On his website, Arminian Perspectives, Ben Henshaw has a questions page at which he answers questions about Arminianism and Calvinism that visitors to his site pose in the comment section of the page. Here is a question from someone with the screen name Credulo followed by Ben’s answer (both edited some):
Question:
A very common Calvinist argument is to use some Scriptural references about Atonement, mainly using terms like “bought by the blood.” A very common verse is Colossians 2:14:
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross
In Portuguese translations, it is sometimes related to ‘payment of a sin-debt’. So, the Calvinist says ‘If Jesus has paid the debt of sin in the cross, why will someone will pay it again in Hell?’
My problem is with the analogy Paul uses – or, more specifically, with the ‘Pushing very far’ made by Calvinists on the payment analogy. How I can explain this verse(s), in the provisional view of atonement, and how I can argue against the ‘commercial theory’ of Calvinists?
Answer:
A very common Calvinist argument is to use some Scriptural references about Atonement, mainly using terms like “bought by the blood.” A very common verse is Colossians 2:14:
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross
I don’t see any problem with this passage with regards to the provisional atonement view. The wrath of God against all sin was satisfied in Christ, but only in Christ. That wrath is satisfied in us only when we are joined to Christ in faith. Redemption is “in Christ.” Not only that, but if we were truly “Bought by the blood” at the cross, then we were forgiven “at the cross”, even before we were born. That gets back to the problem of eternal justification, where this Calvinist argument cannot help but to lead.
In Portuguese translations, it is sometimes related to ‘payment of a sin-debt’. So, the Calvinist says ‘If Jesus has paid the debt of sin in the cross, why will someone pay it again in Hell?’
Because it is provisional. Numerous passages make this point. Calvinists wrongly assume application is automatic in such passages. Even in Matthew 18:23-35 we can see that a debt that was forgiven can be credited back to the account of the one forgiven if the one who forgives the debt chooses to credit it back again (in this case, it is the Father crediting back our sin debt when we refuse to forgive others their debts against us). So I think the argument really breaks down at that point.
The fundamental basis of the atonement is in how God wants the atonement to work. If God wants it to work provisionally for all with the application of the atonement only for those who believe, He can do that. That is His sovereign right. That is also how it is portrayed in Scripture.
Often Paul will speak of the results of the atonement as if they are already applied, but the context makes it clear that the application is still a contingency and not automatic. One example is in 1 Cor. 5:17-21,
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.”
Notice fist that being a new creation is only “in Christ.” No one is made new outside of Christ. Christ is the provision of life for all, but we only enjoy that life through faith union with Him.
Second, Paul speaks of us being reconciled through or in Christ. Again, the sphere of reconciliation is in Christ alone. Third, Paul speaks of the world being reconciled to God through Christ (even to the point of our sins not being counted against us). That doesn’t necessarily sound provisional, but it must be or the entire world would be forgiven and reconciled to God at the cross. Rather, it is plainly provisional as Paul continues with an appeal, “Be reconciled to God.” So even though God was reconciling the world to Himself through Christ, that reconciliation is not complete until we respond. We also need to be reconciled. Therefore, God’s reconciliation through Christ of the world is provisional and is only applied to us when we respond in faith and are ourselves “reconciled” to God. Paul is saying that God provided reconciliation in Christ for the world and then calls on us to take advantage of that provision by embracing that provision and being fully reconciled with God.
My problem is with the analogy Paul uses – or, more specifically, with the ‘Pushing very far’ made by Calvinists on the payment analogy. How I can explain this verse(s), in the provisional view of atonement, and how I can argue against the ‘commercial theory’ of Calvinists?
Hopefully, what I wrote here will help.
You might benefit from reading Forlines on this in his book Classical Arminianism. Also, Richard Taylor has a good book addressing this issue called God’s Integrity and the Cross. Another resource that might be helpful is I. Howard Marshall’s work: “For All, for All My Saviour Died” and “The Theology of the Atonement.”
