imputation catholic critique

7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique

1/58

Compartir

Correo electrnico

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInStumbleUponRedditGoogle

BookmarksWordPressTumblr

ByAddToAny

Skip to content

Home

About

Atheism to Christ

Catholic Courtship

Religious Life? Sexual Addiction

Support Your Local Apologist

Why Catholic?

What to Expect When Youre Converting

How Protestants View Catholics vs. Orthodox

A Study on Imputation of Righteousness

Posted onJune 12, 2012byDevin Rose
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.addtoany.com/http://www.addtoany.com/http://www.addtoany.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/12/a-study-on-imputation-of-righteousness/#contenthttp://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/12/a-study-on-imputation-of-righteousness/#contenthttp://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/my-conversion-from-atheism-to-christianity/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/my-conversion-from-atheism-to-christianity/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/catholic-courtship-and-my-marriage-discernment/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/catholic-courtship-and-my-marriage-discernment/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/discerning-religious-life/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/discerning-religious-life/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/overcoming-sexual-addiction/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/overcoming-sexual-addiction/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/support-your-local-apologist/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/support-your-local-apologist/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/why-i-became-catholic/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/why-i-became-catholic/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/11/what-to-expect-when-youre-converting/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/11/what-to-expect-when-youre-converting/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/13/how-protestants-view-catholics-vs-orthodox/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/13/how-protestants-view-catholics-vs-orthodox/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/12/a-study-on-imputation-of-righteousness/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/12/a-study-on-imputation-of-righteousness/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/12/a-study-on-imputation-of-righteousness/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/author/devman/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/author/devman/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/author/devman/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/author/devman/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/12/a-study-on-imputation-of-righteousness/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/13/how-protestants-view-catholics-vs-orthodox/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/11/what-to-expect-when-youre-converting/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/why-i-became-catholic/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/support-your-local-apologist/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/overcoming-sexual-addiction/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/discerning-religious-life/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/catholic-courtship-and-my-marriage-discernment/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/my-conversion-from-atheism-to-christianity/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/12/a-study-on-imputation-of-righteousness/#contenthttp://www.addtoany.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/


2/58

Statues of Calvin and His Reformed Friends

Vanguard readers, allow me to introduce you toNick, a Catholic apologist friend of mine

who wrote this in-depth article on the Protestant doctrine of the imputation of Christs

righteousness and justification.

I am grateful to Nick for taking the time to dig in and research this important doctrine, and

for him allowing me to post his work as a guest article here.

Imputation: The fig-leaf of the Reformation

The doctrine of Imputation truly is the linchpin of Protestantism. I believe it was this

doctrine that led to advocating forSola Scriptura, because in the Protestant mind theCatholic Church had mangled the plain Scriptural teaching on Justification so badly that

there was no way Catholicism could be right. Obviously, if someone botches a key doctrine

of Scripture, then they lose a lot of credibility. In this article I am going to analyze what

Imputation is and see whether it is Biblical or not. I will conclude by examining what theEarly Church Fathers have to say on a few important passages.

What is Imputation?

Imputation is relatively simple concept, despite the term itself being somewhat outdated.

Reformed pastor and writer Dr Joel Beeke explains the concept as follows:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/refw1.jpghttp://catholicnick.blogspot.com/


3/58

Imputation signifies to credit something to someones account by transfer, i.e. God

transfers the perfect righteousness of Christ to the elect sinner as a gracious gift, and

transfers all of the sinners unrighteousness to Christ who has paid the full price of

satisfaction for that unrighteousness. (Justification by Faith Alone)

Concurring with this definition, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church issued an importantReport on Justificationin 2006, stating,

We need to be reckoned oraccounted (logizomai) as righteousin Gods sight andimputation is the way that we as a confessional church understand the Scriptures to speak

ofthat transfer of righteousness(cf. WLC 71) (p74).

Adding a significant detail to the definition of Imputation, the the OPCs references the

Greek word logizomai. Reformed Scholar T.F. Torrance states Pauls use oflogizomai

corresponds directly to the Reformers notion of Imputation (Atonement, p136). This Greek

word will be the central focus of this study, since it is the term Scripture uses whenspeaking on imputation of righteousness, especially in Romans 4 (where logizomai is used

11 times).

The Tyndale Biblical Dictionary,Imputation, p630, summarizes how Imputation

connects all the important aspects of justification together:

The Biblical teaching on imputation represents one of the principal doctrines of the

Christian faith. In relation to the doctrine of salvation, the word is consistently used in alegal sense. Philemon 1:18, which affirms that the apostle Paul assumed the debt of

Onesimus, aptly illustrates the predominant theological usage of the word: if he owes

you anything, charge that to my account.

The Bible sets forth the theological concept of imputation in three distinct yet relatedways. First, Scripture affirms the imputation of Adams original sin to the entire human

race. Second, the sin and guilt of the human race was imputed to Christ Finally, theBible teaches that, as a result of his atoning work, Christs righteousness is set to the

believers account.

Following the example of Philemon 1:18, the Protestant notion of imputation is exemplified

when Paul graciously takes on the debt Onesimus owes his master, transferringhis debt to

Pauls account. This dictionary goes onto state that, according to Scripture, this sameconcept of Imputation takes place in a three-foldmanner: (1) when the guilt of Adams sin

is imputed to all men; (2) when the sins of believers are imputed to Christ; and (3) when the

righteous and obedient life of Christ is imputed to the believer by faith. Various other Bible

dictionaries repeat this truth almost verbatim (Cf. Eastons Bible Dictionary EBD,Imputation, The New Ungers Bible Dictionary,Imputation; Nelsons New Illustrated

Bible Dictionary,Imputation; GrudemsSystematic Theology pages 725ff).

That brief description should give an idea of how to interpret the Westminster Confession

of Faith, which is a major historic Protestant document that has been a standard on how to
http://www.the-highway.com/articleJan98.htmlhttp://www.the-highway.com/articleJan98.htmlhttp://www.the-highway.com/articleJan98.htmlhttp://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdfhttp://books.google.com/books?id=hWkoFOvbWW4C&lpg=PA630&vq=imputation&pg=PA630#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=hWkoFOvbWW4C&lpg=PA630&vq=imputation&pg=PA630#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=hWkoFOvbWW4C&lpg=PA630&vq=imputation&pg=PA630#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://eastonsbibledictionary.com/imputation.htmhttp://eastonsbibledictionary.com/imputation.htmhttp://books.google.com/books?id=xnjYp_qJNjEC&lpg=PT1066&vq=imputation&dq=biblical%20dictionary&pg=PT1066#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=xnjYp_qJNjEC&lpg=PT1066&vq=imputation&dq=biblical%20dictionary&pg=PT1066#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=xnjYp_qJNjEC&lpg=PT1066&vq=imputation&dq=biblical%20dictionary&pg=PT1066#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=xnjYp_qJNjEC&lpg=PT1066&vq=imputation&dq=biblical%20dictionary&pg=PT1066#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=r7oVvmjlRFwC&lpg=PT4692&vq=imputation&dq=biblical%20dictionary&pg=PT4692#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=r7oVvmjlRFwC&lpg=PT4692&vq=imputation&dq=biblical%20dictionary&pg=PT4692#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=r7oVvmjlRFwC&lpg=PT4692&vq=imputation&dq=biblical%20dictionary&pg=PT4692#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=r7oVvmjlRFwC&lpg=PT4692&vq=imputation&dq=biblical%20dictionary&pg=PT4692#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=DA8xl4eagDcC&lpg=PP1&vq=%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%B6%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9&pg=PA726#v=onepage&q=imputed&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=DA8xl4eagDcC&lpg=PP1&vq=%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%B6%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9&pg=PA726#v=onepage&q=imputed&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=DA8xl4eagDcC&lpg=PP1&vq=%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%B6%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9&pg=PA726#v=onepage&q=imputed&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=DA8xl4eagDcC&lpg=PP1&vq=%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%B6%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9&pg=PA726#v=onepage&q=imputed&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=r7oVvmjlRFwC&lpg=PT4692&vq=imputation&dq=biblical%20dictionary&pg=PT4692#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=xnjYp_qJNjEC&lpg=PT1066&vq=imputation&dq=biblical%20dictionary&pg=PT1066#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://eastonsbibledictionary.com/imputation.htmhttp://books.google.com/books?id=hWkoFOvbWW4C&lpg=PA630&vq=imputation&pg=PA630#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdfhttp://www.the-highway.com/articleJan98.html


4/58

properly understand the true meaning of Justification by Faith Alone. In the Chapter on

Justification it says:

Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness

into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as

righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christs sake alone;nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to

them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto

them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they

have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

Here the authors of the Confession distinguish between infused righteousness andimputed righteousness. The Confession makes a secondary distinction on top of that,

stating that faith itselfis not what is imputed as righteousness, but rather the righteousness

of Christ is. Note that there is an equivocation in the Confession on this point, since the

term imputing is used twice in the Confession, but not in the same sense. While the latterinstance of imputing is used to mean transferring an (extrinsic) righteousness, the

former instance of imputing cannot mean this, since imputing faith itself cannot mean

transferring faith. This problem of equivocation will come to greater light later in this

essay.

Despite the straightforwardness in which these sources explain the doctrine of Imputation,some Protestant sources are honest enough to admit that the teaching is notclearly laid out

in Scripture. One scholar, George Ladd, taught the following in his hugely popular

seminary textbook:

Paul never expressly states that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers . His

words are, And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his

faith is reckoned as righteousness (Rom 4:3,5).

These words could be taken to mean that God regarded faith as the most meritorious

human achievement, and therefore God accounts faith as the equivalent to full

righteousness. This, however, would ignore the context of Pauline thought.

(A Theology of the New Testament,Imputation)

What is even more worthy of note, in my opinion, is what one of the foremost Reformed

scholars today, D. A. Carson, said in an equally grand admission in his boldly titled essay

The Vindication of Imputation:

Even if we agree that there is no Pauline passage that explicitly says, in so many words, that

the righteousness of Christ is imputed to his people, is there biblical evidence tosubstantiate the view that the substance of this thought is conveyed?

(Justification: Whats at Stake, Ch2, P50)

And a few pages later he is even more clear:
http://books.google.com/books?id=eIdkM00EdlAC&lpg=PP1&vq=logizomai&pg=PA491#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=eIdkM00EdlAC&lpg=PP1&vq=logizomai&pg=PA491#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=eIdkM00EdlAC&lpg=PP1&vq=logizomai&pg=PA491#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2004_vindication_of_imputation.pdfhttp://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2004_vindication_of_imputation.pdfhttp://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2004_vindication_of_imputation.pdfhttp://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2004_vindication_of_imputation.pdfhttp://books.google.com/books?id=eIdkM00EdlAC&lpg=PP1&vq=logizomai&pg=PA491#v=onepage&q&f=false


5/58

It is time, past time perhaps, to devote some attention to the most crucial passage where

Paul says that something was indeed imputed to a certain person as righteousnesseven

though Paul does not unambiguously say that what was imputed was Christs

righteousness. No, he says that faith was imputedcredited, reckonedto Abraham asrighteousness, and the same is true today (Rom 4:3-5). The passage is notoriously

complex. I shall restrict myself to the following observations. (P55f)

This is quite an astonishing admission by a well respected and very conservative scholar,

since Protestants teach that the Bible alone is the only inspired source for Christian

teaching, including the idea that Scripture clearly teachesall essential doctrines (i.e.Scripture is perspicuous). So, from the get to, Carson has not only admitted that Romans

4 is notorious complex, but also that Paul does not clearly state Christs righteousness is

imputed. This should leave room for a long pause to consider the implications of these

admissions: the chief proof text for Justification by Faith Alone, Romans 4:3, does not, bytheir own admission, clearly teach what they need it to teach.

Any reasonable person will agree that a doctrine does not have to be explicitly taught in

Scripture to be true, with the doctrine of the Trinity being the chief example. This is indeed

what Protestants argue when it is affirmed that Paul nowhere clearly teaches Christs

Righteousness is imputed. But there is an important catch here: though the word Trinitydoes notappear in the Bible, the word impute does. The Greek word logizomai appears

41 times in the New Testament, and in the Old Testament the equivalent Hebrew term

chashab appears about 120 times. These two terms are translated into English in variousways, most popularly as reckoned or counted. Thus, if God deemed a term worthy to

be used over 150 times in the Bible, and yet never used it the way Protestants contend, then

there is clearly a problem.

In the course of this article, I will demonstrate the following propositions beyond a

reasonable doubt:

The Bible never uses the term logizomai (or any similar term) in regards to the

three-fold imputationof Adams sin to mankind, our sin to Christ, or ChristsRighteousness to the believer.

The term logizomainever means to transfer or anything similar. Nor does the

term ever get used in an instrumental sense, that is, with something like faithbeing an empty hand (i.e. no inherent value) that simply reaches out and carries

something of value from one place to another.

The Early Church Fathers dont interpret key texts in the way that Protestants do,

forcing the Protestant side to dispense with the Patristic testimony.

(Appendix) There is a serious lack of integrity and honesty in Protestant scholarship

and thinking when approaching and speaking on this subject. This is especially true

when it comes to addressing logizomai, particularly when analyzing how the Bible

employs the term.

It is for these reasons why I say logizomai is the lynchpin of Protestantism. Once oneexamines the plain evidence, they will see Protestantism has not a single leg to stand on.


6/58

Part II

What does the Bible say about logizomai?

Many people get uneasy when the issue of Biblical Greek comes up because they simply

dont know any Greek. This is understandable. The good news is, knowledge of Greek isnot crucial for understanding logizomai, since we have the aid of Bible dictionaries and

lexicons. The biggest strength about the case I will present is that it does not rely upon the

opinions of Greek scholars, but rather a straightforward analysis of how and when the Bibleemploys the term. One simply needs to go through every occurrence oflogizomai in the

Old and New Testaments (about 160 verses) to see how the term is used and whether or not

it ever occurs in reference to the three-fold imputation taught by Protestantism. Though Ihave done this and I strongly recommend others to invest about 2 hours to do so

themselves, in this article I make this study even easier by highlighting key examples and

showing what to look for.

The easiest place to start is examining how the New Testament uses logizomai, which

requires looking at 40 verses. This is the most important set of data to examine. That might

seem like a lot of work, but this issue is so crucial that there is no room for intellectuallaziness. I will list off and categorize all the verses which use logizomai, and one simply

needs to hover their mouse over the passage to see what the verse says.

To reckon (logizomai) something is to form a correct mentalevaluation or calculation

about it. So, for example, to reckon something as having a certain quality, it is because that

thing truly does have that quality.

John 11:50they reckon its better to lose one life rather than many

Acts 19:27the pagans reckon their idol to be of value and dont want it devalued

Romans 3:28Paul reckons that faith justifies apart from the works of the Law

Romans 4:4working wages are reckoned in the debt category (as on a ledger)

Romans 4:8sin is not reckoned to David since his sins are forgiven (Ps 32:1) Romans 6:11the Christian is to reckon themselves dead to sin andalive to Christ

Romans 8:18Paul reckons the present sufferings dont compare to Heavenly

glory

Romans 9:8Abrahams spiritual children are reckoned as Gods children

1 Corinthians 4:1Christians should reckon Paul as a servant of God

1 Corinthians 13:5love does not reckon or dwell on wrongs done

1 Corinthians 13:11when Paul was a child, hed reckon (reason) as a child does

2 Corinthians 3:5Paul doesnt reckon himself adequate apart from Gods grace

2 Corinthians 5:19God does not reckon sins to believers who are forgiven

2 Corinthians 10:7let Christians reckon themselves to be in Christ

2 Corinthians 10:11let Christians reckon that Apostolic authority exists in writing

2 Corinthians 11:5Paul reckons himself a full fledged Apostle

2 Corinthians 12:6nobody should reckon Paul to be more that what he really is

Philippians 3:13Paul reckons he has not laid hold of the final prize (Heaven) yet

Philippians 4:8Christians are to reckon or dwell upon whatever is good

2 Timothy 4:16Paul forgives his friends and so doesnt want sin reckoned to them


7/58

Hebrews 11:19Abraham reckoned that God could raise the dead

1 Peter 5:12Paul reckons Silvanus as a faithful Christian

Some passages show when people reckon something incorrectly, that is they make a

mental error concerning the true nature of something, and reveals the individual to be either

ignorant or malicious.

Mark 15:28, Luke 22:37Jesus isfalsely reckoned as a transgressor

Romans 2:3the hypocritefalsely reckons he wont be judged for his sins

Romans 8:36persecutorsfalsely reckon Christians as sheep to be slaughtered

Romans 14:14the weak Christian brotherimproperly reckons foods unclean

2 Corinthians 10:2some troublemakersfalsely reckon Paul as an unbeliever

It is possible to reckon by assigning an equivalency to something else, such as in the case

of Romans 2:26, where God will reckon a commandment keeping Gentile as being inside

the covenant, even if he never got the opportunity to be circumcised.

