Does Philemon 1:18 support (Double) Imputation?

As I was responding to objections in the comment box on my recent Imputation (Logizomai) article, I realized a truly devastating argument that I had not noticed before. Within that article, I had documented numerous well-respected, conservative Reformed Theologians who made Philemon 1:18 a chief proof-text for Imputation. All this time, I didn't give it much thought though, because Philemon doesn't use the crucial word Logozmai. But now I realize that the better approach is to take Philemon 1:18 head on, and even embrace it!  

It all began when a Protestant accused me of misrepresenting the Protestant view of Imputation. He said I incorrectly described the Protestant view of imputation as that of transferring sin or transferring righteousness. He obviously didn't read the many Protsetant sources I quoted which used the very phrase and concept of "transferring," especially with their appeal to Philemon. You can go to the original article to verify this, but here's a quick run-down of what some big name Reformed Theologians said when "proving" the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness from the Bible, using Philemon as a chief proof-text:

• John Owen: An illustrious instance [of imputation] we have in that passage unto Philemon...
• Francis Turretin: Paul desires the fault of Onesimus to be imputed to him
• James Buchanan: The debt due, and the wrong done, by Onesimus to Philemon, were not chargeable against Paul personally or previously, but he became chargeable with them simply by their being imputed to him
• Charles Hodge: Philemon had no doubt what Paul meant when he told him to impute to him the debt of Onesimus.
• Robert Dabney: When we attempt to prove this imputation, we are met with the assertion that there is no Scriptural warrant for this idea of transference of righteousness as to its legal consequences. We point, in reply, to Philemon 18
• John Gill: the manner in which the righteousness of Christ is made over to a sinner, and it becomes his, is by imputing it to him . . . as when the apostle said to Philemon
• LS Chafer: The word impute means to reckon over unto one's account, as the Apostle writing to Philemon
• Tyndale Biblical Dictionary: Philemon 1:18, which affirms that the apostle Paul assumed the debt of Onesimus, aptly illustrates the predominant theological usage of [imputation]
• International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: something which is not personally one's own prior to the imputation, as where Paul asks that a debt not personally his own be charged to him (Philemon 1:18)
• William Webster: Paul illustrates this in his letter to Philemon...

Before getting into the apologetics of Philemon 1:18, we need some background. The Letter of Paul to Philemon is fascinating for a few reasons. First of all, because it is one of the shortest books of the Bible, less than one page long! Within this book, Paul also suggests that slavery isn't a good thing, especially between Christians, since Paul is writing to his disciple Philemon about his run-away slave named Onesimus. After he ran away, Onesimus met Paul in Rome and converted to Christianity, becoming a trusted helper for his "father" Paul. Now Paul is writing to kindly ask his beloved Brother in Christ, Philemon, to no longer regard Onesimus as a slave, but rather a fellow Brother in Christ as well. Paul ask that Onesimus either remain assisting Paul in Rome or else return as a hired helper friend of Philemon. Paul even says it was Providential that Onesimus ran away, because that led to his salvation. It is within this context that the Apostle says to his disciple Philemon:

8 Though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, yet for love's sake I prefer to appeal to you. I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner, I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became. I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion. For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but as a beloved brother.

17 So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. 18 If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. 19 I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it, to say nothing of your owing me even your own self. 20 Yes, brother, I want some benefit from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say. 22 At the same time, prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping that through your prayers I will be graciously given to you.

The Protestant claim is that in verse 17 we see the Imputation of Christ to the sinner, wherein Onesimus is seen and treated as if he were Paul. And in verse 18 we see the imputation of our sin onto Christ, wherein the guilt of Onesimus was transferred to Paul. This isn't that unreasonable of a claim, since there is an element of truth to it (we become sons of God, clothed with Christ, etc), but it actually undermines Imputation when you take a more careful look. Consider the following. 

First, the penalty for being a run-away slave was likely death, or at least some severe beating. But Paul was certainly not suggesting that Philemon put Paul to death or physically beat Paul. So by having that "wrong" end up being "charged to" Paul, we know it doesn't mean Paul took the punishment Onesimus deserved. Rather, it means Paul will somehow make it up to Philemon, likely granting him some service, and possibly financial compensation. So this is a major blow to the Protestant idea of Penal Substitution and Imputation of Sin, because it shows us a more compassionate alternative means of dealing (atoning) with another's sins.

Second of all, we see Paul strongly imply that Philemon is obliged to actually cancel the debt, since Paul reminds Philemon that he already is deeply indebted to Paul for bringing him the Gospel (v19). Paul turns it around and says he wants Philemon to drop the charges this as a favor (v20-21). And rather than being received as a slave, Paul tells Philemon to prepare a comfortable guest bed when Paul comes by to visit. Paul even says his apostolic authority can command Philemon to forgive the debt, but it's better if the debt is freely forgiven (v10). So we can see that even if on one hand Paul did take on the debt, in reality the debt was actually canceled without any injustice, out of pure grace for Paul's loving deeds. Here we see a wonderful image of Jesus atoning for our sin, not by taking the cold, calculated punishment, but by demonstrating a love by which sin should naturally simply be canceled out.

Third, the idea being expressed in 1:18 is that of a balance transfer, wherein the debt leaves the account ledger of Onesimus and is put onto the account ledger of Paul. In other words, when the "imputation" takes place, there is no longer any sin/debt on the original side. The debt is not shared between the two. This is why Protestants point to the Scapegoat and Sin Offering thinking (mistakenly) that the person's sin was removed from them and transferred to the animal to be punished in their place. You can hopefully see how problematic this logic becomes for Protestants though, because they claim Adam's sin is "imputed" to us, which would mean Adam's sin ceased residing on/with Adam, which cannot be. Similarly, it would mean that we became forgiven the moment Jesus took on our sin off of us, which must be at the very moment of His Incarnation, before even having to repent of our sins. Again, this cannot be. On the flip side, it also logically means that when Jesus imputes (gives) to us His righteousness, then Jesus no longer has righteousness. That is even more problematic of a claim. Clearly, the Protestant appeal to Philemon is a self-refuting disaster! 

So what is the Protestant side to do? Well, they need to find another proof text, one which describes things in terms of a 'shared account' or of people being categorized under the umbrella of someone superior to them, i.e., Adam or Jesus. This way Adam doesn't lose his guilt and Jesus doesn't lose His righteousness. But even that approach runs into problems, for how can Jesus take away Adam's guilt imputed onto us without taking away that guilt at its very source, and thus removing it from everyone? In other words, if God sees Adam's guilt when he looks 'at' me, the only way that guilt can be removed is if either it is removed from Adam himself, or if I cease being identified as being under Adam. But if I'm no longer under Adam, then the guilt wasn't even forgiven, it remains in existence, but has nothing to do with me. Furthermore, if this 'shared' rather than 'transferred' motif were true, it would mean when our sin is imputed to Jesus, that Jesus then becomes simultaneously legally sinful and legally righteous, which is a blatant contradiction and legal fiction. It makes no sense to say someone is simultaneously 100% a law abiding and 100% law breaking. All this is obviously problematic for the Protestant, especially Reformed, understanding of Salvation. 

As a kicker, I'd even suggest that transferring money into an account sounds a lot more like the Catholic view of infusion than it does Protestant Imputation, so we shouldn't even be granting the Protestant assumption that this is imputation in the first place. 

To wrap this up, I'm just astonished at the turn of events. What the great Reformed minds thought to be a solid case proved to be a complete flop, and more accurately a self-refutation of Imputation. I will definitely be keeping this in my bag of tricks for the future, especially because a casual Google search shows many Protestants out there have been appealing to Philemon, despite the fact it remains a relatively unknown proof-text outside of nerdy circles. Speaking of nerdy, there needs to be more Christians named Philemon. St Philemon, pray for us!