Imputation vs. Infusion of Grace

[Daedelus76]

The other issue is purgatory. If God disciplines and cleanses His children, that means He sees the sins we commit as Christians. Though this is obvious to me from reading the Scriptures, I don’t understand why I end up arguing with some Christians about it. They insist that He sees us through Christ, meaning He ignores our sin. I can’t stand this teaching, and yet it is so prevalent that many are blind to what Scripture clearly teaches.

Obviously God sees all sins we do, and in reality God doesn’t see us as “Jesus Christ”. That stuff is a distortion of the Reformers penal/governmental satisfaction beliefs, probably due to Pietism/Revivalism. It’s important to remember all language about God is analogical, too.

Actually, I’m not a Catholic yet, but purgatory was something I considered believing in before I even considered becoming a Catholic.

There is some openness to this in Anglicanism and Methodism/Wesleyanism, though perhaps the beliefs are usually closer to the Orthodox than the Catholics.

When you ask the question, well what if someone sins their whole life, they answer that if the person had faith they go to heaven because that’s guaranteed (once saved, always saved), God does not see their sin anymore, but sin disabled their ability to do good works, so they won’t receive any rewards.

Ultimately doing what is right or virtuous is its own reward, and doing evil its own punishment, but we don’t see that because of the noetic consequences of sin, that’s what I believe.

claim that a person can choose not to invest God’s grace after receiving salvation through faith and still enter heaven. What about Matthew 25. Sounds like God cares about what we DO with faith and grace to me.

“Once saved always saved” or “perserverence of the saints” is not Biblical or in keeping with the consensus of Christian theology outside of Calvin and Augustine.

 

[tsering]

Okay, back to imputation vs. infusion of grace. I’m not a theologian, just a missionary. I tend to talk to people on a personal level to understand how they interpret the doctrines of their denominations in their own words. So I will represent some ideas that I’ve heard through the years - this is not official doctrine, but people’s interpretation of what they’ve been taught.

Calvinistic Circles: God has chosen you before the foundation of the world to come to Christ, Christ’s sacrifice was limited to those chosen for salvation, Grace is irresistible and draws you into a faith relationship with God through Christ, you have an assurance of salvation because you will persevere to the end, if you’re not persevering or going through sanctification, then you should question whether you were really saved in the first place. This does not mean you are free from sin, but that you will come to God’s sacraments and grow in holiness. My wife grew up in the Reformed Presbyterian Church (hard core 5 point Calvinists) - she explains to me that she was taught that Christ stands between us and God’s wrath as a shield, if we are in Christ (which is something we cannot help because it is totally dependent on God’s predestination), He doesn’t see our sins anymore - we are hidden in Christ. So yes, to a Calvinist, God does inject grace and holiness into the believer for sactification, but this injection in no way has to do with anything man does or participates with, it is completely based on Christ’s sacrifice which was limited to those predestined (elect). Man’s ability to participate in sanctification is not his own at all, but predetermined and completely based on God’s will to make it happen. Christ didn’t die to free our wills per say, he died to free us from slavery to sin, to make us slaves to righteousness. There is no freedom of will.

I think Augustine struggled with this idea, but came to a different conclusion when he realized that not all who are predestined to receive grace, are destined to go to heaven. This was an understanding that Romans 9-11 was not talking about assurance of heaven, but was instead talking about those coming to grace in the institutions that God set up, either being a part of the nation Israel or a part of the Church. For example, Pharaoh’s heart was hardened and he is called a vessel of wrath right? But how was wrath in the Biblical context poured out on him? There is no where in the OT or NT that talks of him being judged to an eternal Hell. God is only showed pouring out His wrath on him in a temporal sense, namely to free Israel. Even the “elect” Israel didn’t make it to the promised land because of disobedience…Moses didn’t make it! He was punished for his disobedience, but that doesn’t mean he was secured to go to Hell…in fact we know he’s alive in heaven (think of the transfiguration).

When I read Rom 9-11 I see no heaven or hell, only coming to grace (grafting in) and even the possibility of falling away (if we do not continue in grace) as Paul warns about in ch. 11. This may come from the idea that coming to saving grace means an automatic ticket to heaven (salvation = heaven, instead of salvation = freedom to persevere in Christ which if done properly leads to heaven). Or maybe it goes back to Scripture Alone which demands that Scripture interpret Scripture…sometimes people force one Scripture upon another though to prove their point, instead of looking at it in it’s whole entirety.

