Protestant theology into the Catholic understanding of Justification and sanctification. Most Protestants see them as one and the same as Catholics and SyCarl do not. I think that a little more understanding of the Catholic perspective and SyCarl will clearly see what he has seen all along.He says that there are four separate parts to salvation and he mentions “working out” your salvation as one of them. Then he says that works merit nothing.

SyCarl, are you on the fence with Catholic theology?? You are so close yet it seems as if you must hang on to Protestant terminlogy in order for you to steer clear of being “Catholic”. Why?? Most Protestants would probably disagree with alot of your explanations as sounding too Catholic. Anyhoot, that’s my two cents…God Bless…teachccd

I am not aware that Protestants consider justification and sanctification to be the same thing. I would refer you to the writings of A.W. Pink a rather rigid Calanistic Baptist.

On regeneration:
pbministries.org/books/pink/Regeneration/regeneration.htm

On justification
pbministries.org/books/pink/Justification/justification.htm

On sanctification
pbministries.org/books/pink/Sanctification/sanctification.htm

On salvation
pbministries.org/books/pink/Four_Fold_Salvation/ffsalvation.htm

 

[teachccd]

I am not aware that Protestants consider justification and sanctification to be the same thing. I would refer you to the writings of A.W. Pink a rather rigid Calanistic Baptist.

On regeneration:
pbministries.org/books/pink/Regeneration/regeneration.htm

On justification
pbministries.org/books/pink/Justification/justification.htm

On sanctification
pbministries.org/books/pink/Sanctification/sanctification.htm

On salvation
pbministries.org/books/pink/Four_Fold_Salvation/ffsalvation.htm

"Second, it differs from sanctification. Sanctification is moral or experimental, justification is legal or judicial. Sanctification results from the operation of the Spirit in me, justification is based upon what Christ has done for me. The one is gradual and progressive, the other is instantaneous and immutable. The one admits of degrees, and is never perfect in this life; the other is complete and admits of no addition. The one concerns my state, the other has to do with my standing before God. Sanctification produces a moral transformation of character, justification is a change of legal status: it is a change from guilt and condemnation to forgiveness and acceptance, and this solely by a gratuitous act of God, founded upon the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, through the instrument of faith alone. Though justification is quite separate from sanctification, yet sanctification ever accompanies it. " A.W.Pink

Please find me a mirroring statement from a pre-reformation authority. Like maybe from someone who acknowledged the Sacred Scritpture that Protestants so carefully quote from…teachccd

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I have to admit to having only read about half the posts, so pardon me if some of my comments don’t quite fit intot he flow of where the thread is at present.

I wonder why we have to have an either/or position with regard to imputed grace and infused grace? Just like with election and free will this is one of those things for which one can find scripture supporting more than one point of view. Those who have to have absolutists views will forever be in disagreements with those from the opposite absolutist view, but I am not sure that we are to be absolutists with regard to grace, except to say that one must absolutely depend on God’s grace rather than our own merit to enable one’s closest walk with God. And even here both grace and works are part of actually living the Christian life in community.

My debt is paid, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.
How this done, is by God grace, for the debt I owed he took my place.
Infuse, imputed, we can debate, finding the answer won’t change the slate.
It takes Christ’s blood to set me free and make me fit for eternity.

 

[teachccd]

Those who have to have absolutists views will forever be in disagreements with those from the opposite absolutist view, but I am not sure that we are to be absolutists with regard to grace, except to say that one must absolutely depend on God’s grace rather than our own merit to enable one’s closest walk with God. And even here both grace and works are part of actually living the Christian life in community.

Yea, I don’t think that Jesus would want to facilitiate this thread because His love is infinite and we are boxing it up.

I do differ, however, when it is stated that our works do not merit anything. James would agree with me in the second chapter of his letter. Works represent our cooperation with God in our spiritual life and do result in a fullness of faith. Only God creates human beings but our “works” in cooperation with His infinite goodness render us a new life. If a husband and wife refuse to participate in the “work” required for new life, God will not just allow a baby to appear in that couple’s house. So just as our cooperation is necessary for our physical life so must our cooperation be required for our spiritual life.