In examining these 29 verses, clearly these lists are in harmony as to what it means to

logizomai something. In each case it is clear a person either is reckoning something

accurate or else he should have been if he did not. This leaves to be examined the 10 verses

in Romans 4 speaking of reckoning righteousness, along with the parallels in Galatians

3:6 and James 2:23.

Approaching Romans 4, especially the critical verse 4:3Abrahams faith being reckonedas righteousness (cf 4:5, 9)with the consensus just established, it should be very clear

that for God to reckon (logizomai) faith as righteousness, it is because faith in God does

have a righteous quality about it. Contextually speaking, which is no less important,

Abrahams faith is clearly described as robust and worthy of imitation (see Romans 4:18-22and James 2:22-23). Pauls reference to Genesis 15:6 in Galatians 3:6-9 sheds even more

light on this matter, since he places his quote within the context of Abrahams faithful

obedience of Genesis 12:1ff (Galatians 3:8; see Hebrews 11:8), and even uses theGreekwordfor faithful (3:9b; G4103:pistos) as a synonym for his regular word, faith (3:9a;G4102:pistis). Some Protestants might appeal to Romans 2:26, suggesting its possible for

God to reckon faith as righteousness even if it is not, but they misuse this example because

a true comparison would mean faith holds the equivalent weightof, say, keeping all thecommandments perfectlywhich is perfectly reasonable (but unacceptable for Protestants).

This foundational analysis of the New Testament can be carried over to help analyze howthe Old Testament employs logizomai through the Hebrew equivalent chashab (since Rom.

4:3 quotes Gen. 15:6). Since chashab occurs about 120 times in the Old Testament, I will

not quote and categorize every verse. Instead, I will simply quote and categorize the most

pertinent examples:

Quite often, about 50 times, the term chashabmeans to devise, particularly to devise anevil plot against someone (e.g. 1 Sam. 18:25; Neh. 6:2; Ps. 10:2; 21:11; 35:4; 40:17; 73:16;

119:59). These numerous passages testify that reckoning is about mentally calculating, not

transferring.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=9&t=KJV#conc/9http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=9&t=KJV#conc/9http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=9&t=KJV#conc/9http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=9&t=KJV#conc/9http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=9&t=KJV#conc/9http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=9&t=KJV#conc/9


8/58

As with the New Testament, chashab means to form a right mental evaluation of

something. For example:

Genesis 15:6Abrahams faith is reckoned to have the quality of righteousness

Genesis 31:15Laban sold his daughters and thus now reckons them as foreigners

Leviticus 7:18an improper sacrifice will not be reckoned as valid Leviticus 17:4the man who unlawfully sheds blood will be reckoned a sinner

Leviticus 25:27; 25:50; 25:52; 27:18; 27:23the priest should reckon or calculate

the proper value of land based on usage and jubilee year

Numbers 23:9God will reckon Israel as a special people, set apart from others

2 Samuel 19:19Shimei asks King David not to reckon him guilty, to forgive him

Nehmiah 13:13faithful workers are reckoned as reliable

Psalm 32:2the blessed man is the forgiven man, he has no sin reckoned to him

Psalm 106:31Phinehass good deed was reckoned as righteousness

And as with the New Testament, there are many examples of people in the Old Testamentreckoning incorrectly, often using sinful motives. For example:

Genesis 38:15Judahfalsely reckons his daugher-in-law to be a prostitute

1 Samuel 1:13Eli the priestfalsely reckons the praying woman to be drunk

Job 13:24; 19:11; 33:10Jobfalsely reckons that God is mad at him

Psalm 44:22mentioned in the NT analysis above

Isaiah 29:16the wickedfalsely reckon that the potter is equal to the clay

Isaiah 53:3-4, 12the wickedfalselyreckon the Messiah as under Gods

displeasure

Finally, as with the New Testament, there are examples in the Old Testament where

something is considered equivalent or holding the same weight as something else, for either

calculating or metaphorical purposes. For example:

Leviticus 25:31houses without walls shall be reckoned as equivalent to an openfields for taxing and zoning purposes (see the earlier Lev. 25 examples)

Numbers 18:27; 18:30the Levites tithe is reckoned the equivalent of the harvest

tithes of the citizens, since the Levites dont own land and cannot harvest

Job 41:27, 29The Leviathan monster is so strong it reckons human weapons asequivalent to sticks and straw

Isaiah 40:15, 17God is so big that all creation is reckoned as equivalent to a

speck of dust in His sight

We see thesame trendin the Old Testament as in the New Testament examples. Protestants

desperate to find exceptions will look in vain. Any appeals by them to the last set of

verses simply fails to recognize there is a metaphorical/equivalency use to chashab, justlike the Romans 2:26 example, which doesnt help their cause.

And notice that the first two points of my thesis are explicitly confirmed: nowhere does the

Bible use logizomai in reference to the three-foldimputation taught by Protestantism, and

nowhere does logizomai mean anything along the lines of to transfer.


9/58

Part III

At this point I should focus a bit more on some of the key texts, since they play a moresignificant role than the others.

Philemon 1:18 speaks of having a debt charged to Pauls account. This text isimportant because it is one of the most appealed to passages by Protestants

(throughout their history) when proving their doctrine of Imputation from

Scripture. But what isnt well known and theres no good excuse for this is thatthe term logizomai does not appear in this text! Rather, it is an other Greek word,

ellogeo, which appears only here and in Romans 5:13. This is quite an astonishing

revelation, for why would Protestants be looking to an obscure Biblical term whenthe term Paul used throughout Romans 4 appears numerous times throughout

Scripture?

Psalm 106:30-31 uses the identical Greek/Hebrew language as Genesis 15:6. This is

huge. Using the principle of Scripture interprets Scripture, and basic logic, weshould conclude that the identical phrases have the same meaning. Thus, while

Phinehas deed was reckoned as a good righteous deed, so must Abrahams faith

have been. Of course, this is devastating to Protestantism, so they must scour to find

a reason around this, despite the fact the plain reading of Scripture fits just fine.

Psalm 32:2 gives an important insight on what it means to not impute sin to

someone (see also Romans 4:8 comment below). This Psalm was written by David,

repenting after he sinned gravely and lost his justification. Even Luther recognizedthis (see Smalcald Articles #43). The blessed man (i.e. justified) of verse 1 is he

who has his sins forgiven, and in whos spirit there is no deceit. He is the one

who did not hide his sin but confessed it to God (verse 5), after which he became

righteous and upright in heart (verse 11). The parallel prayer to this is David inPsalm 51, where he is just as explicit on what happens at forgiveness, namely thesinner is washed, cleansed, purged, resulting in a man whiter than snow

and having a clean heart. With all this going on, how can there be sin to reckon?There cannot be! Thus to not impute sin is synonymous to saying forgive, that

is make my slate clean so there is no sin there to reckon. This is the principle in

which we are to interpret texts like 2 Samuel 19:19, 2 Corinthians 5:19 and 2

Timothy 4:19 (Cf Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

James 2:21-23 says that Abrahams faith was active with and completed by

works. Does that sound like a faith that lacks a righteous quality to it? Quite the

contrary (see Romans 4:18-22 and Galatians 3:9). Ironically, many Protestants

condemn 1 Maccabees 2:52 as heretical for saying Abrahams act of offering upIsaac was credited as righteousness (same phrase as Genesis 15:6), and yet this is

in fact what James 2:21-24 says!

Romans 4:4 uses logizomai sandwiched right between the important verses 3 and 5,where logizomai also appears. Obviously, the term must have the same meaning in

all three verses, else Paul would be equivocating. Though many misread verse 4 to

be saying wages are transferred to an account, thats not what the verse issaying. Rather the verse is speaking in terms of a ledger, where working wages are

recorded on the debt column, and thus reckoned as debt. In other words, the


10/58

wage is reckoned in the mindas what it truly is, having the quality of a debt. This

necessitates that faith should be reckoned as what it truly is as well.

Romans 4:8 is in a similar case as Romans 4:4. As noted earlier, this text is

important for it quotes Psalm 32:2. What is important to note here is how logizomaiis being used, in a negated fashion: Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will

not imputesin. Iflogizomaiin Romans 4 means to transfer, then Romans 4:8ends up saying: Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not transfer sin.Thats absurd, for it means the Blessed (justified) individual is he whom the Lord

will not get rid of his sin! Thus, logizomaicannot mean transfer in this context.

This ties into the equivocation in the Westminster Confession that was mentionedearlier in this essay.

As we can see, these texts can determine a lot, and thus it is important to keep these texts

and principles in mind as we approach the next phase of this study.

What do the Church Fathers say about Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 32:2?

A study oflogizomai would be incomplete without a look at how the Early Church Fathers

interpreted key texts like Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 32:2. This testimony will either confirmor refute what has just been presented. I was able to find about eight Church Fathers who

directly reference Genesis 15:6, none of whom said anything close to resembling the idea

faith has no intrinsic quality of righteousness and instead must look outside itself toChrists (alien) righteousness. It was this kind ofrealization that led the early Protestants to

conclude that the Fathers were only as useful as a lexicon or Bible dictionary (see Tradition

and the Lexicon), rather than successors of the Apostles who passed on invaluable

testimony of the Christian Faith. And it is at this point where the Protestant mind has littleissue dispensing with the Councils and Patristics whenever they dont support the

Protestant interpretation of Scripture, but this approach implicitly succumbs to the error of

Ecclesial Deism since this is effectively saying the Early Church didnt understand the

plain teaching of Scripture on a (very) essential matter and thus misunderstood and failedto teach the heart of the Gospel.

The Patristic testimony is unanimous in seeing Genesis 15:6 as signifying a righteous act of

faithful obedience on Abrahams part, starting as early as Saints Clement (Epistle to the

Corinthians Ch 10) and Irenaeus (AH 4:16:2;5:32:2). Saint Cyprian states the consensusquite succinctly, whosoever believes in God and lives in faith is found righteous, and

already is blessed in faithful Abraham, and is set forth as justified (Epistle 62:4Cf.

Chrysostom, Commentary on Hebrews,Homily 34:7; Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical

Lecture 5:5). Saint Hilary could notbe more direct, Nothing is more righteous than Faith(On the Trinity, 10:68;9:64), and St. Gregory of Nyssa concurs with that sentiment, God

counts to men for righteousness their faith, not their knowledge (Answer to Eunomius).

Saint Augustine sheds some more direct light on logizomai when he confronts the

Donatists, saying their unbelief should be counted unto you for unrighteousness, as itfairly would be counted (Answer to PetilianCh14:33), and Chyrsostom substitutes the

standard term by saying Abrahams faithsufficedunto righteousness (Commentary on

Galatians 3:6).
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.x.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.x.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.x.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.x.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xvii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xvii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xvii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxxiii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxxiii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxxiii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.v.xxxviii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.v.xxxviii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.v.xxxviii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.ix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.ix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.ix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.ix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.x.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.x.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.x.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.ix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.ix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.ix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.ii.ii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.ii.ii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.ii.ii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.v.v.iv.xiv.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.v.v.iv.xiv.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.v.v.iv.xiv.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.iii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.iii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.iii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.iii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.iii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.iii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.v.v.iv.xiv.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.ii.ii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.ix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.ii.v.ii.x.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.ix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.ix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.v.xxxviii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxxiii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xvii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.x.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.x.html


11/58

Commenting on Psalm 32:3, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, It is one of Gods attributes

always to substantiate His declarations; if He covers sin and does not impute it, this can

only be effected by an utter extinction or blotting out of the sin. Tradition also has always

taught this view of the forgiveness of sins (Sanctifying Grace). This description matcheswhat I found when I examined the Fathers comments on this passage, though the Fathers

went further to place Davids repentance within the contextof doing penance. SaintClement uses this example in admonishing the Corinthians, saying: Blessed are we,beloved, if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love; that so through love

our sins may be forgiven us (Epistle to the Corinthians,Ch 50). Directly contradicting the

Reformed idea that all future sins are forgiven at the moment of coversion, Saint Justinsays, you deceive yourselves, and some others who resemble you in this, who say, that

even though they be sinners, but know God, the Lord will not impute sin to them. We have

as proof of this the one fall of David, which happened through his boasting, which was

forgiven then when he so mourned and wept, as it is written. But if even to such a man no

remission was granted before repentance, and only when this great king, and anointed one,and prophet, mourned and conducted himself so, how can the impure and utterly

abandoned, if they weep not, and mourn not, and repent not, entertain the hope that the

Lord will not impute to them sin? (Dialog 141). Augustine, likewise, sees David as anexample of a great man who fell and needed to be forgiven, even [David's] faults are

overcome by great piety, through the most salutary humility of his repentance (City of

God 17:20), because [God] does not impute it [sin] to those who say to Him in faith,Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. (Perfection in Righteousness, 15th

Breviate; seeReformed Imputation and the Lords Prayer). St Ambrose places the Psalm in

a twofold forgiveness, first in baptism, then in penance: He calls each blessed, both himwhose sins are remitted by the font, and him whose sin is covered by good works. For he

who repents ought not only to wash away his sin by his tears, but also to cover and hide his

former transgressions by amended deeds, that sin may not be imputed to him (On

Repentance 2:5:35).

There is, however, a secondary undersanding of not imputing sin, which St Gregory

Nazianzen describes as those sinners whose actions are not praiseworthy, but who areinnocent of intention (Oration 40:32), but this is perfectly compatible with the standard

understanding oflogizomai, as Augustine explains whatever shall not be imputed as sin is

not sin (see 15th

Breviate quoted prior).

Thus, there is no support of a Protestant reading of Romans 4:6-8, nor is there an idea of

God cloaking our sins under a blanket of snow, much less imputing those sins to Christ.

Conclusion:

In this essay I have demonstrated the Protestant understanding of imputation is contrary

both to the Biblical testimony as well as the Patristic testimony, leaving the doctrine of Sola

Fide without any credibility. I believe that if more Protestants knew these facts, they wouldreadily abandon the doctrine, and because of that I believe education and getting the word

out on this subject is crucial.

* * * * *
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htmhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.l.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.l.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.l.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.cxli.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.cxli.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.cxli.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVII.20.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVII.20.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVII.20.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVII.20.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiii.xix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiii.xix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiii.xix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiii.xix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.vi.iii.v.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.vi.iii.v.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.vi.iii.v.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.vi.iii.v.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xxiii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xxiii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xxiii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xxiii.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.vi.iii.v.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.vi.iii.v.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiii.xix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xiii.xix.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVII.20.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVII.20.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.cxli.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.l.htmlhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm


12/58

Part IV to VI: APPENDIX

What do the experts say about logizomai?

In this section of the study, I will examine various sources from well respected Protestant

authors (most of whom are Reformed). I have consulted almost 50 Protestant sources(including the ones quoted earlier), focusing specifically on whether they mention the term

logizomai or not, and if they do what they say about it. While this is neither an exhaustive

nor a thorough treatment of every author, I feel the quotes are very representative of thespecific authors understanding and the general understanding of Protestant scholarship as a

whole. It is my contention that Protestant scholarship has failed miserably on this task to

analyze such a crucial word. As will be shown, these sources range from incompetent todeceptive in their utter lack of upfront honesty about this subject. This is truly an Emperor

has no clothes moment if Ive ever seen one.

I think it is best to focus on the ten most important authors Ive come across, and from therefill in the analysis with the other authors.

John Calvin,Commentary on Genesis: Ch15:6. For the word ??? (chashab,) which

Moses uses, is to be understood as relating to the judgment of God, just as in Psalm 106:31,

where the zeal of Phinehas is said to have been counted to him for righteousness. The

meaning of the expression will, however, more fully appear by comparison with its

opposites. [references Leviticus 7:18; 17:4; 2 Samuel 19:19; 2 Kings 12:15] Let us

now return to Moses. Just as we understand that they to whom iniquity is imputed are guilty

before God; so those to whom he imputes righteousness are approved by him as justpersons; wherefore Abram was received into the number and rank of just persons by the

imputation of righteousness. For Paul, in order that he may show us distinctly the force and

nature, or quality of this righteousness, leads us to the celestial tribunal of God. Therefore,

they foolishly trifle who apply this term to his character as an honest man; as if it

meant that Abram was personally held to be a just and righteous man. Lastly, it is

not less the part of stupor than of impudence, when this faith is said to have been

imputed to him for righteousness, to mingle with it some other meaning, than that thefaith of Abram was accepted in the place of righteousness with God.