But people will argue that Scripture says he is faithful to complete the good work he has begun in us…I agree. He is faithful, but we still have to submit ourselves to that faithful work, we have to participate, we have to come to him as prodigal sons.

 

[tsering]

Daedelus76, yes I agree. I originally came to Christ in a Pentecostal/Charismatic church that finds it’s roots in Wesleyan tradition. I was discouraged though by the many false prophecies and swung to a Calvinistic - Baptistic - Dispensational side during the last few years because they emphasized a strong understanding of the original languages and a literal (normal) interpretation of Scripture. I began to struggle with this also because I saw the rational end of it when confession of sins, baptism, communion, were belittled into simple “memorials” because everything is already secure in Christ. I was really upset when a pastor said, “I don’t want to see you in my office to come and confess sins, that’s between you and God.” It just didn’t seem Biblical anymore. Then I found out that Catholics actually have a very normal or literal understanding of Scripture believe it or not (take the Eucharist for example). Not only that, they have a very holistic understanding of God’s plan of redemption.

Gurney, I’m not a Catholic. I want to be and my wife and I are spending the next year studying the Catechism. I still have some issues though and I’m sure you can guess at what they are.

Great conversation though. Despite all this cutting words and meanings, I got to clock off. This is really sucking me in intellectually and my brain hurts. I’m signing off to put some faith into action, and get my kids some lunch.

 

[Daedelus76]

So from the Protestant angle, believing that we can somehow live up to it or try and do good works without completely proclaiming our justification through faith, we are lost. What works can we possibly do to impress God enough to live up to the Law and make ourselves righteous when even the smallest sin is deadly? That’s what a Protestant might say.

I’ve heard Orthodox say something very similar . It is not unique to Protestantism.

For Protestants “justification by faith” is not really an intellectual thing that must be “proclaimed”, it is experienced. You aren’t saved through merely believing in justification by faith.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi tsering,

I agree with your last couple posts and your conclusions in your journey very much. Even though I’m a Catholic, former Anglican, I’ve found myself struggling with these very issues myself–justification, sanctification, pugatory, Romans, the whole nine yards.

I think that free will is important to me. Free will is essential in nurturing true, real love. Without free will we’re reduced to automotons and drones, robotic and cold. God wants us to love Him freely. IMO free will must be present. The Catholic Church is one of few churches that believe we have any.

But I also realize that God knows well ahead of time, because He is outside of time itself, what will happen to us and who will fall and who will be saved. He is omnipresent, so that is where predestination comes in. He knows the whole picture but in that picture He gives us the ability to choose. But grace is given and withheld in certain situations and things get cloudy.

Free will is big for me because it helps me understand, to some degree, why bad things happen to good people. If a woman’s son is killed by being struck by a drunk driver, is it God killing the child or is it the poor choice of a free moral agent (the driver) choosing to do something irresponsible that leads to a child’s death? God certainly knows what is going to happen and He does allow it because, if He wanted, He could stop it by divine intervention, but really I focus on the human element and it helps me to make “some” sense of things as a pitiful human creature…

I also think that once-saved-always saved is unbiblical. I think that seperating sins into two categories makes sense in aiding our view of salvation. Catholics look at the NT reference (I think it was John or James?) where we are told that not all sins are deadly. All sins offend God but not all kill the soul. That is Biblical. So if we can commit venial sins and yet strive to stay in God’s grace through the sacraments, especially confession and Eucharist, salvation becomes about sanctification and not losing what we were given. It’s like God is giving us a gift of free grace, when we walk out of the confessional, we’re just fighting to keep it and not spill it. So venial and mortal sins help clarify any issues I have with all this. If all sin is sin and blowing up a mall is as bad as telling a white lie, then the whole Catholic model falls apart. If all sin is equal and even the tiniest sin is like plutonium that blows up the entire human person salvifically then only imputation makes sense. I often wonder what the Protestant view is of the NT concept of not all sins being deadly?

You’re right about how the Catholic Church is holistic. That’s something I appreciate. What came first, the Church or the Bible? That is still something I consider. And the role of the Church in Jesus’s statements and in the Pauline ones is completely authoritative. Matthew 16 and some other Petrine moments keep me motivated, James, and Jesus’s constant admonitions not to sin and that many will come to Him saying “Lord, Lord.”

I deeply respect the Orthodox and Catholic Churches and the commonalities I see in both is sanctification being a process, salvation being a process, God’s molding our lives and hearts as a process, and the end result being salvation through sacraments and inner changes, not just faith alone. But I’m still mulling all this and mentally going through the same stuff you’re going through.

May God bless you and your wife on your journey; you seem to be a man of God who is being moved by the Spirit and full of a desire to serve Him. Best of luck!

Daedelus76, yes I agree. I originally came to Christ in a Pentecostal/Charismatic church that finds it’s roots in Wesleyan tradition. I was discouraged though by the many false prophecies and swung to a Calvinistic - Baptistic - Dispensational side during the last few years because they emphasized a strong understanding of the original languages and a literal (normal) interpretation of Scripture. I began to struggle with this also because I saw the rational end of it when confession of sins, baptism, communion, were belittled into simple “memorials” because everything is already secure in Christ. I was really upset when a pastor said, “I don’t want to see you in my office to come and confess sins, that’s between you and God.” It just didn’t seem Biblical anymore. Then I found out that Catholics actually have a very normal or literal understanding of Scripture believe it or not (take the Eucharist for example). Not only that, they have a very holistic understanding of God’s plan of redemption.

Gurney, I’m not a Catholic. I want to be and my wife and I are spending the next year studying the Catechism. I still have some issues though and I’m sure you can guess at what they are.

Great conversation though. Despite all this cutting words and meanings, I got to clock off. This is really sucking me in intellectually and my brain hurts. I’m signing off to put some faith into action, and get my kids some lunch.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know it’s not mere intellectual assent; even the devil Himself knows Christ’s nature, role, and Lordship so it must be a deep, meaningful faith that is cultivated. I’m aware of it but thanks for pointing it out. Apologies if I conveyed the former.

I’ve heard Orthodox say something very similar . It is not unique to Protestantism.

For Protestants “justification by faith” is not really an intellectual thing that must be “proclaimed”, it is experienced. You aren’t saved through merely believing in justification by faith.

 

[Daedelus76]

. I began to struggle with this also because I saw the rational end of it when confession of sins, baptism, communion, were belittled into simple “memorials” because everything is already secure in Christ.

The roots of the Reformed faith (Calvin) were hardly anti-sacramental, what has happened is that gradually the Reformed tradition has become much more intellectual and didactic, less focused on sacraments. The “memorialist” or “ordinance” belief is NOT what Calvin taught.

You might also be interested in Anglicanism, Lutheranism, or Orthodoxy, also. All of those are sacramental churches. In Anglicanism and Lutheranism, private confession of sins is not necessarily required, although it is practiced for those who want it, and its believed to confer grace. Orthodox are emphasizing group confessions more and more, but they still practice private confession as well. Also, in all these traditions in some circumstances, laymen can hear confessions, and it is less of a legal activity focused on fully accounting for all your sins in number and kind, more focused on the act of repentence and self-examination.

I think sacraments are important because they have to do with the community and belonging aspects of faith.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It was always my understanding that in protestant cirlces, Lutheran for example, confession doesn’t so much confer grace as much as acknowledge the grace already conferred by Christ in heaven. It’s just an acknowledgement of what God has already done. The same view is seen in evangelical Anglican circles…

The roots of the Reformed faith (Calvin) were hardly anti-sacramental, what has happened is that gradually the Reformed tradition has become much more intellectual and didactic, less focused on sacraments. The “memorialist” or “ordinance” belief is NOT what Calvin taught.

You might also be interested in Anglicanism, Lutheranism, or Orthodoxy, also. All of those are sacramental churches. In Anglicanism and Lutheranism, private confession of sins is not necessarily required, although it is practiced for those who want it, and its believed to confer grace. Orthodox are emphasizing group confessions more and more, but they still practice private confession as well. Also, in all these traditions in some circumstances, laymen can hear confessions, and it is less of a legal activity focused on fully accounting for all your sins in number and kind, more focused on the act of repentence and self-examination.

I think sacraments are important because they have to do with the community and belonging aspects of faith.

 

[tsering]

I disagree with this analogy. This presumes that Protestants & Catholics focus their theologies on opposite spectrums. I don’t think this is the case.

I think perhaps a more accurate way to express it is that Protestants read James in the context of Paul whereas Catholics read Paul & James in the context of the Sermon on the Mount through the eyes of Apostolic Tradition.

Yes! Exactly what I’m trying to get to. In theology school (listen I only took some intro courses) they told me it all comes down to hermeneutics! Principles included Scripture only and Scripture interprets Scripture. That meant (in reality) you could focus on one and force it’s meaning on others. Example: Paul forced upon James, instead of Paul and James in light of Jesus’ teachings because basically the Apostles were infallibly confirming and interpreting what Jesus had already taught…He is the Word, the light of the world! The summit! The source! Everything before and everything after points to Him.

 

[anthony022071]

The problem isn’t just that Protestant theology reads James in the context of Paul,but that it reads Paul out of the context of the the teachings of the Church,and more specifically,the magisterium. Luther and Calvin did not believe that the institutional Church or priesthood was founded by Christ or that the Spirit guides the Church in its teachings on faith and morals. It is from this disbelief in the Church that their ideas about grace and justification proceeded. Lack of faith in the Church leads to the heresy of schism,and to heresies about God and man.

 

[brb3]

Catholic: Sins are taken away, forgiven, and God infuses, places, injects grace and righteousness into us as a process through confession and the other sacraments. Initial justification occurs at baptism, grows through use of the sacraments throughout one’s life, sanctification takes place and one then earns final justification in Heaven after the satisfaction for one’s sins are purged in purgatory or through indulgences in this life. Justification is the result of sanctification

Protestant: Righteousness isn’t infused, it’s credited to us, an imputation. We are credited with Christ’s sublime act on the Cross. Christ perfectly lived the Law that we can never possibly live perfectly as human beings no matter what. As Abraham was “credited” with righteousness, so are we also credited with righteousness. When Christ looks down, he sees not our sins, but His Son. Imputation is a covering of our sins, overlooking and giving of credit. Alien righteouness is given to us. Sanctification is the result of justification

The reason people make such a “stink” about justification is that these are two VERY different ways of looking at how Christ saves us.

One correction to the above. When the FATHER [not Christ] looks down, he see not our sins, but His Son’s. Now, regarding your claim that these are ‘very’ different ways of looking at salvation. Why can’t BOTH be valid ?

The Protestant viewpoint being what occurs at ‘initial’ justification //// the Catholic viewpoint of what happens ever thereafter, with ‘subsequent’ gracious infusions. We all come to the Father ‘thru’ the Son, covered by the Blood of the Lamb, IMPUTED [cloaked ]with His Righteousness … “not of works lest any man boast” [Paul]. Thereafter, once God’s Adoption in Christ, we are INFUSED with God’s graces, via ‘gracious works’ of H.S. within … “faith w/o works is dead” [James].

 

[brb3]

Evangelical and Conservative Friends believe that it is both. God “looks past” us to view the work of Christ on our behalf and declares us “just”…not because of what we have done to earn it…but because of what Christ did for us which we could not do ourselves…“imputes rightousness” to us…but God does not “pretend” we are just and leaves it at that…through the imparting of grace to us we become “new creatures” and we become holy people through the ongoing process of sanctification.

Unlike some holiness groups that believe that sanctification is a “second work of grace” with justification being the “first work of grace”…sanctification begins when one is filled with the Holy Spirit(baptized in the Holy Spirit at justification)…one lives a holy life with the assistance of God’s indwelling Spirit because WE ARE NEW CREATURES being made new to conform to the image of His Son…being regenerated through the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives to where we see things differently…we are given the power to “do right”…not to “earn” our salvation but because of our salvation…becoming a Holy Nation, a Royal People, a Nation of Priests.

Not all Protestants belive there is a conflict with “imputation vs. infusion of grace”.

