(cont 3 of 3)
In Ro 4:6 (
see note), the man to whose account righteousness is put, is called blessed
“just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God
imputes righteousness apart from works”). (NKJV)
This is
imputation, the ** act of putting something to someone’s account.** In the case of the Lord Jesus, the sin of the human race was charged to Him.
In the case of the believing sinner, the righteousness of God, Christ Jesus Himself, is put to his account.
This is simply astonishing, the utter lack of consistency in applying “logizomai” (impute/reckon/count/etc) from the definition THEY gave. This WHOLE TIME they say “impute” means to credit to one account the contents of ANOTHER account, but that is NOT, NOT how logizomai is used. The Bank “imputes” $1000 to your account ONLY if your account ACTUALLY has $1000 in it.
The greatest act of eisegesis (reading a foreign idea into the text) is highlighted in red above. This passage in red is the FOUNDATION of Protestantism, but is so weak exegetically that it can only leave you speechless. NOWHERE does Romans 4 (or anywhere else) say the “righteousness of God” was reckoned to the sinner or Abraham in places like Rom 4:3 (“it was credited to him as righteousness”). NOWHERE is the “righteousness of God” said to be a sort of gas that is transfered across the courtroom and lands on top of the guilty man on trial, that it is “imputed” to the man on trial. NOWHERE in Paul’s teaching is the “righteousness of God” EQUATED with “Jesus” or “the Righteousness of Christ” (or any similar phrase).
They start off giving a definition of logizomai stating a bank only reckons $1000 if $1000 actually is in the account and the paragraph ENDS by saying Abraham’s faith was “logizomai” as righteousness means a FOREIGN value/status/quality, “Christ’s Righteousness,” was imputed to Abraham.
This article fell way way short of consistently applying “logizomai”, and again the reason why is because it would undermine the foundational concept of the “imputed Righteousness of Christ”.
All I ask is that people open their eyes to the truth here, what is the Bible really saying versus what Sola Fide is making it say.
In addition, as I have pointed out previously, most Protestants, including Calvin, recognized that salvation involves the imparting or infusing of a righteous nature. We place it under regeneration rather than justification. For Protestants of an Arminean bent it is even less problematic.
It is GRAVELY problematic. If you have stain in the rug that has just been removed by detergent then it is ILLOGICAL and superfluous for that part of the rug to require ANOTHER clean rug to cover where the stain was. It destroys the very heart of Sola Fide and runs headlong into the Catholic camp.
From the Calvinist Westminster Confession:
I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; n
ot 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 Christ’s 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.
I guess he was having an off day then, huh? Otherwise he wouldn’t have spoiled your little faith alone scenario by writing that. I even know of a hymn based on that…There are but three thing that last…Faith, Faith, Hope and Love…but the greatest of these is Love.