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/7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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/7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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.html7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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=false7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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.
7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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
7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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/97/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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.
7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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
7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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.html7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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.htm7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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.html7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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.html7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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.pdf7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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=html7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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.html7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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.pdf7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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=false7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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.pdf7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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.
7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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.
7/28/2019 Imputation Catholic Critique
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