In Rom 2:26,
we read:
So if the uncircumcised man keeps the
requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded (λογιζομαι) as
circumcision? (NASB)
Some Protestant apologists have appealed to this verse to support their
understanding of the verb λογιζομαι. However, as Ben Douglass in his excellent Reply
to James White on Romans 4 and Justification noted (emphasis added):
This verse comes the closest to providing a
precedent for the signification which Protestants impute (pun intended) to
logizomai in Romans 4. St. Paul informs us that if an uncircumcised man leads
an upright life, God will regard him as if he were circumcised, even though He
knows that in reality he is not. Nevertheless,
not even the manner in which logizomai is used here completely mirrors Luther
and Calvin's concept of forensic imputation. This verse is about God accepting
one quality (righteousness) which a man truly, inwardly possesses, as a
replacement for another (circumcision). For Luther and Calvin, man had
nothing which God would regard as pleasing and acceptable, so He had to credit
him forensically with the polar opposite of reality. Romans 2:26 is analogous
to regarding someone with a GED as if he had graduated high school; Protestant
soteriology is like giving a kindergartener a Ph.D.
For more on
the verb λογιζομαι in Greek
texts contemporary with the New Testament, and how such refutes, not supports, the
Reformed understanding, see, for example, my 7-part Λογιζομαι in texts
contemporary with the New Testament series: