In the case of Logizomai (the term translated in English as impute/reckon/count/etc) a startling fact emerges: the term ‘impute’ doesn’t actually appear in Romans 4, that’s a Protestant translation of Logizomai in Romans 4 (and even then most Protestant translations don’t translate it as ‘impute’). So basically we have a foundational term – imputation – that doesn’t technically appear in Scripture.

Looking at how a Greek term is used and translated elsewhere in Scripture helps us get a better understanding of its meaning. One of the biggest tragedies in Protestant exegesis, especially of Romans 4, is their lack of analysis on how Logizomai is used. I’ve looked repeatedly in Protestant texts, both old and new, and they wont do a word study of Logizomai in the New Testament. This is very telling to me, because it indicates to me they don’t like where the evidence points and the consequences would be too serious. This is also why Protestants shy away from Psalm 106:30-31, the only other time “credited as righteousness” appears. Rather than ‘interpreting Scripture with Scripture’, Protestants have not followed their own advice when it comes to Logizomai.

Catholics are ‘taking back’ Scripture, and basic Greek word studies like this are essential to doing so. It is extensive, fair, and honest Biblcal exegesis, so it’s nothing we nor Protestants have to fear, if the truth is all we’re after. When you say the meaning of Logizomai is not clear, I’m not sure where you’re getting that – of the 40 times it’s used, it overwhelmingly means to consider something as what it really is, which is the exact opposite of what the Protestant claims.

Thanks for the compliment. I do not know how to do what you suggest. I shall look around the preferences again and see if anything is there I did not see before.

The Greek term for “impute/credit/reckon” appears about 40 times in the New Testament (11 times in Romans 4). However, Romans 4 is the only time it is used in regards to salvation/righteousness.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood what Adomnan said on Dave’s blog. I will correct it.

I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU READ THIS ARTICLE, it will change your life and any Protestants you show this to!

I did read this a while ago. It is interesting. I decided not to get into the greek. Partly because I could not find this article back, thanks for that. But partly because many people tune out when you get into such a detailed word study.

My point is that it is way easier to explain why Paul focuses on crediting in Rom 4 than to explain all the other times works are connected with salvation. The meaning of logizomai is not completely clear but even if protestants are mostly right about it they do not create much of a problem for Catholics.

My dream is that Catholics dump James 2:24 as their “go to” passage and shift focus on the solid and powerful arguments Paul has to offer.

I do feel that James 2 is the fullest explaination in scripture of the faith, works, salvation question. In Romans Paul’s focus is on Jews and gentiles, not on faith and works. That is just obvious to anyone reading Romans and/or Galatians. After James my next “go to” passages would be in the gospels. Mat 25 and the sheep and the goats. Mat 7 and the “not everyone who says to me Lord Lord.” If I talk about Paul is is normally Gal 5:19-21, “those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God”. Then of course Cor 13, “if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing”. No shortage of “go to” texts!

This is an amazing topic and I believe is a new way of Catholic apologetics arsing. Some points I’d like to make:

1) The Greek term for “impute/credit/reckon” appears about 40 times in the New Testament (11 times in Romans 4). However, Romans 4 is the only time it is used in regards to salvation/righteousness. This is very odd if Imputation is such a central concept to the Gospel. What is worse, the Greek term for ‘impute/credit/reckon’ is not even used the way Protestants claim! Psalm 106:30f uses the same Greek/Hebrew phrase as Gen 15:6 (”Credited as righteousness”) and it clearly means the action was seen as a truly righteous act…that’s not what the Protestant wants to hear. This is why Psalm 106:30f is frequently ignored/downplayed.

I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU READ THIS ARTICLE, it will change your life and any Protestants you show this to!
http://www.pugiofidei.com/logizomai.htm

2) I am glad you are bringing up the long standing almost ‘fear’ of Romans (esp ch4) that Catholics exhibit. That is wrong and needs to change. The fact is, Romans (when properly read) – especially ch4 – actually refutes Protestantism far greater than James 2:24 ever could. My dream is that Catholics dump James 2:24 as their “go to” passage and shift focus on the solid and powerful arguments Paul has to offer.

For a long time Protestants have had a strangle hold on texts like Romans 4 (v1-8), Ephesians 2 (v8-10), Galatians 3(v10-13, Philippians 3(v9), etc. However, upon my careful study, these texts – especially when read in context – cause serious damange to Sola Fide theology.
This led me to write an apologetics article on Ephesians 2:8, showing how it solidly supports Catholicism:
http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/eph2

I hope to do the same, at least in a basic form, for the above texts as well. The key is understanding Sola Fide as CLASSICALLY defined, that way you know what you’re supposed to look for when reading Paul – and thus see if Paul is really saying that or not (which he most often is not!)

3) You make a good point about the final judgment according to works and how that is so illogical if Paul’s point is that we wont be judged according to our works. Interestingly, Paul doesn’t focus on the final judgment when speaking of ‘justification by faith’, indicating that is a different event in Paul’s mind. Astonishingly, Romans 14:9-12 says we will all give an account before the judgment seat for how we lived. This is far removed from a ‘justified by faith’ granting us full access into Heaven.

4) You begin to speak on Romans 4. What is astonishing is that Paul INTERPRETS verse 3 “credited as righteousness” in verses 18-22! Yet these verses are almost NEVER discussed! In those versese we see nothing relating to imputation of Christ’s righteousness, but rather how God considered Abraham’s faith as righteous precisely because it grew and persevered and hoped. It is this type of stuff Catholics need to zoom onto when talking with Protestants, because Protestants only see 4:2-8, ignoring the rest and thus misreading the former.

Great discussion! I love this stuff!