we need the only. We need the sola. Texts like II Peter 1:1, Romans 5, II Cor 5, are only about a righteousness that Christ earned. The righteousness in those texts is not God's attribute, and is not Christ's person apart from that finished obedience to death. Every time you say "not only", you might as well say, not that. RS: Which is a huge, huge, and huge point. I am stressing the whole of the work of Christ and it appears that you are narrowing it down to one thing. When I say "not only" I am not denying the imputed righteousness of Christ, but simply saying He did more than that. He did more than earn righteousness for His people while on the cross. He suffered the wrath of the Father in their place to pay a debt of righteousness that they could not and cannot pay. Galatians 2: 21 -- " I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." McMark: Arminians and Roman Catholics look at that verse and say, see it's not through the law, so why talk about Christ's satisfaction of the law when it's about Christ in me by grace enabling me to imperfectly keep the law, and grace does not demand perfection. They don't think that Christ's death and resurrection are enough. They don't deny it. They just don't think it's enough. RS: But that is a different sort of