Why 2 Corinthians 5:21 does NOT teach Imputed Righteousness

[Catholic Dude]

I often see Protestants (typically Calvinists / Reformed) quoting 2 Corinthians 5:21 to prove "the Imputed Righteousness of Christ," and yet when you take a careful look at the verse, it doesn't say anything of the sort.

THIS ARTICLE covers 2 Corinthians 5:21 and why it shouldn't be read as teaching Imputed Righteousness.

Please ONLY respond if you have actually read the article. Please stay on topic, i.e. 2 Corinthians 5:21, and don't go off on tangents.

 

[Tarshish]

A delightful waste of time, really. It is very risky to base a theory or a rebuttal of such theory on the nuances of the Greek language on a couple of words of a single verse.

Come on. The Bible was never meant to be read or interpreted like that.

 

[Targaryen]

A delightful waste of time, really. It is very risky to base a theory or a rebuttal of such theory on the nuances of the Greek language on a couple of words of a single verse.

Come on. The Bible was never meant to be read or interpreted like that.

^ this

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Or on one verse that can always be taken out of context when not placed with other verses. If that is the catholic version then the protestion version is similar that it leads to propitiation etc. but since the OP is specifically about imputation it's found outside of that verse

The Doctrine of Imputation (setting down to one's account)

Hebrews 10
Animal Sacrifices Insufficient

1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
Christ’s Death Fulfills God’s Will

5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

“ Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’”[a]

8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them ” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


DEBIT
(God views us in our position with Adam, sees us as spiritually dead, therefore spiritual death is reckoned to our account.)
(The first great fact of imputation is that Adam's sin is imputed to the whole human race)

Romans 5:12
Death in Adam, Life in Christ

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—


CLEAN SLATE
(The sin of the race (imputed by God the Father) is imputed to God the Son.) (He set down to Jesus' account what was not His but rightfully ours)

Isaiah 53:5-6
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

(Here is the transfer of accounts)
(The scapegoat who bore away all the sins of the people.)

2 Corinthians 5:21
21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

CREDIT
(The righteousness of Christ imputed to sinners)
(Gives us the right to come into the presence of God)

Romans 1:16-17
The Just Live by Faith

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

Romans 10:3
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.


So...
step #1= Adam's sin reckoned to the race
step #2= God reckoned over the sin of Adam's race to Christ
step #3= God reckoned righteousness of God to sinners
(this was an act of free grace)

Philippians 3:8-9
8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

VEIWING THE DIVINE TRANSACTION

Hebrews 10:14
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

Hebrews 9:14
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

1 Corinthians 1:30
30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption—

(All that is in Jesus is set down to our account)

Colossians 2:9-10
9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

(Thru faith, His Righteousness is given to us. God accepted the payment)

 

[Catholic Dude]

I don't really see any exegesis going on here. You quoted a bunch of passages and made some claims about them, but that's not the same as exegesis. For example, you simply posted 2 Corinthians 5:21 and said this refers to imputation, which is simply an unwarranted assumption, despite the fact my Opening Post was made precisely to counter that unwarranted assumption.

 

[Optimax]

The Bible says what was done and says what it meant.

Instead of jumping through all those hoops to try to explain what it really meant.

Just receive what it says.

Doesn't line up with what ya believe?

Then what is believed is the error not what scripture says.

Solution?

Change what you believe when scripture differs.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I don't really see any exegesis going on here. You quoted a bunch of passages and made some claims about them, but that's not the same as exegesis. For example, you simply posted 2 Corinthians 5:21 and said this refers to imputation, which is simply an unwarranted assumption, despite the fact my Opening Post was made precisely to counter that unwarranted assumption.

From the dozen scriptures that make up the whole that one was mentioned...
You stated in the OP that one verse is the Protestant standpoint. That's far from the truth. To expand on the verses more, Christ had no sin because sin comes from satan who Jesus had no part of. That sin was in mankind that made them not only sinners but sin itself. So when Christ was made sin on our behalf He was also judged on our behalf. The righteousness issuing from God is Christ to be our righteousness, making us God's righteousness in Him but not making us righteous before God. Mankind are sinners and are still in sin, but by making us God's righteousness that reconciles us to God, we become new creations subject to God's purposes. No longer enemies of God. Therefore His righteousness is imputed to mankind in the eyes of God.

definition imputed:
THEOLOGY
ascribe (righteousness, guilt, etc.) to someone by virtue of a similar quality in another.

The similar quality is the full life and death of God's Son in which He lived perfectly and died as being made sin for us.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

*******************************************************************
edit:The other side of the coin is infusion or multiplied grace or peace
plural noun
1.
(esp among the scholastics) those virtues that are infused into man by a special grace of God, specifically faith, hope, and charity Compare natural virtues

which are a multiplication ie: add to faith , virtue, add to virtue self control, add to self control, etc

That's obviously beyond a Calvanist view of which I am not.

 

[Catholic Dude]

I'm not actually sure what you said, but it's not exegesis. Exegesis asks and answers questions about a text such as "What does it mean to be 'made sin'"? and "What does it mean to 'become the righteousness of God'"? The article shows that 'made sin' means the Son of God took on our human nature and that 'becoming the righteousness of God' refers to forgiveness of sins and reconciliation. There is no 'imputing' going on here.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I was under the impression that Protestant's beliefs were the question and I think that what was written in the artical has been answered and proven false.

 

[Albion]

I often see Protestants (typically Calvinists / Reformed) quoting 2 Corinthians 5:21 to prove "the Imputed Righteousness of Christ," and yet when you take a careful look at the verse, it doesn't say anything of the sort.

THIS ARTICLE covers 2 Corinthians 5:21 and why it shouldn't be read as teaching Imputed Righteousness.

Please ONLY respond if you have actually read the article. Please stay on topic, i.e. 2 Corinthians 5:21, and don't go off on tangents.

Bring us an article on this subject from an unbiased publication and we'll talk.

 

[BobRyan]

I often see Protestants (typically Calvinists / Reformed) quoting 2 Corinthians 5:21 to prove "the Imputed Righteousness of Christ," and yet when you take a careful look at the verse, it doesn't say anything of the sort.

THIS ARTICLE covers 2 Corinthians 5:21 and why it shouldn't be read as teaching Imputed Righteousness.

Please ONLY respond if you have actually read the article. Please stay on topic, i.e. 2 Corinthians 5:21, and don't go off on tangents.

The article says

A Blog for Catholic Apologetics and Traditionalism

...

Which is the first reason I might not have read it.

But then the article goes on to make the Protestant case

Before examining the verse though, a Catholic must know what the Protestant understands this verse to be saying. The standard Protestant interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21, espoused by even the greatest Reformed theologians, can be summarized as follows (in my own words):


Our sin was imputed to Christ, "making Him to be sin," while on the other hand Christ's perfect obedience was imputed to us, "making us the righteousness of God." Give the option between Imputation and Infusion, we know that since Christ wasn't literally made sin, we can't say sin wasn't infused into Him, thus making imputation the only acceptable interpretation. Plus, in the immediate context Paul says God did not impute our sins to us (2 Cor. 5:19), indicating that God must have imputed our sins somewhere else, namely to Christ's account. Having established the framework of imputation in Paul’s lesson, we can say that just as Jesus "becomes sin" (by imputation), the parallel must also hold true, namely that we "become the righteousness of God" in the same way (by a second imputation, received by faith alone). Here, in one concise verse, Paul is clearly describing a "double-imputation" going on, or a "Great Exchange" as many Protestants fondly refer to it. This is the essence of the Reformation teaching on Justification by Faith Alone.

Clearly vs 19 provides a context for imputed sin where it does not naturally occur as the parallel to imputing Righteousness where it does not naturally occur.

This is why 1 day old Christian who then dies -- can go to heaven.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Radagast]

I often see Protestants (typically Calvinists / Reformed) quoting 2 Corinthians 5:21 to prove "the Imputed Righteousness of Christ," and yet when you take a careful look at the verse, it doesn't say anything of the sort.

THIS ARTICLE covers 2 Corinthians 5:21 and why it shouldn't be read as teaching Imputed Righteousness.

I don't think "Catholic Nick's blog" proves anything at all. The discussion of the Greek is incorrect and the obvious Old Testament parallel gets ignored.

Just a waste of time.

 

[Catholic Dude]

I don't think "Catholic Nick's blog" proves anything at all. The discussion of the Greek is incorrect and the obvious Old Testament parallel gets ignored.

Just a waste of time.

What was wrong with the Greek and what is the obvious Old Testament parallel?

I'm surprised so many people are not bothering to read the article simply because it was written by a Catholic.

 

[Albion]

I'm surprised so many people are not bothering to read the article simply because it was written by a Catholic.

It's not just that it was written "by a Catholic." It's on a website which describes itself as existing "for Catholic Apologetics and Traditionalism." Should we suppose that there is any chance it is going to take an even-handed approach to the issue?

 

[Targaryen]

What was wrong with the Greek and what is the obvious Old Testament parallel?

I'm surprised so many people are not bothering to read the article simply because it was written by a Catholic.

It's not that it was written by a Catholic that is the issue. It's about the Greek used being misinterpreted badly as a justification in someway that Imputed righteousness is somehow un-biblical.

I think the case here you're trying to make on anti-Protestantism is just as your idea that cause we are pulling apart this particular misinterpretation, we're anti-Catholic...can't speak for some, but for me, that's not the case.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

His artical isn't against Protestant beliefs. It's against Calvin beliefs but he's made it appear to be an insult to all Protestants that they have no idea what they'r talking about.

 

[Targaryen]

There is a tone of anti-Luther in there as well, which tend to make it more broad anti-Protestant

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

There is a tone of anti-Luther in there as well, which tend to make it more broad anti-Protestant

The thing is that he should have realised how outlandish the claim of the artical was. That he hasn't posted since it was invalidated says much abt his character. Maybe he can move on as Albion suggested to a more accredited discussion.

 

[Catholic Dude]

It's not just that it was written "by a Catholic." It's on a website which describes itself as existing "for Catholic Apologetics and Traditionalism." Should we suppose that there is any chance it is going to take an even-handed approach to the issue?

That really shouldn't be your concern, unless you're going to be guilty of the Ad Hominem fallacy. A website dedicated to a cause does not mean the author is automatically not going to be honest with the facts or is going to present a lop-sided argument.

The only concern is, are the claims that the article makes sound? If Yes, then you shouldn't have any "concerns," and if No, then perhaps you could show specifically where.

It's not that it was written by a Catholic that is the issue. It's about the Greek used being misinterpreted badly as a justification in someway that Imputed righteousness is somehow un-biblical.

I think the case here you're trying to make on anti-Protestantism is just as your idea that cause we are pulling apart this particular misinterpretation, we're anti-Catholic...can't speak for some, but for me, that's not the case.

Please show specifically where the Greek arguments made were unfair or in error.