Undamnability

Epiphoskei

Senior Veteran
Jul 7, 2007
6,854
689
✟25,557.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Once again I see a common thread running through a lot of threads here, and since I haven't seen a good place to specifically address it, I'll do it here.

We Calvinists believe in an efficacious, particular redemption. This is often termed a Limited atonement. What we mean by that is this:

Human beings are separated from God by sin. God hates sin. Justice demands that we sinners all be damned (I hope we're all on the same page so far). Out of sheer grace and mercy, in order to eliminate that sin and save us, God conceived of a sacrificial act which would destroy that sin. He prefigured that act in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. The sin of the people would be placed upon the head of an animal, and the animal would bear the punishment due to sin. Leviticus says of this process: "The priest shall make atonement for him, and his sin will be forgiven" in several places.

Ultimately, in the fullness of time, Christ became incarnate as a man, and he was sacrificed in human flesh as a sacrifice for our sins. This annihilated our wickedness, rendering us as innocent as the son of God himself, through the all-powerful blood of Christ, which leaves no spot or stain upon anyone for whom it was offered. Because we are now utterly innocent through Christ's death, our entrance into heaven is assured. We cannot be damned, for we are no longer guilty of any fault - all our sins are no more.

In other words, the atonement was an actual salvation. I have tried to make that point repeatedly, but every time, no matter how I phrase it, the response from the other side takes my words, modifies them to express potentiality instead of actuality, and throws them back at me. If I say "we believe in actual salvation," the response comes, "We also believe Christ actually made salvation possible, but for everyone." If I take any piece of redemptive language, the response comes, "We also believe that [piece of redemptive language] is possible, but God made it possible for everyone."

So I'm going to try to phrase it this way. Within the Calvinistic understanding of the atonement, when we say Christ actually saved people, we mean that every human being for whom Christ died is undamnable. You cannot go to hell if Christ died for you. If Christ died for you, you are not guilty. Now, do you believe that all humans are undamnable, some humans are undamnable, or no humans are undamnable? The first view is universalism. The second is a point of Calvinism. If you hold to the third view, you're not actually being more inclusive or more universal than we are. You aren't taking what we believe the atonement to be and saying it applies to everyone. You're taking what you believe the atonement to be and applying it to everyone. What we believe the atonement to be, you do not believe in at all. "None" is far more limited than "some."

Incidentally, we do also believe that because of the atonement every human being without exception can be saved provided they believe. We simply do not believe that they will be saved because God made all men saveable without making any actually saved. We believe any human being who ever believes would have already been made undamnable by the particular redemption of Christ.

Note that I don't intend to allow this thread itself to get on to the topic of whether undamnability is true. The point of this thread is to iron out some communication difficulties we've been having. We need to have some kind of working vocabulary so that we can talk about effectual atonement without that being interpreted as "making it possible for salvation to be effected" or something like that. I thought "actual" would serve that purpose, but apparently not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heymikey80

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟20,928.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Great points brother -

In relation to your post I'm seeing a common theme here as well.

Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism. It all boils down to the condition of mans' soul and many think man has it within himself to save himself - whether it be because he is born without sin or because God made it possible for him to chose to be saved - the end result is the same - man can do it.

Not going to accuse any poster specifically of either pelagianism or semi but its something you can see a lot of in some of these posts. Wouldn't you agree?
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Reminds me of:

31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Romans 8
 
Upvote 0
R

Robert Pate

Guest
Once again I see a common thread running through a lot of threads here, and since I haven't seen a good place to specifically address it, I'll do it here.

We Calvinists believe in an efficacious, particular redemption. This is often termed a Limited atonement. What we mean by that is this:

Human beings are separated from God by sin. God hates sin. Justice demands that we sinners all be damned (I hope we're all on the same page so far). Out of sheer grace and mercy, in order to eliminate that sin and save us, God conceived of a sacrificial act which would destroy that sin. He prefigured that act in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. The sin of the people would be placed upon the head of an animal, and the animal would bear the punishment due to sin. Leviticus says of this process: "The priest shall make atonement for him, and his sin will be forgiven" in several places.

Ultimately, in the fullness of time, Christ became incarnate as a man, and he was sacrificed in human flesh as a sacrifice for our sins. This annihilated our wickedness, rendering us as innocent as the son of God himself, through the all-powerful blood of Christ, which leaves no spot or stain upon anyone for whom it was offered. Because we are now utterly innocent through Christ's death, our entrance into heaven is assured. We cannot be damned, for we are no longer guilty of any fault - all our sins are no more.

In other words, the atonement was an actual salvation. I have tried to make that point repeatedly, but every time, no matter how I phrase it, the response from the other side takes my words, modifies them to express potentiality instead of actuality, and throws them back at me. If I say "we believe in actual salvation," the response comes, "We also believe Christ actually made salvation possible, but for everyone." If I take any piece of redemptive language, the response comes, "We also believe that [piece of redemptive language] is possible, but God made it possible for everyone."

So I'm going to try to phrase it this way. Within the Calvinistic understanding of the atonement, when we say Christ actually saved people, we mean that every human being for whom Christ died is undamnable. You cannot go to hell if Christ died for you. If Christ died for you, you are not guilty. Now, do you believe that all humans are undamnable, some humans are undamnable, or no humans are undamnable? The first view is universalism. The second is a point of Calvinism. If you hold to the third view, you're not actually being more inclusive or more universal than we are. You aren't taking what we believe the atonement to be and saying it applies to everyone. You're taking what you believe the atonement to be and applying it to everyone. What we believe the atonement to be, you do not believe in at all. "None" is far more limited than "some."

Incidentally, we do also believe that because of the atonement every human being without exception can be saved provided they believe. We simply do not believe that they will be saved because God made all men saveable without making any actually saved. We believe any human being who ever believes would have already been made undamnable by the particular redemption of Christ.

Note that I don't intend to allow this thread itself to get on to the topic of whether undamnability is true. The point of this thread is to iron out some communication difficulties we've been having. We need to have some kind of working vocabulary so that we can talk about effectual atonement without that being interpreted as "making it possible for salvation to be effected" or something like that. I thought "actual" would serve that purpose, but apparently not.


There is no scripture in your post. Like your religion it is all man conceived doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Something else I've attempted to get past this -- when I look at the term "save" I tend to see the word "rescue" ("save" is a combination of concepts in the English words "rescue" and "heal"). Often when I phrase it with "rescue" it tends to hit with clearer force.

"Is he rescuing us, or just making rescue possible, and we've got things to do? Is that really a rescue?"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums