can the non-elect be saved??

[Hammster]

This is just a repeat of your post #15. Non-responsive to the OP. Please address the OP or post elsewhere.

It is my response to the OP. I gave definitions. It goes to the heart of "can the non-elect be saved?" You brought up Calvinism. So I thought it should be pointed out that you use different definitions for elect and non-elect than Calvinists do. So comparing them is like comparing apes and oranges.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

It is my response to the OP. I gave definitions. It goes to the heart of "can the non-elect be saved?" You brought up Calvinism. So I thought it should be pointed out that you use different definitions for elect and non-elect than Calvinists do. So comparing them is like comparing apes and oranges.

I should start a thread, and have the OP be "why are all synergists liars?" Then when FG2 doesn't directly answer the question [since it would be affirming a false presupposition], I will tell him to get out of the thread and post elsewhere because he isn't addressing the OP.

The example above is somewhat humorous, except that is exactly what he just did to you.

 

[Skala]

Yes. Ephesians 1:4 says God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. Therefore God's choosing of us takes place before we believe. Therefore election is a thing of surety, not of possibility. It is a divine operation and therefore not subject to possibility.

FG2's version of the the Bible maybe?:

"He chose us in Him at the moment we were saved..."

 

[Ignatius21]

Even Ignatius, with no dog in the fight, recognized and pointed out your flawed logic and argumentation.

Woof!

 

[Ignatius21]

And you are wrong about Ignat. He seems to be on the side of Calvinism regarding who the non-elect are.

Huh???

In a shocking revelation, the Eastern Orthodox are not Calvinists. In fact I'd venture to say that Orthodoxy is the most essentially synergistic expression of Christian theology I've come across. So kinda sorta NOT "on the side of Calvinism."

Honestly, from your OP through your various responses since, I'm really not sure what it is you're trying to refute. If you think people are refusing to answer your OP, it may be because nobody can figure out exactly what you're trying to say. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be taking issue with the very concept of there being an "elect" group of people at all. If that's the case, as has been said above by others, I can't see any way to believe that except to deny God's omniscience (total foreknowledge) which is to cross the line into what you can loosely call "Open Theism."

 

[Doveaman]

Can the non-elect be saved?

NO.

They are called the non-elect because they are not elected to be saved. Only those elected to be saved will be saved.

Election is by faith. We are elected because we have faith, or will have faith.

Clearly, yes. In fact, Jesus made that perfectly clear. But, before we examine His words, we need to review Calvinism's view of who the non-elect are. For them, the non-elect:
1. weren't chosen by God to believe or have salvation
2. therefore, Christ didn't die for them
3. period.

If they were not chosen or elected by God to have salvation, then how can they have salvation?

OK, let's see what Jesus thought about that.

John 5:33-47​

First, we'll examine how Jesus described this crowd He was talking to:
1. v.38 "you do not believe"
2. v.40 "you refuse to come to Me and have life"
3. v.43 "you do not accept Me

According to Calvinism, this description fits their understanding of what the non-elect are.

If they refuse to come to Christ and have life, then how can they have life?

However, we cannot ignore or minimize what Jesus said at the beginning of this passage to these, whom Calvinists consider to be the non-elect.

34 “But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.

I know of a woman who was sick at home with pneumonia and could have died. Her doctor came to her house and after examining her he instructed her to go the hospital for treatment. He said these things to her so that she may be saved. She then followed the doctor's instructions and was saved. If she had rejected the doctor's instructions she would not have been saved.

The gospel (God's instructions) is preached to us so that we may be saved, but if we refuse to believe and reject the gospel we will not be saved.

"So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel...For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes." - (Rom 1:15).

Can there be any doubt whatsoever that Jesus was clearly indicating that those in the crowd could or might be saved? Of course.

“Might be saved” is not the same as “will be saved”.

Of course they might be saved, but only if they repent of their unbelief and come to Christ so that they will be saved.

However, now is the time to let Calvinists speak for themselves. It will be interesting to hear how they deal with this verse…if they do at all.

otoh, we might just be hearing from the crickets.

Even the crickets know that not everyone will be saved.

 

[Ignatius21]

Even the crickets know that not everyone will be saved.

Which raises whole new matter...

Will the non-elect crickets be saved?

 

[Skala]

NO.
They are called the non-elect because they are not elected to be saved. Only those elected to be saved will be saved.

Election is by faith. We are elected because we have faith, or will have faith.
If they were not chosen or elected by God to have salvation, then how can they have salvation?

One of the most consistent Arminians I've ever seen.

