tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post7393674219662358048..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Imputation (Logizomai) & Genesis 15:6 (Romans 4)Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-38953382144337971642021-09-04T11:49:11.308-07:002021-09-04T11:49:11.308-07:00" Paul cursed them. Since Catholicism has add..." Paul cursed them. Since Catholicism has added FAR MORE requirements for salvation, such as papal subordination, keeping the 10 commandments (CCC 2068), trusting that good works are the key that opens heaven's gate (CCC 1821), etc, they too must be under the curse of God. " Nuts! "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matt 19:17) Seems that the antinomian controvesery still lives in some people minds!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10731419599694757265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-9181406123455974802021-06-10T19:08:50.330-07:002021-06-10T19:08:50.330-07:00cont'd
Examples of magisterial madness:
They...cont'd<br /><br /><br />Examples of magisterial madness:<br />They show their distain for Scripture by being false prophets proclaiming a false gospel. False prophets because claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit, Trent erroneously quoted Jesus, telling us that he... "SAID"... the bread was... "TRULY"... his body at the Last Supper, when in fact he most certainly did not say any such thing (CCC 1376). Hence, they are to be condemned (Deut 18:22, Jer 23:30-40, Ezekiel 13:1-7). It is promised in those passages that all who recklessly wag their tongues by asserting, “The Lord SAYS”, (when the Lord did not SAAAAAY), will be swiftly cast out of his presence (cf. Jeremiah 14:14, 23:16-21). And their's is a false gospel because they fall into the EXACT same error as the Judaizers in Galatians who wanted to add certain aspects of the ceremonial law for salvation-- and for that little addendum, Paul cursed them. Since Catholicism has added FAR MORE requirements for salvation, such as papal subordination, keeping the 10 commandments (CCC 2068), trusting that good works are the key that opens heaven's gate (CCC 1821), etc, they too must be under the curse of God. Needless to say, I could go on about their (your) distain for Scripture by overtly and maliciously throwing Christ's command under the bus, wherein he urged us to partake of BOTH bread and wine at communion, but alas....to this day, 99% of Catholic churches only distribute BREAD ALONE --and of course, all based on the flimsiest of excuses, none of which will stand up before his fiery glaze on Judgment Day. <br />Consequently, I have concluded that whatever the RC apologist has to offer, at the end of the day, I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU ARE SAVED, and that being so, even if you get some of the historical and technical details correct, what does it matter if one ends up in hell believing a false gospel? Thus, whatever arguments people such as yourself bring to the table, it is your DETRACTOR'S position that is more likely to be true in view of the fact that Catholicism has disqualified itself to be a Christian denomination.<br />Good day. <br /><br />Micahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-59723009406896885762021-06-10T19:07:14.228-07:002021-06-10T19:07:14.228-07:00I went through various articles here and do indeed...I went through various articles here and do indeed have MUCH to say on this topic, but what stops me from replying to any of it is your sheer hypocrisy.<br />You say that you have an aversion to anything that goes against the Bible. Yet I happened to glance up at the comment above mine from 3/29 by someone pointing out (correctly) that there's no specific Scriptural data for the BULK of your beliefs. I agree. In my opinion, yours is an exercise in futility, but of course, justification for them is always accompanied alongside the flimisiest of implications.<br /> I recall Keating in "Catholicism & Fundamentalism" -- as it regards evidence for the Assumption, "strictly, there is none", then went on to say the mere fact that the RCC says so should be enough! <br />LOL. Yeah, right.<br />I would add papal subordination to the list of your ruinous requirements to get into heaven. Boniface VIII demanded that it was, "altogether necessary for salvation that EVERY HUMAN CREATURE be subject to the Roman Pontiff" --in his delirious, "Unam Sanctam", an absolutely asinine threat that of course, "goes against the Bible", but strangely, you are more than happy to accept. Consequently, your "aversion to anything that goes against the Bible" is SOMEWHAT disingenuous to say the least.<br />Then again, on 3/29/13 you replied to someone that... "the attitude of Luther [was that] he didn't give a damn what the Bible really said, he just went around pontificating and demanded everyone bow to his whims.... The biggest failure in Protestant apologetics is that they reduce the faith into following whatever the infallible magisterium of self-ordained scholars [say] and stop studying God's Word for themselves."<br />LOL. Ummm.... those words really DOOO deserve the Flying-Fickle-Finger-Of-Fate Award, in light of the fact that Catholics are habitually demonstrating that THEY really don't give a rat's tail about the Bible THEMSELVES, but instead, the alleged "infallible" magisterium must always and forever rule the day! Now pa-LEEZE! <br /><br />continued...Micahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-70142431980376521652021-06-09T13:04:33.715-07:002021-06-09T13:04:33.715-07:00Micah,
You said: //In light of your aversion to ...Micah, <br /><br />You said: //In light of your aversion to our sins being imputed to Christ (denied 3 times in your essay) then I would like to ask in regards to Isaiah 53: namely, that since the "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all"... by what other means, OTHER than imputation, can it be said that our iniquity was laid on Christ?//<br /><br />I have aversion to anything that goes against the Bible, and in the case of sin being imputed TO a substitute, the Bible uses the term Logizomai over ONE HUNDRED TIMES and YET IT DOES NOT SPEAK OF IMPUTING TO A SUBSTITUTE. I have no idea why Protestants get so excited about believing blatantly false teachings! It is strange. <br /><br />I have addressed Isaiah 53 multiple times elsewhere on this blog. The short answer to your question is, this verse doesn't use the term Impute/Logizomai/Chashab, so stop pretending it does or that it can *only* be speaking of Imputation. The LXX of Isaiah 53 actually renders the text a little more clearly for us, namely "The Lord delivered him up for our sins". This is precisely how Paul quotes Isaiah 53:6 in places like Romans 4:25 and 8:32. <br /><br />https://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2019/11/did-father-lay-our-sins-upon-jesus.html Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-13162901411829582182021-06-09T07:38:32.487-07:002021-06-09T07:38:32.487-07:00In light of your aversion to our sins being impute...In light of your aversion to our sins being imputed to Christ (denied 3 times in your essay) then I would like to ask in regards to Isaiah 53: namely, that since the "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all"...<br />by what other means, OTHER than imputation, can it be said that our iniquity was laid on Christ?Micahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-40131829080153188582021-05-29T15:24:33.632-07:002021-05-29T15:24:33.632-07:00I'm just beginning to read these comments and ...I'm just beginning to read these comments and I immediately smell a hypocritical rat right at the top of the page...namley you, when you say, "the Bible doesn't play word games like that".<br />Oh, but au contraire Pierre, do not Catholics make a habit of essentially telling us that God speaks with marbles in his mouth when he tells us that "ALL HAVE SINNED" in various places? They will tell us that "well, he really doesn't mean EVERYONE, you see Mary was an exception to the rule."<br />Such asinine retorts instantly nullify the word of God and true Christians are not impressed. MANY (and I do mean MANY) other example could be shown of Catholics playing "word games".<br /><br />Then you tell someone else, "You just took some liberties with your reading, when you refuse to grant such liberties to the opposing side". <br />Again, using the same example above, Catholics are experts at taking liberties with Scripture, refusing to let the Text breath on its own when it comes to Mary being included as a sinner like the rest of us, and worse, taking liberties with concepts NOWHERE found in the Text, like popes, a sacerdotal priesthood, indulgences, purgatory, seven sacraments, "jesus" shrinking himself down to the size of a Ritz cracker and waiting for everyone to eat him alive, and of course, the delusional hope of attaining eternal life based on GOOD WORKS (CCC 1821) directly opposed to Titus 3:5 and elsewhere.<br />So don't talk to ME about TAKING LIBERTIES! Look in the mirror first.<br />And I haven't even addressed your main topic!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-63892276174459013442020-06-23T13:59:54.536-07:002020-06-23T13:59:54.536-07:00I grew up Protestant, and in the last few years ha...I grew up Protestant, and in the last few years have been realizing how much is wrong. I found this because I realized simply from reading other passages in Scripture that Protestant "imputation" cannot be right. For example, in Revelation, the dead are judged by what they did. Furthermore, those wearing white robes are clothed in their own righteous deeds - not Christ's. 1 John says something along the lines of, "do not be deceived - the one who does what is right is righteous." (in other words - some folks are going to come along, trying to deceive you about this - don't buy it!) <br /><br />This led me on a search to understand where the idea of imputation came from, which ultimately led me here. Your article is extremely helpful, and I think will prove even more helpful the more it solidifies in my mind as I read Scripture.<br />So - I just wanted to thank you. :)Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07535991854040770782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-65454694172569923912020-04-22T07:30:35.783-07:002020-04-22T07:30:35.783-07:004. Your final error is your persistent attempt to...4. Your final error is your persistent attempt to put a Tridentine toe in the door--as if Paul were thinking of righteousness as a substance that can be infused into the soul (as if he subscribed to the same sort of dualistic [body animated by immortal soul] anthropology that was the presupposition of the medieval church.) This is simple anachronistic eisegesis on your part.<br /><br />Paul did not view righteousness or grace as a "substance." Paul therefore did think that righteousness could be infused into a person in the way the Tridentine fathers had assumed. Paul did not think of the soul as an immaterial--much less immortal--substance that animates the body, and therefore the idea that righteousness could be infused into the soul, simply was not part of Paul's thought world. <br /><br />But he did think of it as a status or legal standing before God. And he did believe that Abraham's faith could stand in place of that kind of righteousness based on one's compliance with the law if God so chooses to see his faith in that light. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-50549845418390173782020-04-22T07:28:52.114-07:002020-04-22T07:28:52.114-07:00Nick,
I don't think your criticism is fair. ...Nick,<br /><br />I don't think your criticism is fair. He was preaching a sermon, not teaching a class. It's bad form to "show your homework" when preaching, like you can in class. But given a different venue, I wonder if James would have more to say on Logizomai than you give him credit (pun?) for?<br /><br />I find your words to be both needlessly harsh and problematic:<br /><br />>>It is fascinating that White refuses to take a look at how this term, Logizomai, is used elsewhere by Paul, and instead points to secular Greek records instead. White clearly sees this term as "making a deposit into someone's account," which means it carries the notion of a transfer (and even infusion). This is inaccurate, and tampering with God's Word.<<<br /><br />1. If you take everything into account that James White has said and written on Logizomai, I think, if you're being honest, you'd have to admit that he has looked "elsewhere" in Paul to see how that term is being used.<br /><br />2. But the real question is this: Is it always legitimate to look elsewhere given that a term can have a broad semantic range, given that it can be used by the same author In more than one way, and given that immediate context--not usage "elsewhere" is what is finally determinative of authorial intent? The answer is clearly no. D.A. Carson calls this the “unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field.” The flaw in your complaint against James “lies in the assumption that the meaning of a word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with it the word’s entire semantic range. This step is sometimes called illegitimate totality transfer.” (Don Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 62)<br /><br />That's what you're doing here by attempting to redirect your readers' attention to other uses of Logizomai in Paul, rather than focusing on how he is using the word in the context or Romans 4.<br /><br />3. As for Jame's appeal to "secular Greek records," um, that's simply an ad-hominem that's been swallowed by red herring. First the ad-hominem: The word "secular" is pejorative in your statement as it implicitly impeaches the evidence for not being sacred and seemingly assumes that logizomai means something radically different in a non-religious setting than it does in religious setting. Why? Take Paul's use of the word "and." Do you think that the word "and" in a "secular" setting has a fundamentally different meaning than Paul's use of that same word in a sacred setting? Of course not. Language doesn't necessarily change its meaning when moving from the secular to the sacred or vice versa. <br /><br />Now for the red herring. It is utterly irrelevant that logizomai is used in financial settings outside of scripture. We also use "impute" in financial settings and legal settings in English. James isn't wrong to point that out, if it was Paul's purpose to draw from the common vocabulary and experience of his readers in order to convey the truth he was trying to convey.<br /><br />Bottom line: Your attempt to bait and switch your reader's attention from Romans 4 to Paul's other uses of logizomai fails for the same reason this argument fails. The only question that the exegete should concern him/herself with is the use of logizomai in Romans 4. <br /><br />James is absolutely correct to point out that "impute" is a very reasonable translation of logizomai *in that context. <br /><br />Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-233093062978981172020-04-21T16:36:39.207-07:002020-04-21T16:36:39.207-07:00I am currently listening to a Sermon by Reformed B...I am currently listening to a Sermon by Reformed Baptist James White, given at Apologia Church a few days ago (4/16/20), see link below. <br /><br />Talking on Romans 4, at the time stamp 33:50, White says:<br /><br />///God had revealed that his [Abraham's] faith had been reckoned to him as righteousness, but it wasn't just for his sake that it was written that it was reckoned to him - by the way, that term "reckoned" in some translations is imputed, it's the same Greek term "imputed", so we talked about the "imputation of our sin to Christ" or "his righteousness to us", it's the same term that is being used there, <b>it's a term that's found in the Greek papyri in financial records where you would make a deposit to someone's account, imputation, crediting</b> - now not for his sake only was it written that it was reckoned to him but for our sake also.///<br /><br />It is fascinating that White refuses to take a look at how this term, Logizomai, is used elsewhere by Paul, and instead points to secular Greek records instead. White clearly sees this term as "making a deposit into someone's account," which means it carries the notion of a transfer (and even infusion). This is inaccurate, and tampering with God's Word. <br /><br />Dr. White on the Resurrection of the Son of God<br />https://youtu.be/FaV63NIod1E <br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-64905475460501340562020-04-21T09:32:14.204-07:002020-04-21T09:32:14.204-07:00JW, I never did get a clear explanation of what &q...JW, I never did get a clear explanation of what "crediting" means to you. For me, I don't mind the term "credited" as long as it remains within the realm of what I have shown, namely that it is a mental evaluation, and not a transfer. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-66118325991919079842020-04-19T12:33:41.340-07:002020-04-19T12:33:41.340-07:00Truly final comment:
By not acknowledging that lo...Truly final comment:<br /><br />By not acknowledging that logizomai can mean “crediting,” a misunderstanding is created about the idea of non-imputation of sin. It cannot mean merely God’s acknowledgement of the forgiven state. It is synonymous with forgiveness itself which must be a purely gracious act of God. Forgiveness cannot be a reward for good behavior. In repentance and faith we are trusting God to give us graciously what we do not deserve rather than the justice that we as sinners truly deserve. The utterly gracious nature of God crediting righteousness to us is abundantly clear in Romans 4.<br />JWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-22798874691887422342020-04-18T18:40:05.048-07:002020-04-18T18:40:05.048-07:00A sacrifice not being imputed to someone is not th...A sacrifice not being imputed to someone is not the same as the sacrifice not being regarded as valid; the one is the cause of the other. <br /><br />Protestants absolutely believe Abraham had good works, but that they don't have merit before God, that they don't contribute to justification. The Chrysostom quote shows that Abraham's good works did not contribute to his justification.<br /><br />Melanchthon's point is that faith is regarded as righteousness, even though it is not. Of course we affirm that faith is regarded as righteousness because it lays hold of Christ's righteousness. Ultimately everyone acknowledges that justification is due to Christ's merit, so any imputation of righteousness has Christ's merit in view. The quote is analogous to saying we are regarded as righteous for Christ's sake through faith.<br /><br />Bernard is saying that mankind lost its righteousness when Adam sinned; there's no conflict with Protestant views. He clearly states: "he who lacked righteousness had another’s imputed to him." This is an alien righteousness. He connects Christ's fulfilling law to justification with the phrase: "He who owed nothing to death..." and "the satisfaction of One is imputed to all."<br /><br />The theme of Romans 4 is not sonship, but righteousness apart from works. And what is ontological adoption? Adoption is effected by a declaration and is forensic. The life as an adopted child occurs after the change in legal status.<br /><br />Genesis 15 doesn't have to be about conversion for v. 15:6 to be about justification. Justification is an ongoing declaration, not a one-time event.<br /><br />JWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-16911364135463881832020-04-18T17:52:00.739-07:002020-04-18T17:52:00.739-07:00I think a few other considerations to support my c...I think a few other considerations to support my case: <br /><br />(1) The phrase "credited as righteousness" is being used as an equivalent for "justify". We know that Protestants are adamant that dkiaoo justify means "declare righteous" rather than "make righteous," but that merely supports what I'm saying, which is that "declare righteous" is the same as "regarding as righteous", which is what Logizmai roughly means as well. <br /><br />(2) The theme of Romans 4 is about sonship, particularly that of father Abraham to his spiritual children. There is nothing really forensic about what is being talked about. The idea of sonship pertains to the soteriological category of adoption, and this is an ontological adoption and not merely on paper. So the idea of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness doesn't really fit within this lesson, because the point is not about being good enough.<br /><br />(3) I have posted about how I think the theme of Genesis 15 is that of God making a Covenant with Abraham. The theme isn't about Abraham's conversion. So an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness reading is completely out of place.<br /><br />All these points basically nullify any attempts for you to appeal too heavily to Romans 4:4, since I'm not restricting my argument to a mere few words and fist-pounding what I think they must be understood as.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-33355649282266953102020-04-18T17:50:42.294-07:002020-04-18T17:50:42.294-07:00JW,
I am not sure what you are trying to prove w...JW, <br /><br />I am not sure what you are trying to prove with Leviticus 7:18 or 17:4. What does it mean that an improper sacrifice will not be imputed to him? Similarly, what does blood shall be imputed to him mean? I think when you answer those questions, you will see I'm not misrepresenting anything.<br /><br />Your Chrysostom quote doesn't address the issue at all, and in fact opens up more problems than it solves. For the Protestant side, they don't believe Abraham had good works, and in fact Protestants say faith is needed precisely because we don't have good works. Chrysostom's words here don't suggest anything along the lines of needing Christ's Righteousness imputed to them. Nor do any of the other Patristic quotes. That is what the Protestant side realizes quite well and even turned to Sola Scriptura precisely because the Patristics said nothing about Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. <br /><br />As for Romans 2:26, the truth is, of the many sources I've consulted, they do not point to this verse to help understand Romans 4. I don't think the Lutheran standards are consistent on this matter, but if they say faith itself is what God declares to be righteousness, then that seems like a vindication of my point. There is no "Christ's Alien Righteousness" hidden in that statement. If faith is, in your own words "REGARDED AS" the equivalent of fulfilling the law, then there goes Imputation of Christ's Alien Righteousness. You cannot have it both ways. <br /><br />Finally, the Bernard quote is a textbook example of how Protestants don't actually carefully read a quote, they just assume it can only mean Protestant Imputation. Bernard plainly says "recover that righteousnes which he had formerly lost". In the Protestant view, Justification is about a righteousness that Adam never had in the first place, not a righteousness that was lost and needed recovery. There is nothing in that quote suggesting Jesus had to keep the law in our place. What Bernard is talking about is restoring us, by forgiveness, to a state of grace. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-62619120205940748492020-04-17T21:34:18.980-07:002020-04-17T21:34:18.980-07:00You also claimed: “Some Protestants might appeal t...You also claimed: “Some Protestants might appeal to Romans 2:26, suggesting it's 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 weight of, say, keeping all the commandments perfectly - which is perfectly reasonable (but unacceptable for Protestants).” This simply isn’t true and, in fact, many Protestants hold this view and proclaim sola fide. I should have looked this up before, but here’s a quote from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: “Faith, therefore, is that thing which God declares to be righteousness, and he adds that it is imputed freely, and says that it could not be imputed freely, if it were due on account of works” Faith is regarded by God as the equivalent of fulfilling the law. This is completely consistent with being credited righteousness and the banking analogy I proposed. We have faith, but get righteousness “on our account.”<br /><br />Finally, imputation language clearly does not originate with Protestants. Here’s Bernard of Clairvaux: “For what could man, the slave of sin, fast bound by the devil, do of him self to recover that righteousness which he had formerly lost? Therefore he who lacked righteousness had another’s imputed to him, and in this way: The prince of this world came and found nothing in the Saviour, and because he notwithstanding laid hands on the Innocent he lost most justly those whom he held captive; since He who owed nothing to death, lawfully freed him who was subject to it, both from the debt of death, and the dominion of the devil, by accepting the injustice of death; for with what justice could that be exacted from man a second time? It was man who owed the debt, it was man who paid it. For if one, says S. Paul, died for all, then were all dead (2 Cor. v. 14), so that, as One bore the sins of all, the satisfaction of One is imputed to all.”<br /><br />Here's a quote from Therese of Lisieux: "I am very happy that I am going to heaven. But when I think of this word of the Lord, “I shall come soon and bring with me my recompense to give to each according to his works,” I tell myself that this will be very embarrassing for me, because I have no works . . . . Very well! He will render to me according to His works for His own sake."<br /><br />I think you still haven't properly reckoned with the text and haven't correctly characterized Protestant views. That's not to say that some Protestants don't go too far with imputation metaphors, but I think you're trying to force all Protestant ideas of imputation into a very narrow description rather than engaging the best, most careful explanations.<br />JWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-72040202329180317462020-04-17T21:28:13.273-07:002020-04-17T21:28:13.273-07:00I had stopped commenting, but I have been still th...I had stopped commenting, but I have been still thinking and reading about this. The more I think about it, the better Protestant soteriology looks.<br /> <br />First, you have misrepresented some important verses. You describe Leviticus 7:18 with: “an improper sacrifice will not be reckoned as valid.” But that’s not what the verse says. The KJV is: “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering is eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, nor shall it be imputed to him; it shall be an abomination to him who offers it, and the person who eats of it shall bear guilt” This is important because 1) it is in the context of sin, sacrifice and atonement and 2) the Greek grammar in the LXX follows that found in Romans 4, i.e., logizomai as a transitive verb with a dative (i.e., indirect object) personal pronoun. Something is being imputed to someone. Likewise, for Leviticus 17:4 you wrote: “the man who unlawfully sheds blood will be reckoned a sinner,” but the literal reading of the LXX is “blood shall be imputed to that man.” Again, something is being imputed to someone; it doesn’t say someone is reckoned a sinner. <br /><br />These are the more relevant passages to understand Romans 4. Many of the examples of logizomai you mention have an intransitive verb or no dative pronoun, i.e., nothing is being imputed to someone. The other examples of logizomai with a similar construction to Romans 4 are the “non-imputation” verses. Those are the verses translated with “impute” or “credit,” and could be rendered as “charge to someone’s account.”<br /><br />You could argue that imputing righteousness to someone is the equivalent of regarding them as having a righteous status, but 1) you can’t just change the words around and say this is how it must be understood, 2) criticize Protestants for using the plain biblical language, and 3) graciously regarding someone as righteous is still consistent with the Protestant view, so you’re more or less conceding the point. As long as it is understood that God is graciously regarding us as righteous apart from works, Protestant soteriology is preserved and consistent with Romans 4. Your original, narrow claim that logizomai doesn’t mean transfer is correct, but logizomai is still used in the sense of “credit to” someone or “put to their account.”<br />You also claimed that “The Early Church Fathers don't interpret key texts in the way that Protestants do, forcing the Protestant side to dispense with the Patristic testimony.” However, you never quoted any Patristic commentary on Romans 4. Meanwhile, I was reading a Protestant commentary on Romans and came across this Chrysostom quote: “For for a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light” (Homily 8 on Romans). Chrysostom is saying that the point of Romans 4 is that even though Abraham had many good works, they were not the cause of his justification. Who’s dispensing with the Patristic testimony?<br />JWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-47207073973299596232020-04-08T17:10:18.835-07:002020-04-08T17:10:18.835-07:00Michael,
You have posted 11 comments in a row, w...Michael, <br /><br />You have posted 11 comments in a row, which I cannot simply respond to one by one. Here are my thoughts on the important points: <br /><br />(A) I am writing up an article on Philemon 1:18, since this is the favorite proof-text of many famous classical Reformed Theologians for demonstrating Imputation. I agree with you that Philemon 1:18 does not actually support Imputation. <br /><br />(B) I don't think you can build too much of a case using the language of "in Adam" and "in Christ" because the phrase itself doesn't give us much to work with. The very 1 Cor 15:22 passage even gives us the language of "made alive," which is not an Imputation category. If we use Paul's analogy of a tree branch being grafted "in", that isn't automatically Imputation. The vine gives life to the branches, which is the concept of infusion. <br /><br />(C) I don't agree with your depiction of us being guilty of Adam's sin "because there is a sense that we participated in his actions". The Hebrews 7:9-10 analogy fails because when Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us, that would mean "we participated in Christ's actions", which kind of defeats the point of Sola Fide. Similarly, if our guilt is imputed to Christ, then by that same logic, "there is a sense in which Christ participated in our sinful actions," when He obviously did not. <br /><br />(D) You said: /// If we are not "in Adam" then it is impossible for his guilt to be imputed to us. <b>Likewise, if Jesus has not for our sake been "made sin," then it is impossible for our sin to be imputed to him.