Does Rom 5:19 prove the Protestant doctrine of Imputation?

Saint Paul says: "By one man's disobedience many were made/appointed sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made/appointed righteous." (Rom 5:19). Some Protestants claim this is an important proof text for their doctrine of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, because here Paul speaks of believers being "appointed righteous," which they say is different fromactually being made righteous. I want to address that claim here, because it isn't as strong of an argument as they think.

Several years ago I was reading Reformed Baptist pastor John Piper's defense of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and I recall he had commented on this very issue in his Protestant apologetics book "Counted Righteous in Christ" (available for free on Piper's own site here). Piper explains his interpretation of Romans 5:19 on Pages 108-109, which I've trimmed down for length but kept the essential parts:

Does Christ’s one act of righteousness “result in justification of life” (Rom 5:18) because by this act we are transformed by faith into righteous people or because we are counted to be righteous at the moment we believe in Christ, when in fact we are ungodly (4:5)? The word kathistemi [in Rom 5:19] translated as “made” regularly means “appoint.” (Matt 24:45, 47; Lk 12:14; Acts 6:3; Tit 1:5) This would point to the second meaning: “through the obedience of Christ we are appointed or reckoned righteous” (Rom 5:19). This would support the imputation of righteousness to us. But the word (kathistemi) itself may carry the implication of having the qualities to which it is appointed. (Jas 4:4; 2 Peter 1:8) So the context decides.

I have tried to argue that the whole context [of Romans 5], beginning at verse 12, teaches the “imputation” of Adam’s sin to the human race so as to shed light on the meaning of justification as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The whole reason why Paul launched into this typology between Adam and Christ was to make the nature of justification (namely, as imputation) clear.

The condemnation following Adam’s sin was not owing to our personal transgressions, but to our connection with Adam. This is so crucial to him because all the way along in this text he wants us to see that, likewise, justification does not flow from our personal obedience but from the “one act of righteousness” (5:18) or “the obedience” of Christ (5:19). The whole context calls for the common meaning of kathistemi in verse 19, namely, “appoint.”

Piper begins by asking if the obedience of Christ mentioned in Rom 5:18-19 results in either of two options: (1) 'transform us into righteous people', or alternatively, (2) does it only 'impute/count us to be righteous even though we are ungodly'? Piper is trying to prove the second option here (Imputation), namely that we are regarded as righteous legally even though we are personally ungodly.

To prove his thesis, Piper says the Greek term "made" in Rom 5:19 most often means "appoint" in the Bible, regularly used as an accounting/regarding term rather than a make/transform term. Thus, Paul is most likely saying we are 'regarded/imputed as righteous' rather than we are 'made inwardly righteous'. This is a fair point to make, but it has its limitations. Piper immediately adds that this word can carry implications of someone having the qualities to which they are appointed, meaning that someone who is 'appointed as righteous' might actually already be inwardly righteous. If so, that would undermine Piper's thesis. So Piper (rightly) says we must use context to decide how 'appointed' is being used. 

Appealing to the context, Piper argues that Romans 5:12-21 is about two representatives for all of humanity (Adam & Jesus), both acting as "heads" of the human family on behalf of everyone else, and thus isn't about our individual behavior. In other words, Piper is saying that what these men did affected everyone else, while we are just the recipients of what they caused. Thus, their actions and consequences are said to belong to us, even though we didn't personally do these things. In this way, Original Sin holds that we are regarded (imputed) as sinners because Adam sinned, even though we personally didn't do anything sinful. And since the text of Rom 5:18-19 is presented as a parallel, then logically by Christ's obedience, we will be regarded (imputed) as righteous even though we personally didn't do anything good. This is a reasonable argument and interpretation of the text, and why Piper and many Protestants stand so confident about their doctrine of Imputation. So what's the Catholic response?

First, a fallacy with Piper's opening set up is that he is trying to argue that 'appoint' is used to show we can be regarded as righteous "even though we are ungodly (Rom 4:5)," but such doesn't logically follow. If Paul's lesson is that we are regarded as righteous or sinful strictly because of the actions of Adam or Jesus done on our behalf, then our own personal godliness or sinfulness would be irrelevant to Paul's thesis. In other words, it could just as logically be said we are "appointed as sinful even if we were personally righteous," as strange as that sounds, because it doesn't matter if we are personally good or evil, only whether Adam or Jesus are good. This shows a serious coherence problem within the Reformed view of Adam/Jesus headship, because Imputation has made it so God doesn't actually care if we are personally behaving sinfully or not, since God only cares how Adam behaved on our behalf. But God clearly does care about our individual personal behavior, as Romans 1-4 (and elsewhere) certainly makes clear. So the Imputation by headship thesis is severely undermined, which I've also noted many times elsewhere (e.g. here). The very 'salvation by works' thesis Protestants hold, saying that "you can't save yourself by your own works because your works are sinful," is a completely incoherent thesis, because with the Imputation theme even if your works were perfectly righteous that wouldn't mean anything because God only looks at Adam or Jesus on your behalf! Under the Imputation paradigm, it makes no sense for Paul to ask "if Abraham was justified by his works" (Rom 4:2) because justification is strictly based on the behavior of Adam of Jesus, not Abraham's personal behavior!

Second, there is an equivocation fallacy (i.e. the same word holds different meaning) being used here by Piper and the Protestant side, which is that "Imputation" means two opposite things within the same context. On one hand, Protestants say "imputation" means something is regarded to have something that it doesn't actually have, namely someone is regarded as righteous even though they aren't righteous inwardly or by personal behavior. Yet, on the other hand, Protestants say we are "imputed" as sinful not just because of Original Sin, but also because we truly are sinful in our hearts and behavior (Rom 3:9-18). Protestants admit by the sin of Adam we were not merely 'appointed' to be sinful, but that we indeed became inwardly radically corrupted in our very being. So why would the obedience of Jesus only merely 'appoint' us to be righteous while not being made inwardly righteous? Logically, if we are appointed/imputed as sinners while also being personally sinful, then to be consistent it would suggest we are appointed/imputed as righteous because we also are personally righteous. Thus, logically speaking, the term 'appoint' should be understood to include or imply a transformation, thus 'made righteous' fits better.

Building on this last thought, Adam's sin truly caused us to become spiritually dead and inwardly sinful. The context of Rom 5 is clear about this, even using terms like "dead" and "life," which refer to inward conditions. Nobody says you are legally dead or legally alive, because that makes no sense. Thus, if by one man's sins we became spiritually dead, then logically the solution is that by one mans obedience we are made spiritually alive. It makes no sense to impute life to someone who is dead.

The New Testament uses the term "made/appoint" twenty-two times (see here), and it very consistently is used to mean someone is appointed to an office because they personally were on good behavior. Consider:

• Jesus speaks of "the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has [appointed] over his household" (Mat 24:45,47; Mat 25:21,23; Lk 12:42,44). Notice the person appointed to office is actually personally holy.
  
  
• In Acts 6:3, Peter says "pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty ... 5 and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them." Notice the deacons are actually holy, whereas Piper only cites the last few words. And notice this took place in a sacramental context, laying on of hands to receive graces, suggesting "appoint" could be sacramental.
  
  
• Acts 7:10 has Pharaoh "appoint" Joseph as ruler, "Joseph found favor in his sight and attended him, and he made him overseer of his house and put him in charge of all that he had" (Gen 39:4)
  
  
• Paul tells Titus 1:5 to "appoint elders in every town as I directed you," and Paul goes on to show how elders must have good character and holy, Titus 1:6-9. Thus, appointment corresponds to actual personal good character.
  
  
• Heb 2:7 says that because of the Son's obedience, the Son was crowned and "set over" as king all of the world.
  
  
• James 4:4 says, "whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes [appoints] himself an enemy of God," which isn't about ordaining to a higher place, but rather gets assigned based on character.
  
  
• 2 Peter 1:8 says, "For if these virtues are yours and are increasing, they make [appoint] you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ," speaking on the virtues in the prior verses 2 Peter 1:5-7 that allow a man to be fruitful.
  
  
• Heb 5:1; 7:28; 8:3; are about the appointment of the high priest, which was based on being a biological descendant of Aaron (Num 3:10). It's not that they were appointed according to their behavior, but they did have to undergo sanctification rituals, and they could lose their priesthood (e.g. Num 4:19) through sinning.

So based on the Biblical usage, Piper has no reasonable lexical basis to think someone is appointed to something while being personally unworthy of it. From what I have found, the term never suggests "imputation" in any place it is used, so we shouldn't even assume "imputation" is within the range of meaning of "made". On top of that, there is no "appointing" to an office in Rom 5:19, since the only two offices are occupied by Adam and Jesus, never meant for us. There is no "appointing" in a courtroom trial, so again the translation "appoint" isn't fitting here in Rom 5 when Protestants claim Justification is understood as a legal thing. This means "appoint" must reasonably be understood more accurately as "made to be" or "shown to be," even possibly sacramental Baptism/Confirmation, since the "appointing" of clergy Biblically includes the sacramental laying on of hands. Given that "justify" most likely refers to "vindication," that is showing/demonstrating one to be righteous (see here), then that's also where I would lean for Rom 5:19. Thus, I would lean towards "appointed righteous" be likely understood as enrolled into the "class" of righteous behaving people through Baptism. By Adam's sin, many were shown to be corrupted sinners in their behavior, and by Christ's obedience, many were shown to be regenerated righteous in their behavior. Even if a Protestant wants to claim "appoint does not mean to transform inwardly," just as they say "impute doesn't mean transform inwardly" and "justify does not mean to make righteous," these Protestants completely miss the point. It's not that those terms mean transform, but rather that these terms recognize a transformation already took place! Ironically, even the Reformed admit that 'regeneration precedes faith', meaning that prior to Justification they are transformed inwardly in order to believe, and thus aren't truly 'reckoned righteous while still being a sinner' (see here).

In conclusion, I think it is very clear that the Imputation thesis doesn't fit, and rather that the 'made/recognized' understanding fits much better. If Justification is principally about Adoption, which I think it is, then through Christ's obedience we are adopted as sons and thus demonstrate that reality. It is also possible that "many will be made righteous" has in view the Resurrection, wherein we will be ordained/constituted as glorified saints.

Ordaining the Seven Deacons (including Deacon Nick)
as seen in the first deacons of Acts 6:3-5