Made Righteousness: Owen’s Argument 16g: Various Passages of Scripture

Owen’s Argument 16g: Various Passages of Scripture - Made Righteousness

Text

2 Cor. v. 21, “He hath made him to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

Owen’s Explanation

Everyone for whom Christ was made to be sin, or a sin offering, is made righteousness.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.ix.xi.html


Refutation

Owen correctly notes that the passage could be saying Christ was made a sin offering. As far as everyone for whom Christ was offered becoming righteousness, the verb genometha (might be made) is in the subjunctive mood, not indicative. So their becoming righteous isn’t certain, but rather uncertain. This passage just indicates the intent of the offering, not the effect.

Comments

Daniel said…
I believe you may be flattening out the Koine use of the subjunctive. In following a hina , the subjunctive does not indicate uncertainty but rather purpose. In this case the sense of the text could be stated "He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, in order that we should be made the righteousness of God in him.”
November 2, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Daniel,

Thanks for commenting. I agree it's a subjunctive of purpose, but I wouldn't oppose that to uncertainty as if it were an either/or thing. I like Goodwin's way of explaining the subjunctive of purpose; it reproduces the original though of the actor. Yes, it's his intention, but the actor is thinking, "if I do X, Y might happen".

In back of this is Owen's assumption that everything God intends happens. But the scriptures speak of God doing things "in vain". (Jeremiah 2:30) So that assumption is incorrect.

God be with you,
Dan

November 3, 2012 at 8:54 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19

Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic , so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage: Ephesians 1:17-19 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic , this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defi
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens
Read more