Without a doubt, Calvin has set the bar on exegeting Genesis 15:6and almost everyProtestant author Ive consulted has followed this pattern. Of the various works I consulted,

this is the most in depth hes been on his exegesis of this matter (and I found nothing

close to this in hisInstitutes). He clearly ignores logizomai all together and focuses solely

on the OT term chashab, and as you can see he singles out a few biased examples to formhis conclusion. His reference to Psalm 106 was totally in passing, ignoring any natural

link to interpreting 15:6 with. His conclusion is absolutely ridiculous and straw man,

ruling out the idea Abraham could have been righteous in any sense, including it being aquality of Abrahams faith. Thats not exegesis; thats an agenda.

John Owen,The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Ch7, Wherefore, in the imputation

of any thing unto us which is ours, God esteems it not to be other than it is. He doesnot esteem that to be a perfect righteousnesswhich is imperfect; so to do, might argue
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.xxi.i.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.xxi.i.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.xxi.i.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/just.xi.html#xi-p10.1http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/just.xi.html#xi-p10.1http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/just.xi.html#xi-p10.1http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/just.xi.html#xi-p10.1http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.xxi.i.html


13/58

either a mistake of the thing judged on, or perverseness in the judgment itself upon it.

Wherefore, if, as some say, our own faith and obedienceare imputed unto us forrighteousness, seeing they are imperfect, they must be imputed unto us for an

imperfect r ighteousness, and not for that which is perfect; for that judgment of God whichis according unto truth is in this imputation.

Imputationmay justly ensue ex voluntaria sponsione, when one freely and willingly

undertakes to answer for another. An illustrious instance hereof we have in that passageof the apostle unto Philemon And this voluntary sponsion was one ground of the

imputation of our sin unto Christ.There is an imputation ex mera gratia, of mere grace and favour. For the

imputation of works unto us, be they what they will, be it faith itself as a work of obedience

in us, is the imputation of that which was ours before such imputation; but the imputation

of the righteousness of faith, or the righteousness of God which is by faith, is the

imputation of that which is made oursby virtue of that imputation. And these two

imputations differ in their whole kind. The one is ajudgingof that to be in us which indeed

is so, and is ours before that judgment be passed concerning it; the other is acommunicationof that unto us which before was not ours . And no man can make sense

of the apostles discourse, that is, he cannot understand any thing of it, if he acknowledge

not that the righteousnesshe treats of is made oursby imputation, and was not ours

antecedently thereunto.

This analysis of Owen is some of the most in-depthphilosophicallythat Ive found (I onlyquoted a portion for brevity), but Biblically it holds no weight. He literally invents a

distinction and projects it right onto the Bible. His antecedent distinction (i.e.

speaking of a quality possessed beforehand) has no basis in Scripture; he invented it simply

to make Imputation work. But his agenda is pretty easy to see, given that he cites noScriptures using logizomai, and now he makes logizomai hold two meanings:first totransfer, second to reckon. This sneaking in of the transfer component is unacceptable

and reveals the fundamental flaw of the entire Protestant system. This is also the earliestexample Ive found where Philemon 1:18 is used as the definitive proof text, despite it not

using the term logizomai and practically ignoring the passages that do use logizomai. To

add insult to injury, he claims that all man is capable of having is an imperfect

righteousness, such that even if Abrahams faith itself was seen as a righteous act, at most itcould have only been an imperfect righteous act. How ridiculous. Arthur PinkinThe

Doctrine of Justification, Ch5, makes a similar claim when he sneaks in a transfer

component into the mix: as the sins of him who believes were, by God, transferred and

imputed to Christ even so the obedience or righteousness of Christ is, by God,

transferred and imputedto the believer And any denial of that fact, no matter by

whomsoever made, is a repudiation of the cardinal principle of the Gospel. Notice this

cardinal principle, as he explains it, has no basis in Scripture; its merely asserted.

Francis Turretin, Institutes, Vol 2, p648, (Sixteeth Topic; Third Question; Section 7, 9),However, because we treat here of the imputed righteousness of Christ, we must remark

further that the word impute (which is in Hebrew chshbh; in Greek logizesthai or

ellogein) can be taken in two ways, either properly or improperly. That is said to be

imputed to anyone improperly which he himself has done or has, when on that
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pink/just.ch5.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/pink/just.ch5.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/pink/just.ch5.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/pink/just.ch5.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/pink/just.ch5.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/pink/just.ch5.html


14/58

account a reward or punishment is decreed to him. [references 2 Sam 19:19; Ps

106:31] Properly is to hold him who has not done a thing, as if he had done it. In

turn not to impute is to hold him who has done a thing as if he had not done it; as Paul

desires the fault of Onesimus to be imputed to him (which he himself had not committed,Philem. 18) and asks that the fault should not be laid to the charge of those who forsook

him (which they had committed, 2 Tim. 4:16). Therefore when we say that therighteousness of Christ is imptued to us for justification and that we are just before Godthrough imputed righteousness and not through any righteousness inherent in us, we mean

nothing else than that the obedience of Christ rendered in our name to God the Father

is so given to us by God that it is reckoned to be truly ours

As with the others, Turrentin makes a drive-by analysis of the term. He speaks as if it is

beyond doubt that there are two ways the term is used, despite the fact there is not, and he

uses Philemon as his principle proof for this distinction. And note how Turretin sneaks inthe transfer component into his description, stating that imputation implies Christs

righteousness is given to us and then reckoned to be ours.

James Buchanan,The Doctrine of Justification, Part II, Lecture XII, Proposition XVII:

There is not in al l the Scriptures, says one [opponent], an instance in which one

mans sin or righteousness is said to be imputed to another. There is not in all the Bibleone assertion that Adams sin, or Christs righteousness, is imputed to us; nor one

declaration that any mans sin is ever imputed by God or man to another man. Having

followed (the Hebrew and Greek verbs) through the concordances, I hesitate not tochallenge a single example which is fairly of this nature in all the Bible.

These are bold statements, and may seem to imply a denial of the doctrine But thequestion is, Whether the same verbs [i.e. logizomai] may not be equally applicable to other

cases, in which that which is imputed to him was not personally his own, and did not

previously belong to him, but became his only by its being put down to his account? The

debt due, and the wrong done, by Onesimus to Philemon, were not chargeable againstPaul personally or previously, but he became chargeable with them simply by their being

imputed to him: If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account,

or impute that to me; I will repay it. In like manner, He, who knew no sin, was madesin for us, and bore our sins in His own body on the tree, not that our sins were

chargeable against Him personally or previously, but they became His by imputation on

Gods part, and voluntary susception on His own. If it be said, that the mere word

impute is not employed in this case, it may be asked, whether there be any other

which could more accurately express the fact, if it be a fact; and whether the word itself

is not used in a parallel case, when God is said to impute righteousness without works, as

often as He justifieth the ungodly?

This quote is one of the most revealing Ive ever come across. Buchanan makes so many

fatal admissions that I believe this should be cause for concern to any Protestant reading it.An opponent challenges Buchanan, stating nowhere is the term logizomai (orchashab)

ever used in regards to the three-fold Imputation. Buchanan admits he could find no such

verses himself, but only that certain verses suggested as much. This is an invalid argument,
http://www.rpts.edu/media/DoctrineofJustification-Buchanan.pdfhttp://www.rpts.edu/media/DoctrineofJustification-Buchanan.pdfhttp://www.rpts.edu/media/DoctrineofJustification-Buchanan.pdfhttp://www.rpts.edu/media/DoctrineofJustification-Buchanan.pdfhttp://www.rpts.edu/media/DoctrineofJustification-Buchanan.pdfhttp://www.rpts.edu/media/DoctrineofJustification-Buchanan.pdfhttp://www.rpts.edu/media/DoctrineofJustification-Buchanan.pdf


15/58

especially considering he fails to examine the term logizomai himself, and instead is

satisfied by quoting the infamous Philemon 1:18 as the chief proof text.