EVERYTHING that we do initiates from the undeserved kindeness of God that we recognize as grace. From that grace we find the faith that is necessary to emulate the Christ whom we worship. So, just as the consequence of our work on earth is a new baby created by the grace of God so it is then that the consequence of our work on earth is eternal life given to us only by the grace of God…God Bless…teachccd

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

You dont understand the distinction between infused and imputed grace, the first chapter:

I do understand the difference between imputation, and infusion; you don’t, and you have misrepresented the WCF, and the reformed position. I’ll get to that later.

You quote from chapter 11 in the WCF, which is on JUSTIFICATION. GRACE, is discussed in chapter 18 of the WCF.

You asked for comments, here are some comments.

You state:

Lets pretend God is an accountant and He is Managing a bank. Man is a member of that bank, but due to some poor decisions on their ancestors’ part, each man inherits a personal account that is in astronomical debt.

I would comment that man not only inherits debt, but he incurs it as well.
Catholic Dude:

Then one day a Billionaire named Jesus comes to town and out of the kindness of His heart is willing to settle any debts, as long as the person asks politely.

I realize you are just ”pretending;” nevertheless, you should pretend accurately.

The billionaire did not just come into town, but did so in unity with the bank manager; in fact, it is the bank manager who sent the billionaire, and he did so with the purpose that the billionaire would forgive debt.
Catholic Dude:

Now, here is how a Protestant would describe getting out of debt (Justification) according to the above example.

I sense a straw man coming.
Catholic Dude:

The Billionaire would have the Manager consider the Billionaire’s account instead of the debtor’s account (Imputed Grace), and on that basis consider the debtor “debt free” (though his own account is still in debt).

The straw man has arrived.

You describe the character of imputed righteousness, and more importantly, misrepresent
the reformed position on it, as the debtor being, ”considered debt free, though he is
still in debt.”

That is a Strawman.

The character of imputed righteousness, is not, as you state, a consideration of one account over another, rendering the debtors “non-indebtedness” “a non, non-indebtedness;” ** that is not the reformed position;** rather, the reformed position is that “the debt is cancelled, forever.”

So you have misrepresented the WCF position, which states, clearly:Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt…

Your description of how a protestant would get out of debt, is not how this protestant ”would describe getting out of debt [imputed righteousness]”

Your parenthetical caveat is nothing more than a “baseless opinion”—it is not the reformed position.

What you are doing, Dude, is arguing against a position that I do not hold, as though I do hold that position.

What do call it when someone argues in that manner?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I do differ, however, when it is stated that our works do not merit anything. James would agree with me in the second chapter of his letter. Works represent our cooperation with God in our spiritual life…

Now re-read again what I actually said about works. And where did I state that our works do not merit anything?

I said, “we cannot depend on our own merit to enable one’s closest walk with God.” Do you think you can? Do you think that on your own merit, with including the grace of God, that you can have the closest walk possible with God?

I thought you were of the opinion that “Works represent our cooperation with God” and that “everything that we do initiates FROM the undeserved kindeness of God that we recognize as grace”? How does this differ from what I said, that “BOTH grace AND works are part of actually living the Christian life”?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So are you saying then that the Catholic view is that if you commit a mortal sin all the previous sin is reinfused into the person again? The parable makes him responsible for the entire original debt again.

When you commit a mortal sin, sanctifying grace is lost and your soul dies spiritually. It would be as if you put your bank account back into debt. This is very different than the protestant view where the person would have been in debt the whole time, and only after justification would God’s “view” be shifted off of your account.

But when it comes to justification Paul does not quote this part of Psalm 51, although he does for the purpose of showing all have sinned. And ultimately we will be sin free after death.

He doesnt have to quote that part of the Psalm because his understanding was never that of a literal “covering” of sin in the protestant sense.

However regeneration does not make you holy. You still have a sin nature which is why we still sin. If we had truly been made holy then we would no longer sin at all.

As long as we are alive we still suffer from the effects of the fall (ie subject to pain, suffering, death, and the urge to sin), however these effects are not sin in themselves. You can be holy in this life, even when bombarded by temptations. It is only when you give into temptations that you actually decrease in holiness.

The picture you paint makes it impossible for you to be holy in this life…yet that means you cant be holy when you die…but then when is there time to complete your sanctification? Catholics say purgatory, what about you?

The one time decree is more a position of the once saved always saved crowd. It is a continuing degree. I don’t know if you have this in the United States but I will use an anology from Canadian law. And it is an anology, not a perfection representation. If you are found guilty of a crime in Canada you can be given a conditional discharge. You remain guilty but are not considered so and are released. If you break the condition you are punished for the original crime. If you done break it you are no longer considered guilty when the period ends. You have no criminal record. Justification is like a conditional discharge with faith as the condition and the duration being this lifetime. One sin will not break it but a continual breaking in such a manner to show lack of faith will.

You cant “remain guilty, but not be considered so” unless the judge is corrupt. In your example you are guilty until the time of your period ends, then and only then are you not truly guilty because the charge is dropped for good.

As for you last half, you are still facing the problem of dying still guilty, yet somehow you can enter Heaven (which requires inner holiness, see Heb 12:14ff ).

(cont…)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

A poor choice of words. I should have said become holy. It is the process of becoming holy which is not completed in this life. You actually become holy immediately after death.

If it is not completed in this life, and you dont believe in purgatory, then when is it completed?
As for becoming holy “immediately after death”, what does this mean, and what degree of holiness takes place after death?

The concept of suddenly dying and going to Heaven does not fit in with the Catholic doctrine of works meriting more grace and eternal life unless there no actual works are required which would make the doctrine meaningless and effectively mean faith alone.

Here is where you are wrong. Through good works we GROW in holiness and love, similar to how you can grow in knowledge the more you read, your capacity to love has increased and this corresponds to enjoying Heaven to a greater degree. This doesnt determine if you go to Heaven, what determines if you go to Heaven is if you leave this life as an adopted child of God through the sanctifying grace in your soul. This sanctifying grace can only be lost through grave sin (but can be restored through a proper form repentance, eg the Sacrament of Penance). Thus someone who dies shortly after conversion would go directly to Heaven.

The definition of justification is not tied to the actual condition of the person or thing justified. Man is justified (declared righteous) even though he is not yet [if ever?] so. God is justified (declared righteous) and actually is. However in both cases the declaration is made.

Lets say Justification is only a declaration of righteousness. This doesnt hurt the Catholic position because there is still the preceding sanctification that takes place (eg 1 Cor 6:11). But that is not really the issue, the issue is the parts in red above, lets recall the context in which each side sees the justification:
Protestant:Man is declared righteous despite the fact he isnt in reality.
Catholic:Man is only declared righteous if he is in reality.

Clearly your definition cannot fit because justification in your theology means the person is declared righteous in spite of the fact he isnt. That is in effect a lie on God’s behalf to slap a name tag on you that says “righteous” knowing full well you are not.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have to admit to having only read about half the posts, so pardon me if some of my comments don’t quite fit intot he flow of where the thread is at present.

I wonder why we have to have an either/or position with regard to imputed grace and infused grace? Just like with election and free will this is one of those things for which one can find scripture supporting more than one point of view. Those who have to have absolutists views will forever be in disagreements with those from the opposite absolutist view, but I am not sure that we are to be absolutists with regard to grace, except to say that one must absolutely depend on God’s grace rather than our own merit to enable one’s closest walk with God. And even here both grace and works are part of actually living the Christian life in community.

My debt is paid, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.
How this done, is by God grace, for the debt I owed he took my place.
Infuse, imputed, we can debate, finding the answer won’t change the slate.
It takes Christ’s blood to set me free and make me fit for eternity.

It is an either/or situation because the two concepts are mutually exclusive. In one situation God is considering the person righteous based on their own account (Catholic) on the other the person is considered righteous because God doesnt consider their own account (Protestant).

 

[Mike_Brick]

We are not expected to be able to **fully understand **because we cannot fully understand God. I think that we are deceiving ourselves if we think we can fully understand things.

And that is where FAITH, which is the belief in what we cannot fully understand comes in. We won’t get credit for knowledge, only FAITH, and how we live out that FAITH.

I think that we try to understand too much and explain everything. Because of our pride we want to understand everything and we feel we should be able to. When we cannot, we speculate and that causes the divisions in Christianity.

I am reminded of when Jesus scolded the Pharisees and told them they strain out the gnat, but choke on the camel. We all do that too often.

Well said brother!
Peace To Us All

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I realize you are just ”pretending;” nevertheless, you should pretend accurately.

… …

What is the big deal? This added bit of info doesnt ultimately conflict with what I wrote.

The straw man has arrived.

You describe the character of imputed righteousness, and more importantly, misrepresent the reformed position on it, as the debtor being, ”considered debt free, though he is
still in debt.”

This is in fact the EXACT view of how classical protestantism sees justification. They are declared righteous and yet still in debt. Luther’s famous phrase comes to mind “simul iustus et peccator”…“at the same time justified and sinful”…I didnt make this up, just google it. Protestantism rejects the idea that justification is made based on your actual account, hence the need for imputation.

The character of imputed righteousness, is not, as you state, a consideration of one account over another, rendering the debtors “non-indebtedness” “a non, non-indebtedness;” ** that is not the reformed position;** rather, the reformed position is that “the debt is cancelled, forever.”

If the debt is canceled forever in the literal sense, that means you are truly out of debt, it is as if Christ’s funds were put directly into your account making you truly debt free in the Managers eyes. Yet what does the WCF say at the very start “NOT by infusing righteousness”. To you the debt is canceled in the sense it will never be held against you, that is where the forensic aspect comes in. In a one time legal decree your own account is not considered but rather the account of Christ, you can never be brought to trial considering your own account ever again, only in that sense is it canceled.

(cont…)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

So you have misrepresented the WCF position, which states, clearly:Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt…Your description of how a protestant would get out of debt, is not how this protestant ”would describe getting out of debt [imputed righteousness]”

Your parenthetical caveat is nothing more than a “baseless opinion”—it is not the reformed position.

So far you have said nothing. When it says “discharge the debt” that means the Manager considered the account of Christ (WCF: His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead) and from there never held you accountable for your debt again.

What you are doing, Dude, is arguing against a position that I do not hold, as though I do hold that position.

What do call it when someone argues in that manner?

You have said nothing, you have proven nothing. It is you who is grasping at straws trying to accuse me of setting up a straw man.

The logic is simple, in Catholicism Jesus makes the person truly debt free (infuses their OWN account with funds) and on that basis they are justified. In Protestantism your OWN account is not made debt free, rather Christ’s account is considered INSTEAD of yours and on that basis you are justified. I just tracked down this quote from Calvin’s Institutes:… … On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.
(Inst. Bk 3, Ch 11, par 2)
This is EXACTLY what I have been saying. Just swap the term “righteous of Christ” with “debt free bank account of Christ”, “righteous” with “debt free” and “sinner” with “debtor”. The above passage is saying when God looks at your account He actually see Christ’s instead and on this basis considers you debt free. He accepts you “AS IF you were debt free”.

Such a view is repulsive to the Catholic mind (for obvious reasons), it should repulse you as well.

 

[teachccd]

Now re-read again what I actually said about works. And where did I state that our works do not merit anything?

I said, “we cannot depend on our own merit to enable one’s closest walk with God.” Do you think you can? Do you think that on your own merit, with including the grace of God, that you can have the closest walk possible with God?