Beautiful Publisher !! I think you are onto a great mystery. Catholics and Protestants both hold onto part of the FULLNESS of TRUTH. When we unite in brotherhood … it might usher in the Age to Come …

Quaker Friends and Catholics re-united …

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Both cannot be valid as they are diametrically opposed to one another. One envisions God seeing us for the sinners we are. He sees us, flaws and all, as we are. We are given grace to spiritually develop in grace, grow as human beings, walk through penance and sacraments that transform and finally get justified. The other sees us as covered. The other sees Christ cloaked over us and God sees His Beloved Son. Catholics and Protestants see different salvation stories. If you don’t think these are “very” different, and that they can both take place, I just can’t agree with your assessment.

I will grant to you that, in all reality, both camps agree in sanctification and justification, just in different orders. And the more that Lutherans, for example, and Catholics iron out their differences, it’s almost like two cars taking different highways to the same destination. Catholics emphasize works so heavily and Lutherans grace so intensely and yet both yield that the other is crucial. A Lutheran often will say that a loss of good works is evidence that faith is gone or weakened, in an impaired state, and the person is losing their relationship of faith in God. The Catholic emphasizes the good works of the individual and yet does not deny the importance of grace and faith in Christ in guiding those works. The good tree bears good fruit. In the end, yes, they want to achieve the same package, just in different orders. But I see “covering” or “crediting” us with righteousness as extremely different from initial justification and works formula leading to a final justification thanks to steady infusions of grace.

Your assessment, as a Catholic, that righteousness is imputed, is absolutely not what the Catholic Church teaches. That is a Protestant concept.

One correction to the above. When the FATHER [not Christ] looks down, he see not our sins, but His Son’s. Now, regarding your claim that these are ‘very’ different ways of looking at salvation. Why can’t BOTH be valid ?

The Protestant viewpoint being what occurs at ‘initial’ justification //// the Catholic viewpoint of what happens ever thereafter, with ‘subsequent’ gracious infusions. We all come to the Father ‘thru’ the Son, covered by the Blood of the Lamb, IMPUTED [cloaked ]with His Righteousness … “not of works lest any man boast” [Paul]. Thereafter, once God’s Adoption in Christ, we are INFUSED with God’s graces, via ‘gracious works’ of H.S. within … “faith w/o works is dead” [James].

 

[mikeledes]

Does the Bible teach an imputed righteousness or an infused righteousness?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6557819#post6557819

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The doctrine known as Double Justification, in which a person receives and imputed and an infused righteousness, was rejected by the Council of Trent.

**Lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, **

Regarding assurance, Trent says the following:

So also as regards the gift of perseverance, of which it is written, He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved:-which gift cannot be derived from any other but Him, who is able to establish him who standeth that he stand perseveringly, and to restore him who falleth:-let no one herein promise himself any thing as certain with an absolute certainty; though all ought to place and repose a most firm hope in God’s help.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[brb3]

Does the Bible teach an imputed righteousness or an infused righteousness?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6557819#post6557819

God Bless,
Michael

PERHAPS both. I need to research this more. I do think infusion is Normative, but for Protestants an imputed is allowable UNTIL they come to the Catholic view. Again, it is what it is … man is just trying to put words and our understanding on the process.

 

[mikeledes]

PERHAPS both. I need to research this more. I do think infusion is Normative, but for Protestants an imputed is allowable UNTIL they come to the Catholic view. Again, it is what it is … man is just trying to put words and our understanding on the process.

Most Protestants do not deny an infused righteousness, but this infusion they call sanctification and is distinct from justification. In the Catholic view, there is no imputation of an alien righteousness (the personal righteousness of Christ), but only an infusion of a righteousness that comes from God (sanctifying grace) and that has been merited for us by Christ on the Cross.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[brb3]

Most Protestants do not deny an infused righteousness, but this infusion they call sanctification and is distinct from justification. In the Catholic view, there is no imputation of an alien righteousness (the personal righteousness of Christ), but only an infusion of a righteousness that comes from God (sanctifying grace) and that has been merited for us by Christ on the Cross.

It does seem that justification precedes sanctification, in temporal order … as Paul’s accounts in scripture depict. Christ’s blood covers an unworthy sinner who CONFESSES … and He presents that child to the Father, who can now accept that sinner as worthy, on basis of Christ’s WORK on Calvary. As Paul teaches … “Not of works, lest any man boast”.

