Thursday, March 15, 2018

Does Romans 2:26 support the Reformed understanding of Imputation?


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: