By resurrecting His Son, God confirmed Christ's payment was accepted

Ivan Hlavanda said:

last word Jesus said on the cross before His death is the Greek word 'Tetelestai' meaning it is paid for.

Click to expand...

No, it means its finished.

As for your larger point, the problem with this argument is that Jesus Christ being God Incarnate, your argument is essentially crypto-Arian (or perhaps crypto-Nestorian, which is just as bad, since Nestorianism was also found to contradict the Nicene Creed at Ephesus in 433 AD, by dividing the humanity and divinity of Christ into two persons thus denying the Incarnation), because, if we examine it from the Scriptural truth that in Jesus Christ the fullness of the Godhead dwelled bodily (Colossians 2:9), that He was God, the Incarnate Logos (John 1:1-18), literally Emanuel (God with Us), it works out to be that that God paid … Himself.

This of course makes no sense, which is why we should recognize the statement that Christ ransomed us for our Sins as not referring to some transactional payment to a beneficiary (other than, in a sense, us, in that our sins had caused us to become mortal and had separated us from God; God did not do that, rather God died and rose from the dead so that we might inherit eternal life). It makes no sense for God to have paid Himself, and also the imagery of the Son dying to appease the angry father has alienated so many from Christianity in the 20th century, and was unknown in any form prior to Anselm of Canterbury - the early Church never thought to interpret the Scripture that way. There were some who dared suggest the ransom was paid to the devil, but the Early Church Fathers quickly dismissed that idea, since the devil has no rights and God does not owe the accuser anything.

What our Lord was referring to on the Cross was that the creation of man that began in Genesis 1 was completed, for Christ as the New Man, the perfect Man, represents the fullness of humanity - God having become man in order that we man might become god, that is to say, becoming by grace what Christ is by nature, sons of God by adoption.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

Do some research. Tetelestai means debt paid in full

Click to expand...

Appeal to ignorance fallacy.

In fact, if one does take the time to research it, Τετέλεσται literally means “it is finished” or “it is complete,” being the perfect form of the Greek word teleos from which we get, for example, teleology.

See Strong’s Concordance: Strong's Greek: 5055. τελέω (teleó) -- 28 Occurrences

“Debt paid in full” is at best an interpretation of what our Lord meant by it, and not a universally agreed upon one, even among those who believe in penal substitutionary atonement. In terms of the actual meaning of the word, it is recognized as a 19th century error which became popularized in the 20th century and is lately spreading via social media.

Here are Roman Catholic and Protestant sources on this fact (if you wish, I could link you to two Eastern Orthodox lectures which essentially say the same thing without specifically going into the history of this erroneous interpretation, since my church, and the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East, is neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant).



I found the Biola article particularly illuminating, more so than the RCC article, which was less detailed.

Sin is the violation of God’s law 'the soul who sins shall die' (Ezekiel 18:4). Since we have all sinned, we all deserve death (as it is written in Romans 3 & 6). Jesus releases us from that penalty.

Click to expand...

I agree, with the proviso that Jesus is understood as God incarnate, in the person of the Son and Logos as per John 1:1-18.

That being said, it should be stressed that the reason why God legislated against sin was because it would kill us.

Additionally, strictly speaking, our Lord has not caused us to not die, but rather, to be resurrected; thus death is no longer a death sentence. We still suffer the bereavement of at least temporary separation from our departed loved ones.

Although He had committed no crime, Jesus was executed as a criminal; in fact, it is because He was sinless that His death avails to us. He had no personal sin to pay for, so His death pays for ours.

Click to expand...

This is not incorrect, but it is incomplete, for Christ does save us as a spotless victim, as the ancient anaphora known as the Roman canon says, having sacrificed Himself that we might live. That being said, its not merely that He was sinless, but that He was God, that He was able to trample down death by death, before rising again in glory. The Psalm “Let God Arise, and Let His Enemies be Scattered” was understood by the Early Church and is understood by most if not all traditional Christians as referring to the Resurrection.

Our legal debt has been paid in full

Click to expand...

Now this is where your model gets into trouble. It’s less a question of legal debt that damns us, but more of a question of inherited ontological consequences from the fall of our ancestors away from God, which God Himself has corrected by dying for us on the Cross in the person of the Son and Word.

Which takes us to the main problem with your argument - it is not logical that God would pay a ransom to Himself. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not three gods but one God abiding in three coequal, coeternal persons, and the deity of Christ was not suspended in His incarnation. Therefore the idea that Christ dying results in a transactional payment to the Father, which appears to be your argument, is incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation as explained in John 1:1-18 and elsewhere.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

Do some research. Tetelestai means debt paid in full

Click to expand...

Biola University did some research. Your claim is bogus.
The claim is based on ancient papyri receipts from Egypt.

prodromos said:

Biola University did some research. Your claim is bogus.
The claim is based on ancient papyri receipts from Egypt.

It turns out that almost all of these receipts have the abbreviation τετελ (tetel), not a complete word. What does that abbreviation stand for? On 17 of the receipts, the tax-collectors forgot to abbreviate, and every time, they wrote out the full word τετελώνηται (tetelōnētai), “paid as taxes,” not τετέλεσται. This makes much more sense, since all 315 receipts were for taxes (collected by τελώναι, tax-collectors) paid on cargo that passed through various gates and ports in Arsinoites. A typical example of one of these receipts is “tax paid (τετελ) of 1% and 2% through the gate of Soknopaiou Nesos, by Nepheros, exporting two artabas of dates on one donkey.”​

​

Because of this, starting in 1934, publishers of papyri decided τετελ was an abbreviation of τετελώνηται, and the official papyri databases regard this as the correct abbreviation. That means, of course, that the word used on these receipts (τετελώνηται) is not at all the same word used in John 19:30 (τετέλεσται), and Jesus’ cry would not have been understood as a reference to paid-off debt.​

​

Just to be sure, I also looked at many actual receipts for purchases or paid-off debts. None used the abbreviation τετελ or the word τετέλεσται. The purported meaning “paid in full” for τετέλεσται is not found in any other ancient Greek sources (literary works, papyri or inscriptions). When τετέλεσται is used in these documents, it describes finishing all kinds of things: construction, sculpting, farm work, business arrangements, sewing linens, haircuts or even just the list of things to get done in a day. No one thinks Jesus was crying out “sewing linens is finished!”​

Click to expand...

Or “Haircut!” for that matter, as much as barbers might wish otherwise.

The Liturgist said:

No, it means its finished.

As for your larger point, the problem with this argument is that Jesus Christ being God Incarnate, your argument is essentially crypto-Arian (or perhaps crypto-Nestorian, which is just as bad, since Nestorianism was also found to contradict the Nicene Creed at Ephesus in 433 AD, by dividing the humanity and divinity of Christ into two persons thus denying the Incarnation), because, if we examine it from the Scriptural truth that in Jesus Christ the fullness of the Godhead dwelled bodily (Colossians 2:9), that He was God, the Incarnate Logos (John 1:1-18), literally Emanuel (God with Us), it works out to be that that God paid … Himself.

This of course makes no sense, which is why we should recognize the statement that Christ ransomed us for our Sins as not referring to some transactional payment to a beneficiary (other than, in a sense, us, in that our sins had caused us to become mortal and had separated us from God; God did not do that, rather God died and rose from the dead so that we might inherit eternal life). It makes no sense for God to have paid Himself, and also the imagery of the Son dying to appease the angry father has alienated so many from Christianity in the 20th century, and was unknown in any form prior to Anselm of Canterbury - the early Church never thought to interpret the Scripture that way. There were some who dared suggest the ransom was paid to the devil, but the Early Church Fathers quickly dismissed that idea, since the devil has no rights and God does not owe the accuser anything.

What our Lord was referring to on the Cross was that the creation of man that began in Genesis 1 was completed, for Christ as the New Man, the perfect Man, represents the fullness of humanity - God having become man in order that we man might become god, that is to say, becoming by grace what Christ is by nature, sons of God by adoption.

Click to expand...

Not to split too many hairs here, but...

While theology that proposes Christ died "to appease the angry Father" that is known in Protestantism is often attributed to Anselm, his work does not reflect that at all. If you read Cur Deus Homo: Why God Became Man, he quite clear that the Father was not interested in the death of Christ nor punishing him in our place. That is Protestant penal substitution theology, not St. Anselm. Anselm's view was that the Father asked Christ to maintain holiness no matter what the personal cost, and because of his holiness, it cost him his life at the hands of sinful men.

Protestant penal substitution atonement theology took the concept of "satisfaction" from Anselm and redefined how they see the sacrifice of Christ reconciling us with God. What Anselm proposed is that the first Adam had failed in obedience. He should have maintained his original holiness, been obedient to God, and been willing to place himself between his bride and Satan no matter the personal cost. Adam failed at that, which placed the world under the bondage of sin. Christ, the new Adam, remains faithful and obedient, and is willing to die for his bride. And because of that, he meets death at the hands of sinful men, not by the desire of the Father. The Father accepts the offering of his life as an act of love and as a representative of humanity which restores the broken relationship between God and man. That is Anselm's concept of "satisfaction." But he is also clear that is not based upon some need that God has but rather to repair the damage sin has caused to us.

Protestantism redefines the idea of "satisfaction" to be based in a need derived from a perverted sense of God's justice whereby the Father demands the death of Christ as payment for sin, and even goes so far as to believe that the Father abandons Christ on the cross. Aside from a horribly distorted image of the Father, at its core it contradicts the dogma of the Trinity whereby the three persons are inseparable.

So when Anselm reads passages in Scripture like the wages of sin is death, he would understand that to mean the natural consequence of sin that occurs when man separates himself from God; Protestant theology would see God as actively causing death because of sin. When Anselm reads passages like God did not spare Christ, he would understand that to mean that the Father did not step in to save Christ from sinful men; Protestant theology would see that to mean that the Father required the suffering and death of Christ in order to meet his justice.

Protestant penal substitution atonement theology takes the concept of satisfaction that Anselm develops but takes it in a very different direction. And unfortunately, people tend to then lay that back on Anselm, but it is not representative at all of what he proposes.

narnia59 said:

Not to split too many hairs here, but...

While theology that proposes Christ died "to appease the angry Father" that is known in Protestantism is often attributed to Anselm, his work does not reflect that at all. If you read Cur Deus Homo: Why God Became Man, he quite clear that the Father was not interested in the death of Christ nor punishing him in our place. That is Protestant penal substitution theology, not St. Anselm. Anselm's view was that the Father asked Christ to maintain holiness no matter what the personal cost, and because of his holiness, it cost him his life at the hands of sinful men.

Protestant penal substitution atonement theology took the concept of "satisfaction" from Anselm and redefined how they see the sacrifice of Christ reconciling us with God. What Anselm proposed is that the first Adam had failed in obedience. He should have maintained his original holiness, been obedient to God, and been willing to place himself between his bride and Satan no matter the personal cost. Adam failed at that, which placed the world under the bondage of sin. Christ, the new Adam, remains faithful and obedient, and is willing to die for his bride. And because of that, he meets death at the hands of sinful men, not by the desire of the Father. The Father accepts the offering of his life as an act of love and as a representative of humanity which restores the broken relationship between God and man. That is Anselm's concept of "satisfaction." But he is also clear that is not based upon some need that God has but rather to repair the damage sin has caused to us.

Protestantism redefines the idea of "satisfaction" to be based in a need derived from a perverted sense of God's justice whereby the Father demands the death of Christ as payment for sin, and even goes so far as to believe that the Father abandons Christ on the cross. Aside from a horribly distorted image of the Father, at its core it contradicts the dogma of the Trinity whereby the three persons are inseparable.

So when Anselm reads passages in Scripture like the wages of sin is death, he would understand that to mean the natural consequence of sin that occurs when man separates himself from God; Protestant theology would see God as actively causing death because of sin. When Anselm reads passages like God did not spare Christ, he would understand that to mean that the Father did not step in to save Christ from sinful men; Protestant theology would see that to mean that the Father required the suffering and death of Christ in order to meet his justice.

Protestant penal substitution atonement theology takes the concept of satisfaction that Anselm develops but takes it in a very different direction. And unfortunately, people tend to then lay that back on Anselm, but it is not representative at all of what he proposes.

Click to expand...

Fair enough - we can allow our modern derivations of satisfaction theology to pervert the original. That said I’m not convinced we needed the original, but I view all Scholastic theology as interesting but not required, although I would not begrudge anyone from engaging in it (some people argue that St. Gregory Palamas is an Orthodox Scholastic; a kind of Byzantine Aquinas; I respect that opinion even though I vehemently disagree with it).

The Liturgist said:

Fair enough - we can allow our modern derivations of satisfaction theology to pervert the original. That said I’m not convinced we needed the original, but I view all Scholastic theology as interesting but not required, although I would not begrudge anyone from engaging in it (some people argue that St. Gregory Palamas is an Orthodox Scholastic; a kind of Byzantine Aquinas; I respect that opinion even though I vehemently disagree with it).

Click to expand...

That's fair enough too. I just often see Protestant penal substitution theology attributed back to Anselm and it's simply not true. There is nothing in Anselm's work that indicates God required 'punishment' for our sins.

The thing Anselm seemed to be tackling was the idea in the Ransom Theory of Atonement which has been popular over the centureis is that Christ's death was somehow a payment made to Satan. You see that theology in CS Lewis's The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe for example. The child Edmund becomes entapped by the queen (Satan) and Christ offers his sacrifice in exchange for the boy's life. He takes the child's place.

Anselm thought that was problematic because God didn't owe Satan anything. Paying ransom is contrary to justice. When someone steals something from you and you have to pay to get it back, that's not justice. So Anselm felt that view was contrary to God's perfect sense of justice.

Here's what I think is the key exchange Cur Deus Homo:

Anselm: You surely will not think it proper for God to make his creature miserable without fault, when he had created him holy that he might enjoy a state of blessedness. For it would be a miserable thing for man to die against his will.

Boso: It is plain that, if man had not sinned, God ought not to compel him to die.

Anselm: God did not, therefore, compel Christ to die; but he suffered death of his own will, not yielding up his life as an act of obedience, but on account of his obedience in maintaining holiness; for he held out so firmly in this obedience that he met death on account of it.
Penal subsitution theology is also contrary to God's sense of justice. In what world is punishing an innocent man (even voluntarily) for the bad deeds of another and letting the criminal off "just"?

Jesus nominated Himself before the creation of the world, it's accepted for long and before the creation itself. As He Himself put, He came to fulfill the Law (which is pre-defined).

narnia59 said:

That's fair enough too. I just often see Protestant penal substitution theology attributed back to Anselm and it's simply not true. There is nothing in Anselm's work that indicates God required 'punishment' for our sins.

The thing Anselm seemed to be tackling was the idea in the Ransom Theory of Atonement which has been popular over the centureis is that Christ's death was somehow a payment made to Satan. You see that theology in CS Lewis's The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe for example. The child Edmund becomes entapped by the queen (Satan) and Christ offers his sacrifice in exchange for the boy's life. He takes the child's place.

Anselm thought that was problematic because God didn't owe Satan anything. Paying ransom is contrary to justice. When someone steals something from you and you have to pay to get it back, that's not justice. So Anselm felt that view was contrary to God's perfect sense of justice.

Here's what I think is the key exchange Cur Deus Homo:

Anselm: You surely will not think it proper for God to make his creature miserable without fault, when he had created him holy that he might enjoy a state of blessedness. For it would be a miserable thing for man to die against his will.

Boso: It is plain that, if man had not sinned, God ought not to compel him to die.

Anselm: God did not, therefore, compel Christ to die; but he suffered death of his own will, not yielding up his life as an act of obedience, but on account of his obedience in maintaining holiness; for he held out so firmly in this obedience that he met death on account of it.
Penal subsitution theology is also contrary to God's sense of justice. In what world is punishing an innocent man (even voluntarily) for the bad deeds of another and letting the criminal off "just"?

Click to expand...

Indeed, it is a tenet of Orthodox theology as well that the devil has no rights. We don’t believe the ransom as being a transaction between two individuals. It was rather God in the person of the Son and Word dying so that we could become fully human and be saved from our sin.