Imputation
I'm sure I don't understand the whole point of the arguments about imputation among some of the Reformed precisionists. They seem to want to assign a very specific content to the teaching that Abraham's faith was *imputed* to him as righteousness, and that Christ's righteousness is *imputed* to us. As I understand it, they have a very specific transfer-of-credit kind of model in mind, which, I do allow, is well-established among Reformed theologians.
I don't say that the model they advocate is excluded. I am completely comfortable saying that the text allows for the model they have in mind. But I am not convinced that the text *requires* the model they have in mind. Because the word for "impute" has a very wide range of usage. In Mark, for example, Jesus was crucified between two thieves so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "he was imputed with transgressors." It just means "reckon" or "count" -- if you need the transfer-of-credit meaning, you can't just point at the word and claim that settles it. Does someone want to argue for a transfer-of-credit imputation for Jesus being crucified between two thieves?
I don't say that the model they advocate is excluded. I am completely comfortable saying that the text allows for the model they have in mind. But I am not convinced that the text *requires* the model they have in mind. Because the word for "impute" has a very wide range of usage. In Mark, for example, Jesus was crucified between two thieves so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "he was imputed with transgressors." It just means "reckon" or "count" -- if you need the transfer-of-credit meaning, you can't just point at the word and claim that settles it. Does someone want to argue for a transfer-of-credit imputation for Jesus being crucified between two thieves?
Labels: theology
posted by Keith | Friday, September 25, 2009
3 Comments:
Oh do I have a TREAT for you! Here is a post I made on another blog not too long ago:
In my study on this topic, the Greek term "logizomai" is the English term for "reckon/impute/credit/etc," (all terms are basically equivalently used) and when I look up that term in a popular Protestant Lexicon here is what it is defined as:
----------------
QUOTE: "This word deals with reality. If I "logizomai" or reckon that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers to facts not suppositions."
http://tinyurl.com/r92dch
----------------
The Protestant Lexicon states this term first and foremost refers to the actual status of something. So if Abraham's faith is "logizomai as righteouness," it must be an actually righteous act of faith, otherwise (as the Lexicon says) "I am deceiving myself." This seems to rule out any notion of an alien righteousness, and instead points to a local/inherent righteousness.
The Lexicon gives other examples where "logizomai" appears, here are 3 examples:
-------------------
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude [logizomai] that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon [logizomai] ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 8:18 For I reckon [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
-------------------
Notice in these examples that "logizomai" means to consider the actual truth of an object. In 3:28 Paul 'reckons' faith saves while the Law does not, this is a fact, the Law never saves. In 6:11 the Christian is 'reckoned' dead to sin because he is in fact dead to sin. In 8:18 Paul 'reckons' the present sufferings as having no comparison to Heavenly glory, and that is true because nothing compares to Heavenly glory.
To use logizomai in the "alien status" way would mean in: (1) 3:28 faith doesn't really save apart from works, but we are going to go ahead and say it does; (2) 6:11 that we are not really dead to sin but are going to say we are; (3) 8:18 the present sufferings are comparable to Heaven's glory.
This cannot be right.
So when the text plainly says "faith is logizomai as righteousness," I must read that as 'faith is reckoned as a truly righteous act', and that is precisely how Paul explains that phrase in 4:18-22. That despite the doubts that could be raised in Abraham's heart, his faith grew strong and convinced and "that is why his faith was credited as righteousness" (v4:22).
One more thing to add.
The above evidence fits right in line with Psalm 106:30f, which uses the same Greek/Hebrew phrase of "credited as righteousness" as Genesis 15:6! But no Reformed exegete will allow the same phrase to be interpreted the same way.
Anyway - while you are correct that the text in no way demands the Reformed interpretation of logizomai/impute - the MOST SIGNIFICANT factor is that the term is NEVER used the way the Reformed do. Let me elaborate: The phrase "faith reckoned as righteousness" should mean FAITH ITSELF is reckoned as righteousness. BUT the Reformed Confessions explicitly reject that and say faith ITSELF has no inherent (or alien) righteousness. INSTEAD they say faith acts like an 'empty hand' such that 'faith reckoned as righteousness' means faith "takes hold of" alien righteousness....BUT that concept is FOREIGN to the term 'logizomai'. The term logizomai/impute NEVER operates like that, it's purely novel.
So while it might be hard to see, there is a serious distinction between:
1) Faith ITSELF counted as righteousness.
2) Faith taking hold of an alien righteousness.
Also, you quote Mark where Jesus is "reckoned" among the transgressors...yet the people who did that 'reckoning' were DEAD WRONG. They reckoned Jesus as a transgressor, but they SINNED in doing so, meaning to reckon something OTHER THAN what it is inherently is an error/sin/mistake. Thus that text you cite means "logizomai" looks to what something really is.
I'd LOVE to discuss this more with you; it's hard to find people that open to what the Scriptures teach. I actually wrote a big paper on how the Bible uses the term:
http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/article.htm
See chapter 4
And you wonder why the FV guys get in trouble. Sometimes it's not your enemies you need to watch out for, it's your friends! ;-)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home