I thought you were of the opinion that “Works represent our cooperation with God” and that “everything that we do initiates FROM the undeserved kindeness of God that we recognize as grace”? How does this differ from what I said, that “BOTH grace AND works are part of actually living the Christian life”?

And both grace AND works are necessary for salvation unless part of what is necessary in living a Christian life has no soteriological relevance…and if that’s the case, why bother?? Jesus said, " They will know that you are my disciples by your love." Without our actions (love) one cannot be a disciple of Jesus which with common sense only means no salvation.

Sounds as if you are still trying your hardest to put a Protestant twist on Catholic teachings. Maybe, unlike the other posters here, I find this quite unusual and interesting. But then isn’t that what Martin Luther did?? I’m not so sure about A.W. Pink though. I’m still waiting for SyCarl’s pre-reformation references that mirror his writings. Maybe it’s taking him a little more time to find that for me. That’s o.k. I have the time…God Bless…teachccd

 

[mark_a]

Sanctification is complete after death with the fourth element, glorification, where we truly become holy.

I’ve often asked about this view in discussions with Protestants about purgatory, but have not gotten an answer.

Is it a Protestant view that glorification is accomplished by dying?

 

[sandusky]

This is in fact the EXACT view of how classical protestantism sees justification. They are declared righteous and yet still in debt.

Not so fast.

That is exactly how YOU see it, but you are wrong.

As I said in my first post to you, you need to change your “pretend” story, because it is a misrepresentation.

Here’s why: DEBT, in your “pretend” story = SIN

From the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 11, paragraph III:**Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf.**Notice, ”Christ did fully discharge the debt [SIN] of all those that are justified.”

The imputation of the penalty for sin is wiped clean; it is forgiven (non-imputation; cf 2 Cor 5:19):**Romans 4:7-8

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered. “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”

Psalm 103:12

As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us.

Colossians 1:14

in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Colossians 2:13-14

When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, HAVING FORGIVEN US ALL our transgressions, HAVING CANCELED OUT THE CERTIFICATE OF DEBT consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.**Let’s recap.

The position of the WCF, and the position of reformed theology, is that, the DEBT of sin is completely forgiven, and finally canceled.

In your last post, you introduced this statement from Calvin:

… On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

That is another ingredient—imputation of righteousness; this is another one of your beefs, along with the non-imputation, or forgiveness of debt/sin; correct?**Galatians 3:27

”For all of you who were baptized into Christ * have clothed yourselves with Christ ***.Now, you are on the right track to continue your polemic; however, your real beef is with Paul, (and…you know who).

Again, the reformed position is that the **DEBT OF SIN is canceled, completely forgiven, gone, wiped out, forgotten **(cf verses cited above).
Catholic Dude:

Luther’s famous phrase comes to mind “simul iustus et peccator”…"at the same time justified and sinful"…

Actually, it’s At the same time justified and SINNER. But hey, I think accuracy is
over-rated.

Such a view is repulsive to the Catholic mind (for obvious reasons), it should repulse you as well.

Sorry, but it’s not obvious to me; why are you repulsed by this view?

 

[SyCarl]

And both grace AND works are necessary for salvation unless part of what is necessary in living a Christian life has no soteriological relevance…and if that’s the case, why bother??

Why bother? Because we love God and want to please him? Do we have to be rewarded for everything?

I’m not so sure about A.W. Pink though. I’m still waiting for SyCarl’s pre-reformation references that mirror his writings. Maybe it’s taking him a little more time to find that for me. That’s o.k. I have the time…God Bless…teachccd

I am looking. Don’t know that there are any on imputed righteousness or infused righteousness for that matter. There are quite a few referring to faith alone though. I gave A.W. Pink as an example of a Calvinist explanation, although I do find some of what he wrote interesting. I don’t agree with everything he says anymore than I agree with everything I have read by Catholic authors. For example I am a paedobaptist unlike Pink who was Baptist. I guess I would be closer to Arminianism than Calvinism.