One of the most precious Bible truths is the doctrine of imputed righteousness; that through Christ's sacrifice not only was my sins forgiven, but also that His perfect obedience and righteousness is imputed to me. However, in my 30+ years under non-calvinistic teaching, this was something that was never clearly taught. I've been reflecting on this for several days, trying to come up with a reason for why this doctrine is so largely ignored. These are just some observations I've made, and if I draw wrong conclusions, I'll stand corrected. At least one champion of the Arminian persuasion, the illustrious Charles G. Finney, hated the doctrine of imputation and rejected it altogether, calling it a "theological fiction." Was he being honest enough to admit that this doctrine is incompatible with non-calvinsitic teaching, or did he reach his conclusion some other way? How many today would affirm his conclusion? If the majority today would not go to Finney's extreme and label the doctrine as false, then why is it so largely ignored? Why the number of times that I have heard the altar call given to sinners to come and accept Jesus in order that sins may be forgiven seems almost infinite, not once have I heard the invitation given to come receive Christ's righteousness. Surely there's a reason for this too. While our arminian friends insist that dead sinners may of their own free will either accept or reject Christ's offer of pardon (forgiveness), that only would take care of half of the problem-- should someone actually be able to do this. It's one thing for a guilty criminal to to stand before a judge and accept the judge's offer of forgiveness (just as if you had never sinned), and its something else to be made as if you had always done what was right. "Imputed" certainly implies something that is done to us, not something that we do. Yesterday I heard J. Vernon McGee beautifully illustrate this doctrine (I know that he wasn't a 5 point calvinist and that I can't assume that only calvinists believe this--but it is notable that he only quoted Bunyan and Calvin). Hearing this once again was the high point of my day . I only wonder why more non-calvinsts don't share McGee's enthusiam for this truth. But we really don't see sinners as SINNERS today, do we? After all, we really aren't depraved to the point that it could be called radical or total. Could this be the real problem? Is it because we've exalted fallen man that imputation of Christ's righteousness is no longer neccessary, or that it's no longer precious?