Charles Hodge,Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p165-7:

This [Rom 4:3] is an important passage, as the phrase to impute faith for righteousness,

occurs repeatedly in Pauls writings. [references 2 Chron 5:5; Mk 15:28; Isaiah 53:17;Gen 31:15; Isa 40:17; Job 19:11; 33:10; 2 Sam 19:19; 1 Sam 22:15; Ps 32:2; 2 Cor 5:19; 2

Tim 4:15] These and numerous similar passages render the scriptural idea ofimputation perfectly clear. It is laying anything to ones charge, and treating him

accordingly. It produces no change in the individual to whom the imputation is made; itsimply alters his relation to the law. All those objections, therefore, to the doctrine

expressed by this term, which are founded on the assumption that imputation alters the

moral character of men; that it implies an infusion of either sin or holiness, rest on a

misconception of its nature. It is, so far as the mere force of the term is concerned, a

matter of perfect indifference whether the thing imputed belonged antecedently to the

person to whom the imputation is made or not. It is just as common and correct to

speak of laying to a mans charge what does not belong to him, as what does. That athing can seldom be justly imputed to a person to whom does not personally belong, is a

matter of course. But that the word itself implies that the thing imputed must belong tothe person concered, is a singular misconception. These remarks have, of course,reference only to the meaning of the word. Whether the Bible actually teaches that there

is an imputation of either sin or righteousness, to any to whom it does not personally

belong, is another question. That the Bible does speak both of imputing to a man what

does not actually belong to him, and of not imputing what does, is evident from the

following, among other passages [references Lev 17:3-4; Lev 7:18; Philem 1:18; Rom

v:13] This idea of imputation is one of the most familiar in all the Bible, and is

expressed in a multitude of cases where the term is not used. The objection, therefore,

that the word impute does not occur in reference to the imputation of the sin or

righteousness of one man to another, even if well founded, which it is not the fact, is of

no more force than the objections against the doctrines of the Trinity, vicarious atonement,

perserverance of the saints, &c., founded on the fact that these words do not occur in theBible. The material point surely is, Do the ideas occur?

While Hodge does list multiple passages where logizomai/chshab do occur, this isfundamentally dishonest scholarship for he has systematically gone through Scripture and

ignored any occurrences which would hurt his claim. Just as outrageous is the definition he

goes onto give. First of all, no Catholic should be arguing logizomai entails a

transformation, since it does not; thats really a red herring here. But Hodge uses this strawman to take liberties with defining the real meaning. He states that it is just as acceptable to

speak of reckoning to someone something they actually possess as much as what they do

not possess. How outrageous: not a single text he cites (nor any he fails to cite) say itsacceptable to reckon to someone what they dont possess. As he continues, he states this

twisted definition is one of the most familiar in the Bible, despite only quoting 3 biased

examples (which I addressed earlier), including the infamous Philemon 1:18! And as withBuchanan, Hodge admits he can find no Scriptural examples of the three-fold Imputation,

and yet that doesnt matter to him.

In another important text, Hodge makes similar comments:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y_fu2XupxusC&pg=PA166&output=htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=Y_fu2XupxusC&pg=PA166&output=htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=Y_fu2XupxusC&pg=PA166&output=htmlhttp://books.google.com/books?id=Y_fu2XupxusC&pg=PA166&output=html


16/58

Systematic Theology Bk3:Ch17:Sec5, The righteousness of Christ is imputed to the

believer for his justification. The word impute is familiar and unambiguous. To impute

is to ascribe to, to reckon to, to lay to ones charge. When we say we impute a good or

bad motive to a man, or that a good or evil action is imputed to him, no one

misunderstands our meaning. Philemon had no doubt what Paul meant when he told

him to impute to him the debt of Onesimus. [ also cites 1 Sam 22:15; 2 Sam 19:19; Lev7:18; Lev 17:4; Ps 32:2; Rom 4:6; 2 Cor 5:19 ...] The meaning of these and similar

passages of Scripture has never been disputed. Everyone understands them . We use

the word impute in its simple admitted sense, when we say that the righteousness of Christ

is imputed to the believer for his justification.

This drive-by exegesis is all too familiar and continues to be troubling. The idea that Hodge

can be writing a systematic theology textbook and hiding and twisting such facts is

astounding. The meaning of impute is by no means settled as he pretends, nor does thehonest reader allow to slide his proofs from a biased sampling of the evidence.

Alexander Hodge,Outlines of Systematic Theology, Ch25, 9, To impute sin is simply to

charge it to ones account as the ground of punishment. (1) The Hebrew word [chashab]

means to estimate, count, credit, impute as belonging to. Genesis 31:15; Leviticus 7:18;

Numbers 18:27; Psalm 106:31. (2) The same is true with regard to the Greek wordlogizomaiIsaiah 53:12; Romans 2:26; 4:39; 2 Corinthians 5:19. (3) The Scripturesassert that our sins are imputed to Christ.Mark 15:28; Isaiah 53:6 and 12; 2

Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13.

As usual, a totally biased sampling of the evidence. What makes this attempt so sad though

is that even the biased evidence doesnt support what Hodge is trying to prove to his reader.Nowhere does the Bible say sins are imputed to Christ, thats a totally inaccurate statement.

Alexander had made similar erroneous comments elsewhere in his Systematic Theology

textbook:

Outlines of Systematic Theology, Ch21, Imputation (the Hebrew chashab and the Greek

logizomaifrequently occurringand translated to count, to reckon, to impute, etc.) issimply to lay to ones charge as a just ground of legal procedure, whether the thing imputed

antecedently belonged to the person to whom it is charged, or for any other adequate reason

he is Justly responsible for it. Thus not to impute sin to the doer of it, is of coursegraciously to refrain from charging the guilt of his own act or state upon him as a ground of

punishment; while to impute righteousness without works is graciously to credit the

believer with a righteousness which is not personally his own .Romans 4:6,8; 2

Corinthians 5:19; see Numbers 30:15; 18:2227,30; Leviticus 5:17,18; 7:18; 16:22;Romans 2:26; 2 Timothy 4:16, etc.

The same flawed logic, propped up by the same worthless analysis of the evidence. Toadmit the term logizomai appears frequently and yet to only quote a biased sample is

dishonesty at its core.

Robert Dabney,Systematic Theology, Chapter 23, The Catechism says that Christs

righteousness is imputed to us. This Latin word, to reckon or account to any one, is
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3.iii.iii.v.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3.iii.iii.v.htmlhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/H/Hodge,%20A%20A%20-%20Outlines%20of%20Systematic%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/H/Hodge,%20A%20A%20-%20Outlines%20of%20Systematic%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/H/Hodge,%20A%20A%20-%20Outlines%20of%20Systematic%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/H/Hodge,%20A%20A%20-%20Outlines%20of%20Systematic%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/H/Hodge,%20A%20A%20-%20Outlines%20of%20Systematic%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/D/Dabney,%20Robert%20-%20Systematic%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/D/Dabney,%20Robert%20-%20Systematic%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/D/Dabney,%20Robert%20-%20Systematic%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/D/Dabney,%20Robert%20-%20Systematic%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/H/Hodge,%20A%20A%20-%20Outlines%20of%20Systematic%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/H/Hodge,%20A%20A%20-%20Outlines%20of%20Systematic%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3.iii.iii.v.html


17/58

sometimes employed in the English Scriptures as the translation of [chashab], logizomai ,

ellogew, and correctly. Of the former we have instances in Gen. 15:6; 38:15; 2 Sam. 19:19;

of the next in Mark 15:28; Rom. 2:26; 4:5, etc.; Gal. 3:6, etc.; and of the last, in Rom. 5:13;

Philem. 18. Sometimes it is evident that the thing imputed is that which is actually

done by or personally belongs to the person to whom it is reckoned, or set over. (This is

what Turrettin calls imputation loosely so called). Sometimes the thing imputed belongedto, or was done by another, as in Philem. 18; Rom. 4:6. This is the imputation whichtakes place in the sinners justification. It may be said, without affecting excessive

subtlety of definition, that by imputation of Christs righteousness, we only mean that

Christs righteousness is so accounted to the sinner, as that he receives thereupon the legalconsequences to which it entitles. In accordance with 2 Cor. 5:21, as well as with the

dictates of sound reason, we regard it as the exact counterpart of the imputation of

our sins to Christ. When we attempt to prove this imputation, we are met with the

assertion, by Arminians and theologians of the New England School, that there is no

instance in the whole Bible of anything imputed, except that which the man personally

does or possesses himself; so that there is no Scriptural warrant for this idea of

transference of righteousness as to its legal consequences. We point, in reply, to

Philemon 18, and to Romans 4:6.

This is one of the more revealing quotes in this list, somewhere up there by Buchanansadmission. Notice how Dabney (a) limits the examples he gives, (b) admits the Bible

doesnt use logizomai in reference to Christ, and (c) uses Philemon 1:18 as his key

interpretive text. He clearly understand the dilemma and what is hanging in the balance.

And in a later chapter, he says:

Systematic Theology, Chatper 29,The Hebrew word [chashab] and the Greek,

logizomai both mean primarily to think, then to deem or judge, then to impute orattribute. In this sense the former occurs in Ps. 32:2, and the latter in Rom. 4:68, as itstranslation. See also 2 Sam. 19:19; 2 Cor. 5:19; Gal. 3:6; James 2:23. Without going at

this time into the vexed question, whether anything is ever said in Scripture to be

imputed to any other than its own agent, I would define, that it is not Adams sin which

is imputed to us, but the guilt (obligation to punishment) of his first sin.

More of the same. He is clearly not interested in analyzing logizomai, but pushing through

an agenda. Notice how he quotes Galatians 3:6 and James 2:23, both saying the same thing,

when there are numerous other verses he can cite.

B.B. Warfield,Studies in Theology, Chapter 10, The theological use of the term

imputation is probably rooted ultimately in the employment of the verb imputo in theVulgate to translate the Greek verb logizesthai in Psalm 32:2. This passage is quoted by

Paul in Romans 4:8 and made one of the foundations of his argument that, in saving man,

God sets to his credit a righteousness without works. It is only in these two passages, and in

the two axiomatic statements of Romans 4:4 and 5:13 that the Vulgate uses imputo in thisconnection (cf., with special application, 2 Timothy 4:16; Philemon 1:18). Romans 4:11,

22, 23, 24; 2 Corinthians 5:19; James 2:23Galatians 3:6Romans 4:4,9, 10 the

technical term for that which is expressed by the Greek words in their so-called

commercial sense, or what may, more correctly, be called their forensic or
http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/D/Dabney,%20Robert%20-%20Systematic%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/D/Dabney,%20Robert%20-%20Systematic%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/W/Warfield%20-%20Studies%20in%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/W/Warfield%20-%20Studies%20in%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/W/Warfield%20-%20Studies%20in%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/W/Warfield%20-%20Studies%20in%20Theology.pdfhttp://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/D/Dabney,%20Robert%20-%20Systematic%20Theology.pdf


18/58

judicial sense, that is, putting to ones account, or, in its twofold reference to the

credit and debit sides, setting to ones credit or laying to ones charge.

Warfield says a lot, but nothing at all. He doesnt examine logizomai at all, except to tell us

how it was rendered in Latin. His real focus should be to see whether the Greek meaning

conforms to his own. Instead, we get is numerous references to Genesis 15:6, and passingreferences to 2 Timothy 4:19, 2 Corinthians 5:19, and Philemon 1:18. This is all in keeping

with his predecessors.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, p211f,The word [logizesthai] can certainly

mean to hold or consider a person for what he or she is (1 Cor. 4:1; 2 Cor. 12:6).

However, it can also have the sense of to credit to a person something one does not

personally possess. Thus the sins of those who believer are not counted against them

although they do have them (Rom. 4:8; 2 Cor. 5:19; cf. 2 Tim 4:16); and thus they are

counted against Christ, although he was without sin (Isa. 53:4-6 ) . Similarly, to thosewho believe, a righteousness is imputed that they do not have(Rom. 4:5)

The logic here is just bad. These comments are typical of those who have not stopped and

carefully looked at the evidence and simply repeated what others have told them. The ideathat logizomaican also mean credit to a person something they dont possess is not

accurate at all, nor do those Biblical texts show this. In fact, those texts show that to not

impute sin means to forgive, it does not mean and thus they are counted against Christ,which is a logical fallacy of begging the question. And to top that off, Bavink lumps

Romans 4:3 into the second camp rather than the first, without even giving the former a

chance.

Douglass Moo,The Epistle to the Romans, p262, Of considerable importance for Pauls

use of the text [Gen 15:6] is the meaning of Gods reckoning Abrahams faith for

righteousness. The language could suggest that his faith is considered as the

equivalent of righteousness that God sees Abrahams faith as itself a righteous

act, well pleasing to him. But if we compare other verses in which the same

grammatical construction as is used in Gen. 15:6 occurs, we arrive at a different

conclusion. These parallels suggest that the reckoning of Abrahams faith as

righteousness means to account to him a righteousness that does not inherently

belong to him. [FN35]Abrahams response to Gods promise leads God to reckon tohim a status of righteousness. If this interpretation of Gen. 15:6 is correct, then Pauls

application of the verse is both fair and appropriate.

[Footnote 35: ...offerings or sacrifices which are reckoned to a person's benefit cf. Lev.7:18; Num. 18:27, 30... Others refer to a status, or legal standing, which someone reckons

to someone else. In 2 Sam. 19:20, e.g., Shimei, who confesses his sin, nevertheless asks

David not to credit his guilt against him. What Shimei is asking is that David reckon orregard him in a way that overlooks, or does not correspond to, the facts of the case. In Ps.

106:31, similarly, God's reckoning of Phinehas as righteous (see Num. 25) is a

declarative act, not an equivalent compensation or reward for merit (cf. Also Gen. 31:15;Ps. 32:2).]
http://books.google.com/books?id=PP3dswxEfM8C&lpg=PA211&dq=logizesthai&pg=PA211#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=PP3dswxEfM8C&lpg=PA211&dq=logizesthai&pg=PA211#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=PP3dswxEfM8C&lpg=PA211&dq=logizesthai&pg=PA211#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=Q2Eiottz75cC&lpg=PP1&vq=%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%B6%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=Q2Eiottz75cC&lpg=PP1&vq=%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%B6%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=Q2Eiottz75cC&lpg=PP1&vq=%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%B6%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=Q2Eiottz75cC&lpg=PP1&vq=%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%B6%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=PP3dswxEfM8C&lpg=PA211&dq=logizesthai&pg=PA211#v=onepage&q&f=false


19/58

Totally astounding. Moo admits the language certainly fits the reading that faith itself was

reckoned as a righteous act, but says if we only compare texts with similar construction we

will come to an opposite conclusion. Yet what are these parallel texts? Nothing but a few

verses of biased sampling, including the whopper Psalm 106:31, which uses identicalconstruction yet conveniently skimmed. This kind of scholarship is downright

embarrassing.

D. A. Carson,Justification: Whats at Stake (Ch2 Vindication of Imputation), P55ff,

Because Paul says that faith is counted as righteousness, Gundry says that, in effect,

Abrahams righteousness consists of faith even though faith is not itself a work. 29

Faith becomes the equivalent of righteousnessthat is the way God counts faith, though

of course faith and righteousness in themselves are not to be confused. Merely to assert,

however, that faith of such equivalent value is not itself a work would not have

impressed readers familiar with the Jewish background, where the precise counter-claim was standard fare. Moreover, although it is true that one important Old Testament

text with the same grammatical construction (in the LXX) establishes a similar sort of

equivalence (Ps 106:28 [31]), the equivalence in that case is not between faithand

righteousness, but between a r ighteous deedand righteousness (the righteous deed in

question is the zealous execution of public sinners by Phinehas, Num 25:7- 13). In other

words, in this instance Gods reckoning Phinehas as righteous (see Num 25) is adeclarative act, not an equivalent compensation or reward for merit (cf. also Gen 31:15; Ps

32:2).30

Carson begins by quoting Gundry (a modern Protestant scholar who is making similar

claims as Catholics regarding imputation and receiving a lot of criticism by Calvinist

authors). Of course, Carson does not present any worthy counter argument at all, and makes

the ridiculous out-of-thin-air distinction that despite identical language, Psalm 106 wasspeaking of a righteous deed while Genesis 15 was speaking of righteousness itself.Now examine the footnotes #28 and #30, where Carson says:

[Footnote 28] the Hebrew verb has little to do with counting or reckoning in a

commercial sense, and much more to do with the notion of plan, invent, devise, or,

alternatively, to denote a kind of thinking in which will and emotion are involved, or todenote count (as) or count [something or someone](as), often as a subjective

judgment (e.g., Gen 31:15; 1 Sam 1:13; Job 41:27, 29; Is 5:28). But this presupposes not

only that Paul made this subtle distinction in his interpretation of Genesis 15:6, but that heexpected his readers to, which is highly unlikely

30 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 262 n. 35. This distinction perfectly reflects the fact

that sometimes logizomai conceives of the counting or the imputing as a

reckoning up of what is in fact there, and sometimes conceives of the counting or

the imputing as a reckoning up of one thing asanother thing. See further below.