</b> And if we are not "in Christ," then it is impossible for his righteousness to be imputed to us///<br /><br />Your middle sentence is inconsistent. There is no "in X" or "corporate personality" for your middle sentence. There is no Federal Head like there is for the first and third sentence.<br /><br />(E) Righteousness is a quality or disposition of the soul. It is not some forensic status that means "perfectly kept the law his whole life," since the Bible is full of references to living people of all ages being deemed righteous. If the Bible speaks of "righteousness from God," this implies some kind of divine righteousness comes to us, or at least changes our behavior to exhibit that righteousness.<br /><br />(F) If Adam could technically repent of his sins and been forgiven, then that would suggest Adam could technically be "in Christ," which means anyone "in Adam" would have to assume all the benefits of "in Adam within Christ". <br /><br />(G) Turning to 2 Cor 5:21 does not address the blatant contradiction of Jesus being simul iustus et peccator, since in this case these are both legal categories. <br /><br />(H) For you and Carson to admit the 3 Imputations are "implicit" in Paul means the Bible requires some explaining and assuming. This doesn't bode well for someone trying to "reform" the Church. What are you reforming? Something that wasn't even clearly taught in the first place? Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-41317687379315361562020-04-08T09:09:39.157-07:002020-04-08T09:09:39.157-07:00Nick,
>>(5) IF you agree with Carson that t...Nick,<br /><br />>>(5) IF you agree with Carson that there is no one word that plainly conveys Imputation, and that Paul nowhere clearly teaches the 3 Imputations, and that Imputation is akin to the Trinity in the Bible, this is a yuge hit for Perspicuity. Magisterial intervention is required when doctrines like the Trinity needed clarification, hence the Creeds and Councils.<<<br /><br />Truth isn't determined by "magisterial" decree (witness all the demonstrable errors your Magisterium has made in its alleged "infallible" decrees...). <br /><br />Perspicuity, as the Reformers understood that term...well, as Iñigo Montoya said, "I don't think that word means what you think it means." <br /><br />Here's what Carson and I mean when we say Paul doesn't *explicitly* teach the 3 Imputations. It means....wait for it....he doesn't *explicitly* teach the 3 imputations. But we both say that the 3 Imputations are *implicit* in Paul and that the implications of his teaching are clear to anyone willing to see them.<br /><br />Again, consider the 3 ironclad connections everyone must explain:<br /><br />1. Adam's sin and us. Were we "infused" with his guilt? No--because "guilt" is a legal, not substantive. Was his guilt "imparted" to us? That depends upon what you mean by "impart." But more precise is the word "impute," as this comes from the same legal sphere.<br /><br />2. Our sin and Christ: Was our sin "infused" into Christ? Perhaps we could think of the corruption of our sin being so infused. But scripture says he "bore" our sin on the cross--so it seems like sin is placed upon him, not injected into him. Was our sin "imparted" to him? Again, it's not a terrible word. But it doesn't quite capture the guilt aspect of sin. Once again, "impute" seems to be more precise, even though, by itself, it cannot begin to do justice to all that Christ did for us on the cross.<br /><br />3. Christ's righteousness and us: Was his righteousness "infused" into us? No. Righteousness isn't a substance. Was it imparted? That gets us a bit closer. Was it imputed? I think so, because once again, righteousness is a forensic term. Paul wants to be found in him, not having a righteousness based on legal compliance, but rather a righteousness from God. That sounds far more like imputation than infusion.<br /><br />Even if imputation isn't as "clear" in Paul as we might like it to be, what is clear as day is that "infused righteousness" was the furthest thing from his mind.Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-43428587897170491172020-04-08T08:53:17.892-07:002020-04-08T08:53:17.892-07:00Nick,
>>(4b) If Imputation is taught elsewh...Nick,<br /><br />>>(4b) If Imputation is taught elsewhere, where imputation language isn't even used, then how do you know those texts must be speaking of Imputation? That seems like begging the question.<<<br /><br />I think you're the one begging the question. You seem to be saying that in order for imputation to be taught elsewhere, the word imputation itself must be used, which assumes at the outset the very thing you have yet to prove--namely that the very word itself is required in order to speak of imputation. <br /><br />Be that as it may, it is clear to me that you are equivocating my terms. There are Greek words like logizomai and ellogeo that *can* be translated as imputation. So here I am using "imputation" in the strict sense of the word itself. But imputation is also a broader theological concept that includes a complex of theological ideas, like Federal Headship / corporate representation, substitutionary/vicarious atonement etc. Context makes clear which meaning of the term is in mind. You can't meld them together to create yet another straw man, only easily kick it down (like you're attempting to do here).<br /><br />Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-12928164885235938032020-04-08T08:46:01.572-07:002020-04-08T08:46:01.572-07:00Nick,
>>4a) For Imputation to be taught whe...Nick,<br /><br />>>4a) For Imputation to be taught where the term Logizomai and friends is "nowhere to be found," this would mean that you admit Romans 4 isn't teaching Imputation. That's a serious admission. But if Romans 4 is teaching Imputation, then you're forced to say Logizomai is about Imputation, even if it is also taught elsewhere.<<<br /><br />Oh boy. Um, no. <br /><br />You just referenced Philemon 1:18 as a place where Protestants infer imputation, even though "logizomai" is not used. That doesn't require us to now abandon Romans 4 as place to find imputation.<br /><br />All black cats are animals. But not all black animals are cats. Your logic--such that it is--alludes me.<br /><br />Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-78048008389451626912020-04-08T08:41:40.257-07:002020-04-08T08:41:40.257-07:00Nick,
>>(2d) It would seem that Jesus would...Nick,<br /><br />>>(2d) It would seem that Jesus would Himself have to be seen as simul iustus et peccator, for Jesus Himself would be simultaneously righteous and sinner, both in the legal sense, which is a blatant contradiction. <<<br /><br />And yet Paul says, "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). <br /><br />Of course Paul isn't saying that Jesus is himself a sinner. But as the Federal Head or corporate representative of His body, there is a sense in which he can be considered to be "peccator," ("made sin") et justus ("who knew no sin"). That's the mystery that imputation purports to speak into (but never fully define).<br /><br />Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-16139215266696342132020-04-08T08:33:34.521-07:002020-04-08T08:33:34.521-07:00Nick,
>>(3) I am not convinced that there c...Nick,<br /><br />>>(3) I am not convinced that there can be such a thing as a Second Federal Head. That is a contradiction in terms. Jesus can only be above Adam, below Adam, or wholly different than Adam (i.e. not a Federal Head).<<<br /><br />And yet Paul calls Jesus "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45). So if it is proper to understand the first Adam as the Federal Head of fallen humanity, why can't we understand Christ as the Federal Head--the "life-giving Spirit" of regenerate humanity? Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-14794211835212576942020-04-08T08:27:34.086-07:002020-04-08T08:27:34.086-07:00Nick,
(>>2c) Jesus could not take away Adam...Nick,<br /><br />(>>2c) Jesus could not take away Adam's imputed guilt to us without also taking away Adam's guilt at its source, namely at Adam himself....blah, blah, blah<<<br /><br />Um...but we are "in Adam" prior to conversion, and so when Christ takes away the guilt of all those "in Adam" (including Adam himself), why would there be any issue of forgiveness drying up at its source? <br /><br />Again, it's as if you'll resort to any means, fair or foul, if it provides you with any ammunition against Protestantism. But your arguments don't even make sense within their own narrative framework, and in any case, don't interact with ours.<br /><br /><br />Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-53807437589199978782020-04-08T08:17:26.179-07:002020-04-08T08:17:26.179-07:00Nick,
Again, all you're doing here is setting...Nick,<br /><br />Again, all you're doing here is setting up another straw man (your idiosyncratic understanding of Federal headship) and then nocking it down. But what you say here is unrecognizable as anything we would believe: <br /><br />>>2b) It is by no means a given that imputation can work in any other than Top-Down, that is Federal Head downwards. The whole point of Federal Head is that their actions affect the family below them. But then how can our personal guilt get imputed 'upwards' to a different Federal Head?<<<br /><br />Who ever said (on our side) that Federal headship implies only a top-down imputation? Again, it all comes down to understanding what it means to be "in Adam" and "in Christ." Unpacking that will lead you to a better understanding of what we mean by Federal headship. And even then, there is no *one* understanding of Federal headship among Protestants, and not even all Protestants would agree with the concept.<br /><br />But everyone has to account for the following:<br /><br />1. The ironclad connection between Adam and us (1 Cor. 15:22).<br />2. The ironclad connection between Christ and our sin (1 Cor. 5:21).<br />3. The ironclad connection between Christ's righteousness and us (Philippians 3:8-9). <br /><br />Infusion doesn't explain these connections. Impartation isn't a terrible explanation. Imputation seems to be the best explanation to date. But perhaps we can do better.<br /><br />Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.com