To Whom Was Sin Imputed?

[KenH]

I understand Richard Hawker believes in a sid debt, and in the Bible I see that the wages of sin is death.

What passage are you thinking of when you say "sin debt" (or is there another way to word it)?

The reason I ask is the term "sin debt" seems to convey the idea that because of our sins there is an incurred debt that must be paid (rather than wages of sin, demands of the Law, etc.).

I just want to be clear about the passage so that there are no assumptions from either of us.

Hebrew 2:17 17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

The word "behoved" means debt. Here is Thayer's Greek Lexicon definition:

"properly, to owe money, be in debt for: τίνι τί, Matthew 18:28; Luke 16:5; without a dative, Matthew 18:28; Luke 7:41; Luke 16:7; Philemon 1:18; τό ὀφειλόμενον, that which is due, the debt, Matthew 18:30; αὐτῷ (which L Tr WH omit), that due to him, Matthew 18:34."

 

[JonC]

Hebrew 2:17 17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

The word "behoved" means debt.

That is not what the passage means, and I only have the NASB handy.

Let's look at the word you are talking about that is translated "behoved", meaning "debt".

If you would be so kind as to provide the word we can do a quick study.



BTW, "behoved" means "incumbent upon".

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

 

[JesusFan]

Sin debt?

Yes, its what we owe God the father due to being law breakers and sinners!

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, it is. The ONLY way for a human being to have his sin debt paid is to have it imputed to Christ and paid by Him at the cross by His blood. The ONLY way for a human being to be able to stand before God perfectly righteousness is to have the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to him. If not for imputation, we human beings would have absolutely no hope whatsoever and we would all be lost.

Psalm 32:1-2 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no guile.

Romans 4:6-8 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The ONLY 2 choices here would be imputation and infusion, and the view of Rome as infusion denies Pauline Justification!

 

[JesusFan]

That is not what the passage means, and I only have the NASB handy.

Let's look at the word you are talking about that is translated "behoved", meaning "debt".

If you would be so kind as to provide the word we can do a quick study.



BTW, "behoved" means "incumbent upon".

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Jesus death was the propitiation to God the father to atone for our sins, in our stead and place, eh?

 

[JesusFan]

That is not what the passage means, and I only have the NASB handy.

Let's look at the word you are talking about that is translated "behoved", meaning "debt".

If you would be so kind as to provide the word we can do a quick study.



BTW, "behoved" means "incumbent upon".

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

So Thayer had it wrong here?

 

[KenH]

It in no way hints at God imputing sin onto people, but rather God not taking into account one's sin.

We do know that Adam's sin was imputed to all humans beings.

Romans 5:12-19 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[KenH]

That is not what the passage means, and I only have the NASB handy.

Let's look at the word you are talking about that is translated "behoved", meaning "debt".

If you would be so kind as to provide the word we can do a quick study.



BTW, "behoved" means "incumbent upon".

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Before we continue on, what exactly are trying to get at? Are you trying to espouse Christus Victor as a stand alone idea about Christ's death? Or you attempting to argue against the doctrine of substitutionary atonement? Or something else?

 

[JonC]

We do know that Adam's sin was imputed to all humans beings.

Romans 5:12-19 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

I agree that before the Law (Paul says from Adam until the Law was given to Moses) sin was in the world, but not imputed.

Here, however, Paul was making the point that even without imputed sin death reigned because sin was in the world (all have sinned).

And I agree that we are "clothed" with the righteousness of Christ.

I do not see anything here about a "sin debt". And the passage itself denied that all were imputed Adam's sin ("Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses").

 

[JonC]

Before we continue on, what exactly are trying to get at? Are you trying to espouse Christus Victor as a stand alone idea about Christ's death? Or you attempting to argue against the doctrine of substitutionary atonement? Or something else?

I am not trying to get at anything. I know what I believe for I have examined my faith. You know what you believe for you have examined your faith.

But I do not know what you believ, or why you believe it, so I am simply asking questions so that I can better understand your position.

I am not espousing any position, except that Scripture is the stand alone doctrine of the Atonement. But I do believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement a serious error. Perhaps that will help to explain my questions.

 

[JesusFan]

Before we continue on, what exactly are trying to get at? Are you trying to espouse Christus Victor as a stand alone idea about Christ's death? Or you attempting to argue against the doctrine of substitutionary atonement? Or something else?

he is doing both!

 

[JesusFan]

I agree that before the Law (Paul says from Adam until the Law was given to Moses) sin was in the world, but not imputed.

Here, however, Paul was making the point that even without imputed sin death reigned because sin was in the world (all have sinned).

And I agree that we are "clothed" with the righteousness of Christ.

I do not see anything here about a "sin debt". And the passage itself denied that all were imputed Adam's sin ("Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses").

We received the same judgement as Adam did, as we were Born with his sin nature being in Adam!

 

[JesusFan]

I am not trying to get at anything. I know what I believe for I have examined my faith. You know what you believe for you have examined your faith.

But I do not know what you believ, or why you believe it, so I am simply asking questions so that I can better understand your position.

I am not espousing any position, except that Scripture is the stand alone doctrine of the Atonement. But I do believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement a serious error. Perhaps that will help to explain my questions.

It fits the biblical atonement far better then that espoused by those such as NT Wright and his ilk though

 

[JonC]

he is doing both!

Thank you, Brother, for trying to answer for me and define my beliefs.

Let me assure you, however, that I can answer for myself.

You are correct on the second part (that I reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement). But saying that Christy's Victor alone describes the Atonement is not helpful (it is an overarching theme that incorporated the "classic view" as a whole). There are other topics within that motif.

So perhaps it is better just to allow members to answer for their own beliefs, and you answer for yours.

 

[JesusFan]

Thank you, Brother, for trying to answer for me and define my beliefs.

Let me assure you, however, that I can answer for myself.

You are correct on the second part (that I reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement). But saying that Christy's Victor alone describes the Atonement is not helpful (it is an overarching theme that incorporated the "classic view" as a whole). There are other topics within that motif.

So perhaps it is better just to allow members to answer for their own beliefs, and you answer for yours.

Do you see psa then as being a heretical view of the Atonement?

 

[JonC]

Do you see psa then as being a heretical view of the Atonement?

No, of course not.

I believe it is wrong, and seriously so. But it is not heresy. I was no less saved when I affirmed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement than I am now having rejected it.

 

[KenH]

Hebrews 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. (emphasis mine)

Strong's: "i.e. a bondsman:—surety."

A surety according to Merriam-Webster is "one who has become legally liable for the debt, default, or failure in duty of another"

A bondsman according to Merriam-Webster is "one who assumes the responsibility of a bond"

A bond according to Merriam-Webster is "an obligation"

To argue against the Biblical doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ as a propitiation for the elect, all those whom God gave to Christ, is to fly in the face of the meaning of words - Greek and English. The Bible is replete with the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. There would be no hope for any human being if not for the substitutionary atonement of Christ. To argue against this doctrine is to declare that one does not believe there is any hope of salvation for anyone - not that I expect one who argues against this doctrine to admit that is what they are doing, otherwise they would be disingenuous.

 

[JonC]

Hebrews 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. (emphasis mine)

Strong's: "i.e. a bondsman:—surety."

A surety according to Merriam-Webster is "one who has become legally liable for the debt, default, or failure in duty of another"

A bondsman according to Merriam-Webster is "one who assumes the responsibility of a bond"

A bond according to Merriam-Webster is "an obligation"

To argue against the Biblical doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ as a propitiation for the elect, all those whom God gave to Christ, is to fly in the face of the meaning of words - Greek and English. The Bible is replete with the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

Jesus made a surety of a better testament. Absolutely.

Scripture tells us that Jesus did experience the wages of sin on our behalf. He died for our sins, became a curse for us.

But Penal Substitution Theory takes this much further by altering Scripture, by replacing the Cross of the Bible with the cross of Calvin and replacing a Christ that died for our sins (became a curse for us) with a Christ that died instead of us.

 

[KenH]

Jesus made a surety of a better testament. Absolutely.

Scripture tells us that Jesus did experience the wages of sin on our behalf. He died for our sins, became a curse for us.

But Penal Substitution Theory takes this much further by altering Scripture, by replacing the Cross of the Bible with the cross of Calvin and replacing a Christ that died for our sins (became a curse for us) with a Christ that died instead of us.

He did die instead of the elect. The sins of the elect were imputed(or credited or charged) to Him and His perfect righteousness was imputed(or credited or charged) to them.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit (emphasis mine)

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (emphasis mine)

 

[JonC]

He did die instead of the elect. The sins of the elect were imputed(or credited or charged) to Him and His perfect righteousness was imputed(or credited or charged) to them.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit (emphasis mine)

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (emphasis mine)

No, if that were true then the elect would not physically die. Jesus did not die "the Second death", but died under the curse to free us from the bondage of sin and death.

It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. This is the Cross - Jesus died physically (it is appointed man once to die) and God judged Him righteous and gave Him a name that is above every name.


But yes, the Just for the unjust (NOT "instead of") that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.

We must die with Christ. And if we die with Christ we believe that we will live with Him.

This is what Penal Substitution Theory ultimately denies. It is a truth, however, that is a central theme of Scripture.