Don Garlington has written a thirty page response to Piper’s (admittedly old) book on imputation (I realize I am five years behind the debate on the New Perspective. Actually, I’m not. I read all this stuff five years ago, but I have been reexamining the issues for other reasons). Garlington makes a number of interesting observations that should give many New Perspective readers pause (of which I am one). Outside the conceptual framework of medieval Catholicism, Calvinism derives its
merit imputation theology from Romans 4, primarily. One has to admit that Calvinists don’t simply make up the argument from nowhere. Paul does use the word logizomai which has connotations of “impute” for later English speakers. Garlington gives his reasons why that is not the best translation for Romans 4.
Garlington’s paper is interesting, but it is not the main point here. I was listening to the exchange between Richard Gaffin and N. T. Wright. They got to the problem of imputation in Paul, specifically appealing to the word “reckon.” Gaffin made a surprisingly strong case for “reckon” = “impute.” Wright’s rebuttal was interesting. Wright acknowledged the force of “reckon,” though he like Garlington said that given the context of the Abrahamic story, other connotations of logizomai are more faithful to the passage. Wright then admitted that imputation was a biblical concept. He said we should read imputation language, not in Romans 4 but in Romans 6–baptism. Through our baptism we reckon ourselves dead to sin. We are baptized into the death of Christ, and have that reckoned to us. If one wants to insist in “imputation” language in the Pauline corpus, I don’t mind transferring it to the baptismal passages in Romans 6.