CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS IS IMPUTED TO US

The statement made that this is "unscriptural" will most likely raise the ire of many. I hope it does! For if this anger causes them to read the Scriptures in order to find what they say, then it is worth it! 

First, the Bible never says that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to anyone! All kinds of doctrines have sprung up over the misuse of a Biblical term. It has resulted in Gnostic myths being incorporated into the once pure doctrine of Christianity. There is no mystical transfer of character or sin from one person to another. That is an impossibility. If it were a truth, then anyone could be guilt free by "imputing" all of their flaws and sins to the tree out back. If transfer is possible, we do not need a Savior in Jesus Christ. The Old Testament sacrifices would have been effective. We know that this is not so because we are informed that "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." (Heb.10:4). In the Bible, the transfer of sins is always presented as an impossibility.

Much of the disagreement over imputation is the meaning that people put behind it. It means to "recon" to "count," for it is an accounting term. We can be counted righteous as described in Romans 4:3, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Abraham's faith was "counted" for righteousness. (v. 5). Because of the atonement of Christ, we can be forgiven and accounted righteous. Not because there was any mystical transfer of Christ's righteousness to us, but because when He has forgiven us, no unrighteousness stands in the way. We are counted righteous by faith! 

The problem comes in when people change the definition into something the term did not mean in Bible times. "A transfer of merit or character" is the meaning many force upon it today. First, as already discussed, the transfer of someone else's merit of demerit is not only a logical impossibility, it is a Scriptural impossibility. It is mysticism, pure and simple. It is something that cannot be proved in nature or in Scripture. We usually describe thoughts as these as fantasies or fairytales, and rightfully so! When we contemplate what happened on the Cross and the plan of God to save mankind, shouldn't we base our understanding upon the Scriptural facts that are revealed instead of the theological fantasies of man?    

I readily admit that the term "impute" is a Biblical term. To understand it, we must see how it is used in its own context. 

Romans chapter four is quite possibly the best place to start since this is where the term is the most abused.

The Greek term logid'zomai, is used 11 times in Chapter 4 alone. It is translated as "counted" two times; "reckoned" three times; "imputed" or "imputeth" six times. 

Now let's look at the times it says "impute."

Romans 4:6, "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth  righteousness without works..." 

Now, if we assume a transfer of character, it would read...   

"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God [mystically transfers Christ's] righteousness without works..." 

If we assume the the same use as it is used in the rest of the context of Romans four...

"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God [counts or recons as]  righteousness without works..." 

Conclusion: Both will work, but the insertion of a "mystical transfer of character" is not in any way essential to the passage.

Romans 4:8, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."

"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not [mystically transfer] sin."

"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not [count or recon] sin."

Count [their] sin is the natural meaning here.

Romans 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith he had yet being uncircumcised; that righteousness might be imputed upon them also."

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith he had yet being uncircumcised; that righteousness might be [mystically transferred] upon them also."

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith he had yet being uncircumcised; that righteousness might be [counted by faith] upon them also."

Both will work, but without any Scriptural precedence, mystical imputation has nothing to support it.

Romans 4:22, "And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness."

Same as 4:11.

Romans 4:23, "Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him."

"Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was [transferred] to him."

"Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was [counted or reckoned] to him."

Both can work, but once again, not a single instance in all of Scriptures states that character can be transferred. 

Romans 4:24, "But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead."

"But for us also, to whom it shall be [transferred,] if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead."

"But for us also, to whom it shall be [counted,] if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead."

The statement of "the imputed righteousness of Christ" is nowhere to be found in Scripture. To understand "imputed" as "counted" of "reckoned" as righteous fits in naturally everywhere. There is no need to force an unstated mysticism upon this word when the Scriptures never endorse it.

The Biblical Evidence for Arminianism                        Imputation and the Arminian Mind