Michael Flournoy continues to show he is theologically inept after embracing Protestantism. His recent piece is another desperate attempt to support the blasphemous doctrine of imputed righteousness:
Needless to say, apart from common eisegesis of Rom 4, Flournoy is not able to support his theology. But don't take my word for it. Read Michael's recent article and compare/contrast with the following:
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness
For other articles showing that Protestant theology on this and related issues are anti-biblical, see, for e.g.:
Does LDS Theology Confuse the Relationship Between Justification and Sanctification?
Dave Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification and Refutation of Dave Bartosiewicz on justification and the atonement being forensic
Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation
Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7
Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer
As an aside, one will note that the term "alien imputed righteousness" is not used in the article. One wonders if Michael still believes the term "alien" in the phrase refers to an extra-terrestrial. When I once used the term to describe Protestant theology, Michael responded thusly:
