Faith Alone

[Sean_Boyle]

The divine gospel of God’s grace renounced, repudiated and replaced by men with “a gospel” of human works. This is what it means to “fall from grace.” Catch that, Pax?

So your saying that the act of “accepting Christ as your personal lord and Saviour” which of course can’t be found in scripture, word for word, is a work by defination and can’t save you. Then what does save you?

Why do you believe that your acceptance of Christ on some level will force God to grant his mercy to you at the final judgement. Doesn’t that belief make your act of acceptance a work and responsible for your salvation?

 

[moondweller]

Philthy:

Please note how I simply quoted Scripture with minimal commentary and how you have simply commented without reconciling your comments to the Scripture provided. What little commentary I did offer flowed naturally and logically from Scripture - not from my preconcieved theology of God’s omniscience or perfection. I’m not sure how to reconcile Gen 22 with God’s ominscience, but it says what it says. Perhaps the “Angel of the Lord” should not be equated with the “mind” of God; perhaps moral actions are not within the realm of that which is “known”, perhaps faith in a human is an eternally dynamic entity. Whatever the case may be, the most obvious understanding of the passage is that God tested Abraham and derived knowledge of his faith through that testing.

Perhaps you should do a study on what is called “anthropomorphism” in the Scriptures. Something said about God (description or quote) in anthropomorphic terminology. That is, in human terms, on the human level, for human apprehension. If we followed your hermeneutics we must conclude that God is not Spirit (Jn. 4:24) but physical and dons wings.Ps 17:8 “Keep me as the apple of the eye; Hide me in the shadow of Your wings.”

Ps 36:7 “How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God! And the children of men take refuge in the shadow of Your wings.”

Ps 61:4 “Let me dwell in Your tent forever; Let me take refuge in the shelter of Your wings.”

Ps 63:7 “For You have been my help, And in the shadow of Your wings I sing for joy.”

 

[Thing]

Sola Scriptura: Scripture alone -------------‘I Will Build My Church’
Sola Gratia: Salvation by grace alone--------'The Seeds Which Fell In Briars, sprouted and then died '—If you don’t use it, you will lose it.
Sola Fide: Salvation through faith alone-------‘Vain Man, see that you are not saved by Faith alone’
Solus Christus: Salvation in Christ alone------‘I Will Build My Church’
Soli Deo Gloria: To the glory of God alone??? never heard that one before.

That is Scriptura as I know it.

 

[Philthy]

"Philthy, apostasy is borne out of unbelief, never out of belief (an oxymoron).

Source please? You continue to deny that apostates once believed essential elements of the faith only to later deny them. Do you have a single source outside of yourself which explicitly defines apostasy in this way?

Hence, apostasy begets apostates. It multiplies after its own kind

Although I agree with this, your “conclusion”(ie “Hence,”) has nothing to do with your premise that apostacy is borne out of unbelief. I am therefore confused as to what your point is.

This side of the cross apostasy is a renunciation of the gospel of Christ.

If Im not mistaken, in such a context, renunciation means to relinquish or abandon something you once held or owned. So we havent moved an inch: apostasty still involves someone who once held the faith. Here’s a few dictionary definitions for renunciation…

1. the state of having rejected your religious beliefs or your political party or a cause (often in favor of opposing beliefs or causes) [syn: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostasy”]apostasy] 3. an act (spoken or written) declaring that something is surrendered or disowned 4. the act of renouncing; sacrificing or giving up or surrendering (a possession or right or title or privilege etc.)

The divine gospel of God’s grace renounced, repudiated and replaced by men with “a gospel” of human works.

Your use of “renounced” again points to something that has been given up by one who was in possession of it. The same can be said of repudiate, though it needn’t be the case. This contradicts your entry position that former believers do not apostasize. Very confusing. It seems that what you intended to say is that apostasy is, simply, the rejection of the gospel message from someone who never believed it and a substitution of that message for one of their own making. Is that what you meant to say? If so, would you mind sharing where you get such a definition of apostasy?

Catch that, Pax?

Be nice, He is watching.

Apostasy definitions:

• a total desertion of or departure from one’s religion
• abandonment of one’s religious faith,

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

You either are attempting to confuse the issue…or you really dont get it.

I get your article, Dude; I’m just asking you about the Catholic notion of “infusion of righteousness”, or “infusion of grace.”
Catholic Dude:

Infused grace means God’s grace entering your soul making it righteous.

”Grace entering your soul…” From that I understand you to be saying that “grace” is a substance of some kind. Can you offer biblical support that grace is a substance that enters ones soul?

You continue: [grace entering your soul]…making it righteous.

In your article you say:

As you have already probably guessed the ideas which the Protestant quotes above condemned are the very ideas which the Catholic Church considers essential and orthodox. Most notably that justification is by infused righteousness,…

You’re saying two things:1) Grace enters the soul thereby making the soul righteous.

2) Righteousness, as well as grace, is infused into the soul making the soul righteous.My question is, according to you, does the infusion of grace make the soul righteous in orthodox Catholic teaching, or does the infusion of righteous make the soul righteous, or some combination of the two?

Also, if it is righteousness entering the soul that makes it righteous, it would seem that, as with grace, righteousness is also some kind of “substance;” can you offer biblical support that righteousness is a substance?
Catholic Dude:

Rom 5:5 is a classic passage for the Catholic understanding of Sanctifying Grace: The love of God has been poured into our hearts by the Spirit which was given to us. The INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit in our soul which formerly did not indwell!!! That is the essence of sanctifying grace. The term “infused” is merely used to express the concept that this is put into you rather than an external status being counted in place of your soul.

First of all, the passage says nothing of God’s “grace” being poured into the believer’s heart, but God’s “love.”

Furthermore, TDNT states that the verb ekcheō is a figurative “pouring,” IOW, God’s love is not truly something that can be “poured out,” and that the love “poured into our hearts” is God’s love for us, and the reason we objectively understand that God loves us is that He has demonstrated that love in the sacrifice of His Son (v8), and that the believer ”stands in the grace,” or is “established in the grace” (v2), rather than, as you say, ”the grace is infused into” the believer, and the reason for all of this is that the believer ”has been justified by faith” and that faith without any other qualification attached to it (v1), IOW Faith Alone.
Catholic Dude:

Picture a stain in a carpet. Infused grace would be equivalent to a detergent lifting the stain from the carpet…

Infused grace is some kind of “Holy Spirit Detergent?”

…while imputed grace would be as if a beautiful oriental rug were placed on the carpet to hide the stain.

Scripture supplies its own picture, that of being clothed in Christ, pictured in Gen 3, and stated in Gal 3:27 (cf Rom 13:14; Job 29:14):**Genesis 3:21

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

Galatians 3:27

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.**You would agree that the purpose of “clothing” is to cover oneself, rather than to “infuse” the clothing into someone; wouldn’t you?
Catholic Dude:

Anytime the Bible talks about “purifying the heart” and other similar phrases that can only logically mean an infused grace, not imputed grace.

It’s only logical because it’s what you believe, as there is no word “infuse” in the Greek, correct?

(continued)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #822)
Catholic Dude:

This isnt about the term “infuse” appearing in Scripture, it is about the concept. The term “impute” doesnt actually appear in Scripture, it is an ENGLISH translation of Greek and Hebrew words which could just as easily be translated “counted”, “reckoned”, “etc”. My article goes into the details of this.

That brings me back to my question.

Answer the following question with a simple yes, or no:

Do the words “infuse with righteousness,” “infused with righteousness,” or “infusion of righteousness,” or, for that matter, any of those combinations with the word “grace” as well, appear anywhere in Scripture?

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

Okay, fair enough…I’ll provide the scriptures, but let’s keep this in the proper perspective. Scripture doesn’t use the term “imputed” either. Obviously, we are dealing conceptually with these terms as describing what takes place in the believer.

Scripture does use the term “impute” with the word ellogaō, in Rom 5:13 and Phm 18 in the negative, or subtractive sense, and in the positive or additive sense with the word logidizomai (derived from the Gk logos, or “word,” which is derived from the Gk legeō, I “say”, or declare by reckoning of characteristics or reasons (cf Rom 4:3 (LXX), 6, 8 (LXX), 5, 9, 11, 22-24; 9:8).

The Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible translates Rom 4:3 using the word “impute,” so we see that word is used in Scripture.

However, what we don’t find in Scripture is any word ”infuse.”

Each of the verses that you cite references baptism as an ”infusion of the Holy Spirit.”

But, the Holy Spirit is not “infused” into the believer, rather, He oikeō, or “dwells in,” or “inhabits,” or “possesses” the believer (cf Rom 8:9, 11; 1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 3:17; 2 Tim 1:14), in the way in which I dwell in my home—I’m not “infused into it,” rather, I “inhabit” , or “possess” it; it belongs to me.

Furthermore, you continue to link water baptism as the means of salvation, which, if true, condemns all of the OT saints who were not baptized. Again, salvation has always been by grace, through faith, in God, alone, and not by water baptism.

In 1 Sam 10:9, God gave Saul a new heart—no water baptism occurred, and no water baptism occurred in the giving of the Spirit to Moses, and those with him, neither did water baptism occur with David.

Also, notice from Eze 36:27 the description of the work of the Spirit: ”I will put my spirit within you, to cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will be careful to observe my ordinances.”—assurance by God to the believer of his future good conduct (cf Php 1:6;
2:12-16).

 

[Pax]

Scripture does use the term “impute” with the word ellogaō, in Rom 5:13 and Phm 18 in the negative, or subtractive sense, and in the positive or additive sense with the word logidizomai (derived from the Gk logos, or “word,” which is derived from the Gk legeō, I “say”, or declare by reckoning of characteristics or reasons (cf Rom 4:3 (LXX), 6, 8 (LXX), 5, 9, 11, 22-24; 9:8).

The Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible translates Rom 4:3 using the word “impute,” so we see that word is used in Scripture.

However, what we don’t find in Scripture is any word ”infuse.”

Each of the verses that you cite references baptism as an ”infusion of the Holy Spirit.”

But, the Holy Spirit is not “infused” into the believer, rather, He oikeō, or “dwells in,” or “inhabits,” or “possesses” the believer (cf Rom 8:9, 11; 1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 3:17; 2 Tim 1:14), in the way in which I dwell in my home—I’m not “infused into it,” rather, I “inhabit” , or “possess” it; it belongs to me.

Furthermore, you continue to link water baptism as the means of salvation, which, if true, condemns all of the OT saints who were not baptized. Again, salvation has always been by grace, through faith, in God, alone, and not by water baptism.

In 1 Sam 10:9, God gave Saul a new heart—no water baptism occurred, and no water baptism occurred in the giving of the Spirit to Moses, and those with him, neither did water baptism occur with David.

Also, notice from Eze 36:27 the description of the work of the Spirit: ”I will put my spirit within you, to cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will be careful to observe my ordinances.”—assurance by God to the believer of his future good conduct (cf Php 1:6;
2:12-16).

Nice try, but none of the verses I gave you even remotely suggests imputation. They are in the language of infusion.
Case closed.

Likewise, finding one use of the word “impute” in one translation is not very convincing to me. It is interpretive. Moreover, I have never argued against a dimension of “imputation” of righteousness. I have only argued against the erroneous idea that this is all there is. Scripture supports my view.

 

[Philthy]

Perhaps you should do a study on what is called “anthropomorphism” in the Scriptures.

Perhaps. Im quite sure the word anthropomorphism does not appear IN the Scriptures, though it may be said OF them. In such a study, what authority would the individual have to claim that a particular statement is definitively anthropomorphic? For example, is Genesis 1and the creation story anthropomorphic?

Something said about God (description or quote) in anthropomorphic terminology. That is, in human terms, on the human level, for human apprehension. If we followed your hermeneutics we must conclude that God is not Spirit (Jn. 4:24) but physical and dons wings.

I dont know friend. It seems to me that you can explain away almost anything you wish when you start “interpreting” Scripture in such a fashion.
On a practical level, it is perfectly clear what it means to seek refuge under the “wings” of God. It means that we take refuge in His care and sovereignty. Very easy to understand. I dont see the parallel understanding that we are suppose to “anthropomorphically” derive from “God tested Abraham” and later declared “now I know” your faith. Why dont you tell us what is meant by the “testing” of Abraham in the anthropomorhpical sense.

 

[Pax]

Right on Phil:thumbsup: Scripture is the inspired word of God written in the language of men. The language of men is designed to communicate things to us in ways that we will understand. We cannot dismiss any of it.

 

[Pax]

…
…

"Philthy, apostasy is borne out of unbelief, never out of belief (an oxymoron). Hence, apostasy begets apostates. It multiplies after its own kind. This side of the cross apostasy is a renunciation of the gospel of Christ. The divine gospel of God’s grace renounced, repudiated and replaced by men with “a gospel” of human works. This is what it means to “fall from grace.” Catch that, Pax?

Yes, I caught this but I am at a loss to know exactly what you mean. It seems to me that you are not in compliance with the definition of apostasy nor the intended meaning of scripture. If that is the case then your inclusion of a “fall from grace” is likewise problematic.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Doesn’t someone Fall from grace or apostasize when they quit cooperating with God’s grace?

I think that’s where Calvinism doesn’t make any sense. If man cannot cooperate with God then there is no free will and if one is the elect and is branded with salvation then what’s the point in preaching to anyone?

Now one can copperate with God’s grace without doing anything themselves. They can cooperate by doing the positive nothing of just staying out of the way.

There is no doubt that God does all the saving–that man does nothing.

On the other hand there is no doubt that man cooperates with God by freely exercising his will.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

There is no doubt that faith saves–but not alone.

It continues through God willed works when man does nothing and doesn’t mortally sin and impede God’s grace.

Doing God willed works does not spring from man’s initiation–all man doing a God willed work entails is man Not exercising his freedom of will to impede God’s grace.

"The real nitty gritty and the point that I continue to make and that no Calvinist will respond to is whether or not man can cooperate with God.

Calvinism says no and that faith by itself will justify.

Catholicism says faith does justify but that faith continues with man’s cooperation of doing nothing to stand in God’s way

That isn’t man saving himself–that isn’t faith + works–that’s faith continuing through God willed works unimpeded by mortal sin unto death.

That’s the way God saves!

Sometimes I wonder if people who believe in Calvinsim are intellectually incapable of comprehending paradox?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I get your article, Dude; I’m just asking you about the Catholic notion of “infusion of righteousness”, or “infusion of grace.”

”Grace entering your soul…” From that I understand you to be saying that “grace” is a substance of some kind. Can you offer biblical support that grace is a substance that enters ones soul?

If you believe in the concept of Sanctification and the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which I know you do, then you must believe grace is a substance which enters your soul.

One passage that comes to mind:Eph 1 18I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand … … Eph 2 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
Many people rip Eph 2:8f out of context. The context starts back in ch1 and is emphasized in places like 2:5. The power of God which entered Christ and physically resurrected Him in turn is what enters our souls and makes us spiritually alive. To say “grace” in this context is mere favor shown is insufficient, this is about a transformation of the soul.

My personal favorite:Titus 3 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
This is explicit proof that grace and justification are about an inner transformation of the soul. The “justified by his grace” here corresponds to “washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit poured out on us”.

Others:Acts 15 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

Acts 20 32"Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

1 Cor 15 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

Philem 1 25The** grace** of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

Heb 13 9Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them.

James 4 6But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

These passages cannot have grace mean simply showing favor or else the passages would make no sense.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont)

You continue: [grace entering your soul]…making it righteous.

In your article you say:You’re saying two things:1) Grace enters the soul thereby making the soul righteous.

2) Righteousness, as well as grace, is infused into the soul making the soul righteous.My question is, according to you, does the infusion of grace make the soul righteous in orthodox Catholic teaching, or does the infusion of righteous make the soul righteous, or some combination of the two?

Also, if it is righteousness entering the soul that makes it righteous, it would seem that, as with grace, righteousness is also some kind of “substance;” can you offer biblical support that righteousness is a substance?

Infused righteousness and infused grace are interchangeable terms. The term “infused righteousness” is a non technical way of simply contrasting it with the “imputed righteousness of Christ”. There is no “combination of the two” because they are one and the same.

First of all, the passage says nothing of God’s “grace” being poured into the believer’s heart, but God’s “love.”

It says God’s love is given as is the Spirit that is given. The context 5:1f demonstrate that we are dealing with justification and grace here.

Furthermore, TDNT states that the verb ekcheō is a figurative “pouring,” IOW, God’s love is not truly something that can be “poured out,” and that the love “poured into our hearts” is God’s love for us, and the reason we objectively understand that God loves us is that He has demonstrated that love in the sacrifice of His Son (v8), and that the believer ”stands in the grace,” or is “established in the grace” (v2), rather than, as you say, ”the grace is infused into” the believer, and the reason for all of this is that the believer ”has been justified by faith” and that faith without any other qualification attached to it (v1), IOW Faith Alone.

This whole comment is founded upon the “authority” of the TDNT, which is a Protestant’s opinion at the end of the day. You have twisted “love poured into our hearts” to be meaningless.

Infused grace is some kind of “Holy Spirit Detergent?”

I was using an example, in the Bible is the inverse. There is no black blob stain in our soul but rather after the fall our souls LACKED the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, when the Holy Spirit indwells it makes our souls alive and righteous and pleasing and adopted Sons of God.

Scripture supplies its own picture, that of being clothed in Christ, pictured in Gen 3, and stated in Gal 3:27 (cf Rom 13:14; Job 29:14):Genesis 3:21

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

Galatians 3:27

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.You would agree that the purpose of “clothing” is to cover oneself, rather than to “infuse” the clothing into someone; wouldn’t you?

That is a pure strawman. Taking Gal 3 as a whole, especially in light of the first few verses we see Paul is talking about the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

In Gen 3 they were clothed physically but that was only a temporary solution. The real problem of lust (which came about as a result of the fall) still remained. Lust is counteracted and eventually overcome through the transformation of the soul. The being “clothed with Christ” is not literal but a figurative expression referring to the benefits our souls received from Christ.

It’s only logical because it’s what you believe, as there is no word “infuse” in the Greek, correct?

The word “infused” does NOT have to appear for the CONCEPT to be true. The word “Trinity” does not appear yet it conveys a CONCEPT that is Biblical.

The Protestant CONCEPT of justification which EXCLUDES the concept of a spiritual transformation in favor of an alien status imputed has a tough time explaining passages which indicate a transformation in the soul at that very moment.

(continued from post #822)
That brings me back to my question.

Answer the following question with a simple yes, or no:

The question is misguided. No the term does not appear but the concept does. If you want to play that game you must say the term “Trinity” is false and unBiblical because the TERM itself does not appear in Scripture.
​

​

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

Nice try, but none of the verses I gave you even remotely suggests imputation. They are in the language of infusion.

Case closed.

The NT is written in the language Koine Greek, and within that language the writer who most exhaustively articulates justification says that it is by “imputation” (ellegeō, logidzomai) as I have shown you.

You have yet to cite any verses within the text containing the words “infusion,” neither have you shown that either grace, or righteousness are “substances that are infused.”

Pax:

Likewise, finding one use of the word “impute” in one translation is not very convincing to me. It is interpretive. Moreover, I have never argued against a dimension of “imputation” of righteousness. I have only argued against the erroneous idea that this is all there is. Scripture supports my view.

Thanks for the partial concession, I guess; that said, Scripture, then, would not support your view only, but it would support both your view, and mine.

How ecumenical of you.