But, once the child become the Father’s adoption … the H.S. is INFUSED into the convert, they receive ‘secondary’ sanctifying graces [via Confirmation, Eucharist, further Confessions in this life, and gracious works [Beatitudes, living the Big 10, etc] … as depicted in James’ epistle.

Step 1 [Justification, by Faith alone in Christ], then Step 2 [sanctification, by grace to us thru works performed in /enabled by CHRIST].

 

[mikeledes]

It does seem that justification precedes sanctification, in temporal order … as Paul’s accounts in scripture depict. Christ’s blood covers an unworthy sinner who CONFESSES … and He presents that child to the Father, who can now accept that sinner as worthy, on basis of Christ’s WORK on Calvary. As Paul teaches … “Not of works, lest any man boast”.

But, once the child become the Father’s adoption … the H.S. is INFUSED into the convert, they receive ‘secondary’ sanctifying graces [via Confirmation, Eucharist, further Confessions in this life, and gracious works [Beatitudes, living the Big 10, etc] … as depicted in James’ epistle.

Step 1 [Justification, by Faith alone in Christ], then Step 2 [sanctification, by grace to us thru works performed in /enabled by CHRIST].

Hey BRB! I think you’re making a distinction that is not really found in the Catholic understanding of justification. There is no imputation (in the forensic sense) in Catholic justification. Sanctification is an essential aspect of justification. Justfication is the forgiveness of sins AND the sanctifcation of the soul. So I don’t think it’s really correct to say justification precedes sanctification. Justification is the infusion of sanctifying grace. This sanctifying grace was merited for us by Christ on the Cross. The division you’re making in steps 1 and 2 is more in line with the Protestant understanding of justification and sanctification.

Regarding “faith alone”, I don’t like using that phrase because it is not used in scripture - except in James 2:24 - and is too associated with Protestant doctrine. I prefer to use justified by formed faith or justified by fides caritate formata (faith formed by love). We do not believe faith is the sole condition even for “initial” justification and hence we should not use “faith alone.” In order to receive the grace of justification, other dispositions must be united to faith, including amor initialis (the beginning of the love of God) and contrition/repentance. I wrote about this in greater detail in this thread…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=450844

God Bless,
Michael

 

[brb3]

I think you’re making a distinction that is not really found in the Catholic understanding of justification. There is no imputation (in the forensic sense) in Catholic justification. Sanctification is an essential aspect of justification. Justfication is the forgiveness of sins AND the sanctifcation of the soul. So I don’t think it’s really correct to say justification precedes sanctification. Justification is the infusion of sanctifying grace. This sanctifying grace was merited for us by Christ on the Cross. The division you’re making in steps 1 and 2 is more in line with the Protestant understanding of justification and sanctification.

Perhaps, but we know that Protestants who believe in ‘imputed’ justification are redeemed and saved. They find scriptural support for believing Christ’s blood covers their sins.

Don’t we Catholics believe/teach that ALMS, given rightly, … COVERS a multitude of sins ? Peter taught a simple Gospel Soteriology. REPENT and be BAPTISED. Just as had John the Baptist. STEP 1 [Repent/Confess] /// STEP 2 [take actions to receive Baptism … as an appeal to God to cleanse us of sin]. Scripture is clear that we are BURIED in the holy waters, an ARISE in newness of life. The water ‘covers’ us … washing away original & personal ‘spiritual’ sins.

Paul teaches we [as Abraham] are ‘justified by faith’ … apart from works. Yet, NEXT we are to ACT upon our belief and allow God to ‘sanctify’ us with H.S. — received in Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Christian Service, Perseverance in ‘well doing’ [Charity, Evangelism, Healing,] etc.

There seems to be a ‘temporal’ order to Discipleship. Christ heals the sinner FIRST, then SECONDLY tells them to ‘go and sin no more’. Protestants recognize this so clearly in scriptures and in their ‘life experience’. I think Catholics want to MERGE justification & sanctification … removing the ‘time’ component. Each time a Catholic gives Alms … are they re-justified ? We know they receive ‘sanctification’ graces thereof. Each time we receive Eucharist … are we re-justified ? We can’t be Born Again but ONCE !!! But, we can be SANCTIFIED repeatedly. Am I wrong ?