Carson seems to be suggesting that Paul didnt really know how logizomai was to be used,

and that he wouldnt have used a subtle definition. Carson would not say this if he actuallyopened up a lexicon and examined the verses where it appears. Then he quotes Moos

commentary on Romans, which I also reference. Carson uses this ipse dixitto garner
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2004_vindication_of_imputation.pdfhttp://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2004_vindication_of_imputation.pdfhttp://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2004_vindication_of_imputation.pdfhttp://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2004_vindication_of_imputation.pdf


20/58

support of the faulty definition of reckon he seeks to establish. Now to see some actual

proofs, Carson goes onto say:

Of greater interest, because they are conceptually closer to Genesis 15:6, are those

passages where the same construction is used to say that somethingis imputed or

reckoned to another as something else. Thus Leah and Rachel assert that their fatherreckons them as strangers (though obviously they are not, Gen 31:15). The Levites

tithe is reckoned as the corn of the threshing-floor and as the fullness of the winepress,

though transparently it is neither (Num 18:27, 30). If a certain sacrifice is not eaten by the

third day, its value is lost, and it is not reckoned to the benefit of the sinner (Lev 7:18):clearly the passage envisions a situation in which righteousness could be reckoned to a

person, even though the individual concerned admittedly is a sinner.31 The relevant

expression is used in other passages to refer to the offering of sacrifices that are

reckoned to a persons benefit (e.g., Num 18:27, 30). In other words, neither the verb

nor the grammatical form will allow us to decide whether this faith that Abrahamexercises was originally viewed as a righteous act which God himself then declared to be

righteous (as the act of Phinehas was declared to be righteous, Ps 106:28, above), or,alternatively, that this faith that Abraham exercises is to be viewed as belonging to a

different species than righteous act, with the result that when it is reckoned or

imputed to Abraham as righteousness it provides an instance in which, although

God himself reckons it as righteousness, this is an instance in which somethingis

imputed to another as something else. 32 How then shall we decide? We clearly see, of

course, that the Jewish heritage in which Paul stood before his conversion opts for the

former.

Sticking to the main plan, Carson carefully selects (and botches) a few biased examples.

His own argument of examining the use of reckon in Genesis totally backfires, for hetotally misunderstands the Leah/Rachel passage (and ignores Gen 38:15, both of which Ivecommented on earlier). But for him to say the verb nor grammatical form will allow us to

decide is laughable. Nothing he presented points to an exegetical draw, much less PaulsJewish heritage being the deciding factor. Now consider another important footnote:

32Strangely, Don Garlington, Imputation or Union with Christ? n. 4, refers to the sortsofpassages in which there is notstrict equivalence as supporting a non-

imputational reading of logi/zomai. It is true that logi/zomai has a semantic range

large enough to include non-imputational readings: see, for instance, Romans 3:28,briefly discussed below. But these passages are not among them. In each instance,

something that is not-X is reckonedto be X. To label them non-imputational in order to

enforce the conclusion that the faith of Romans 4:3 demonstrates that Abraham was thus

rightly reckoned to be righteous is to pre-judge the linguistic matters and, as I shall argueabove, distort the flow of Pauls argument.

Carson is playing fast and loose with his conclusions, likely deliberately. Garlington isanother Gundry, both Protestant scholars who are pointing out (though imperfectly) that the

Bible does not teach imputation, and this is causing serious unrest among the Reformed.

This is the first time Carson has been willing to look at other texts, but even here doesntgive them any chance.


21/58

By contrast, the analogy of Romans 4:4 does nottell us what the wages are creditedas, that is, what they terminate in, but simply specifies whether they are credited

according to obligation or according to grace. In other words, the structure of the

crediting or imputing language is not consistent through these verses, so it becomes

easy to force the wrong kind of parallelism and miss the train of thought. Romans 4:4

establishes that there is a crediting, an imputing, that is nothing more than gettingyour dessert; there is also a crediting, an imputing, that means something is credited

to your account that you do notdeserve. But Paul does notmake this analogy from the

field of wages walk on all fours and try to specify what this wage is credited as. It is

sufficient for his argument, at this juncture, that the distinction between merited imputationand unmerited imputation be preserved.

Carson is rightly noting the parallelism does not carry directly over, but he admits that

Romans 4:4 establishes an imputing that is nothing more than getting your dessert, inother words, reckoning what is indeed owed! This is crucial, for it shows how Paul is using

reckon right within this context.

Fifth, although Gundry asserts, doubtless fairly, that he can find no unambiguous

instance in the LXX, the New Testament, or in pagan literature, of logi/zomai being

used to refer to something being imputed in an instrumental sense, one must also averthat the verb is not a terminus technicus. It has an astonishingly wide range of meaning.Note, for instance, Romans 3:28: we reckon (logizo/meqa) that a man is justified by faith

(pi/stei): here (i) the reckoning is certainly not imputation in any technical sense ,(ii) the justification (in the light of the preceding paragraph) is grounded in Christs cross-

work, and (iii) the means of benefitting from Christs propitiatory death is unambiguously

faith. In the light of such linguistic realities, it seems a bit doctrinaire to read the

Genesis 15:6 citation in Romans 4 in the controlling way that Gundry advocates.

This is another very revealing passage. Carson admits that Gundry is right in claiming

never is logizomai used in an instrumental sense, meaning never is X used as a tool totransfer something from one place to another: thus the historic Protestant reading of faith

reckoned as righteousness meaning faith is the tool that reaches out and grabs and

transfers righteousness to me is a wholly novel idea with zero biblical precedent. To add tothis, Carson says logizomai has an astonishingly wide range of meaning, which is totally

false: it has a very narrow range of meaning! And his proof of wide range of meaning

actually betrays his total lack of understanding and research, since Romans 3:28 follows thesame pattern of logizomai throughout Scripture!

The language of 2 Corinthians 5:19-21 is also instructive. Explicitly, then, Paul

speaks of the non-imputation of our sins to ourselvesthat is, God refuses to count

up to our account what is in fact there on the ground that God made Christ, himself

sinless, to be sin for us. True, the text does not explicitly saythat God imputes our sins

to Christ, but as long as we perceive that Jesus dies in our place, and bears our curse,

and was made sin for us, it is extraordinarily difficult to avoid the notion of theimputation of our sins to him.


22/58

This is the closest thing any Reformed author has ever been able to dig up as proof that our

sins were imputed to Christ, since the Bible never uses logizomai in this way. The

Protestant argument is that since our sin wasnt logizomai to us (since they were forgiven,

cf Davids example in Psalm 32), that they thus must be imputed to someone else,namely Christ. But this is a total logical fallacy. Just because sin isnt imputed to X does

not at all require then they must be imputed to Y.

Part V

Thomas Schriner,Galatians, p192, The verb count (?????????) can refer to something

that is reckoned to someone. For example, Phinehass zeal in killing the Hebrew and the

Midianite woman was counted to him as righteousness (Ps 106:31). Phinehas was

counted righteous because he was righteous. In Gen 15:6, however, righteousness is

reckoned to Abraham even though it does not belong to him. Abraham was counted as

righteous by faith, even though he was not inherently righteous.

Thats the extent of his treatment of this all important matter, in a commentary on Galatians

(esp. Gal 3:6) designed to address this kind of stuff. This sort of drive by exegesis of

crucial terms is unacceptable.

Shreiner,Romans, p215, This polarity between believing and working casts light on the

meaning ofthe verb [logizesthai], which plays a major role in this chapter . The

conception is that something is reckoned to a person that is not inherent to him or her.

Gods righteousness is not native to human beings; it is an alien righteousness granted to us

by Gods grace.

His Romans commentary is even more unacceptable. Where is any analysis? How did he

get this definition? This kind of scholarship should not be.

James White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, pp. 155f; (c.f. The God Who Justifies,

pp.112f), The Hebrew term hashav has some interesting uses in the Old Testament. We

need to discover the background of Pauls use of the term as it is found relative to the

imputation of righteousness. [quotes Genesis 31:14f and Leviticus 25:31] All of theexamples listed above of this use hashav are translated in the Greek translation of the OldTestament (the Septuagint) by the very same term [logizomai] Paul uses in Romans 4

when he speaks of the imputation or reckoning of righteousness to the believer! Why is this

so significant? Because scholars recognize that Paul utilized the Septuagint as his main

source of biblical citations, and his vocabulary is deeply influenced by it. Our

understanding of what it means to impute something should take this into

consideration.

White starts off admitting we need to look at the background of the term, but what does

White do? He

imputation catholic critique

Documents