Nevertheless, the Greek word translated “impute” is found some 40 times in the NT, and it’s translated such in more than just one translation, as you say, and, one translation is one more than you can offer in support of a Greek word translated “infuse.”

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Are there Hebrew and Aramaic words for infuse and impute?

 

[Pax]

The NT is written in the language Koine Greek, and within that language the writer who most exhaustively articulates justification says that it is by “imputation” (ellegeō, logidzomai) as I have shown you.

You have yet to cite any verses within the text containing the words “infusion,” neither have you shown that either grace, or righteousness are “substances that are infused.”

Thanks for the partial concession, I guess; that said, Scripture, then, would not support your view only, but it would support both your view, and mine.

How ecumenical of you.

Nevertheless, the Greek word translated “impute” is found some 40 times in the NT, and it’s translated such in more than just one translation, as you say, and, one translation is one more than you can offer in support of a Greek word translated “infuse.”

Please go back and read the point of my post and address the language of the verses that I and Catholic Dude have given you that support the Catholic teaching of “infused righteousness.” I have already pointed out that Catholics do not deny a juridical/imputed dimension of righteousness. Your problem is that you refuse to accept the “meaning” of the verses that we presented which all pertain to salvation and justification.

The case is indeed closed unless you can show that the verses we presented do not mean what they obviously say.

By the way…I was not being ecumenical. Instead, I was expressing what has been the constant teaching within Christianity even prior to the Reformation.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The NT is written in the language Koine Greek, and within that language the writer who most exhaustively articulates justification says that it is by “imputation” (ellegeō, logidzomai) as I have shown you.

Nevertheless, the Greek word translated “impute” is found some 40 times in the NT, and it’s translated such in more than just one translation, as you say, and, one translation is one more than you can offer in support of a Greek word translated “infuse.”

The PROBLEM you are not understanding is that the term “impute” (logizomai) does NOT most often mean to impute an alien status.

When Protestants read the phrase faith “was imputed as righteousness” in places like Rom 4:3 Protestants think “impute” here means instead of God looking at the sinner’s soul and seeing their unrighteousness God instead looks at Christ’s life of righteous acts and counts this as if the sinner himself performed all those righteous acts. Christ’s Righteousness is IMPUTED to them as PROTESTANTS claim.

HOWEVER they are ahead of themself in coming to this conclusion, the ENGLISH word TRANSLATED AS “imputed” is a GREEK WORD called “logizomai”. So we should look at the text like this: “faith was LOGIZOMAI as righteousness.”

NEXT, HOW is LOGIZOMAI used in the Greek New Testament? It occurs over 40 times in the NT, but the greatest percentage of its usage looks something like this: The following passages use the term LOGIZOMAI (which I will highlight in red):
Mark 11: 31They began reasoning among themselves, saying, "If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’

Rom 2: 3But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

Rom 3: 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Rom 6: 11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Rom 8: 18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.

1 Cor 13: 11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
These examples show logizomai being used elsewhere in the NT. HOWEVER, we see that it does not always (or even most often) mean imputing an external quality or status. Romans 3:28 above says “we logizomai that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law”. Does it make sense for Rom 3:28 to read “we **maintain ** that a man is justified by faith apart from works (but in reality this is not so)”?
No, in this case logizomai means to think something true that IS IN FACT TRUE.

Take Romans 6:11 above, using the Protesant understanding of “impute” it would read “even so consider yourself dead to sin (though this is not true in reality) but alive to God”. WOULDNT it make more sense to understand the passage as: “Even so consider yourself dead to sin (because you really are dead to sin) but alive to God”?

Long story short, when we read faith “was LOGIZOMAI as righteousness” THIS MEANS God saw that act of faith and considered it a righteous act and evidence of the righteous virtue of faith in Abraham’s soul…BECAUSE IT REALLY WAS a righteous act and true evidence of the righteous qualities in Abraham’s soul.

 

[Pax]

Catholic Dude,

Thanks for this post.

 

[csandoval]

No, you just did not understand my post, is all.

I said we are saved “for” works, not “by” works!

We are saved by believing in the Gospel.