Welcome brother!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Questions for you:
1. Does the election of certain individuals take place before the foundation of the world? yes or no.

Yes, believers.

2. Before the foundation of the world, had you or I believed in anything yet? yes or no.

No. And irrelevant.

The rest of your post was not relevant to the OP either, then. So I omitted it.

Non responsive. You have not addressed the OP. Your questions aren't relevant. The question was to Calvinists as to WHY Jesus said what He did to the non-elect.

Unless you want to argue that the crowd were all elect. Then your problem is to address WHY He used the subjunctive mood instead of the indicative mood, since, according to Calvinism, the elect WILL be saved, not "may be" saved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It is my response to the OP.

Non responsive. You not address the OP.

I gave definitions.

More non-responsiveness. I wasn't asking for definitions. The OP provided definitions from Calvinism. Which you did not address.

It goes to the heart of "can the non-elect be saved?"

If it does, you have failed to show how. So, more non-responsiveness.

You brought up Calvinism. So I thought it should be pointed out that you use different definitions for elect and non-elect than Calvinists do. So comparing them is like comparing apes and oranges.

Unless you disagree that Calvinism believes that Christ DIDN'T die for the non-elect, my definitions are adequate.

So, either address the OP or quit hijacking this thread, please.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I should start a thread, and have the OP be "why are all synergists liars?" Then when FG2 doesn't directly answer the question [since it would be affirming a false presupposition], I will tell him to get out of the thread and post elsewhere because he isn't addressing the OP.

The example above is somewhat humorous, except that is exactly what he just did to you.

Non responsive. Either address the OP or post elsewhere, please.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Yes, believers.

No. And irrelevant.

So believers (who haven't made a freewill choice to believe because they don't exist) are elected to salvation before the foundation of the world. Okay.

First of all that doesn't make sense. But that isn't even the main point. If election takes place before the foundation of the world, then there is no possibility for the non-elect to be saved. Election is done. One is elect or non-elect based on whether God already elected them or not. That is the answer to your OP. NO. If you maintain that individuals are elected to salvation before the foundation of the world then your view is self defeating.

 

[Hammster]

Non responsive. You not address the OP.


More non-responsiveness. I wasn't asking for definitions. The OP provided definitions from Calvinism. Which you did not address.


If it does, you have failed to show how. So, more non-responsiveness.


Unless you disagree that Calvinism believes that Christ DIDN'T die for the non-elect, my definitions are adequate.

So, either address the OP or quit hijacking this thread, please.

Your understanding of who the elect are differs from Calvinism. So to address the OP properly, we'd have to assume your definitions. That would make either your point, and our response, non-sense.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Huh???

In a shocking revelation, the Eastern Orthodox are not Calvinists. In fact I'd venture to say that Orthodoxy is the most essentially synergistic expression of Christian theology I've come across. So kinda sorta NOT "on the side of Calvinism."

Your post sure seems to side with how Calvinists view the so-called non elect. Do you believe they are unable to believe because they weren't chosen to believe (as Calvinists believe), or do you view them as simply unbelievers?

Honestly, from your OP through your various responses since, I'm really not sure what it is you're trying to refute.

I see why the confused icon. I'm not trying to refute anything. The OP is clear enough. I'm looking for an explanation from Calvinists WHY Jesus said what He did to a crowd of unbelievers, you know, those that Calvinism views as not being chosen to believe, and be saved, and therefore those for whom Christ didn't die. i.e.: the non-elect are unsavable. So, please allow Calvinists to step forward and explain all that.

If you think people are refusing to answer your OP, it may be because nobody can figure out exactly what you're trying to say.

I don't think it's fair to be so insulting to those who have answered by deflection and hijacking. I'm sure they know exactly what the OP is about. Which explains why the deflecting questions, and hijacking attempts. They just don't have an answer.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be taking issue with the very concept of there being an "elect" group of people at all.

Quite the contrary. For me, the elect are believers, the non elect are not believers. My challenge is for Calvinists to explain WHY Jesus said what He did to those who He wasn't going to die for, since that is their view of the non elect.

If that's the case, as has been said above by others, I can't see any way to believe that except to deny God's omniscience (total foreknowledge) which is to cross the line into what you can loosely call "Open Theism."

Nonsense. I have always acknowledged God's omniscience. O T is heresy.

 

[FreeGrace2]

NO.

Please address the OP. That means to explain WHY Jesus said what He did to those who refused to accept Him and believe.

They are called the non-elect because they are not elected to be saved. Only those elected to be saved will be saved.

Yet, Jesus told them He mentioned John the baptizer "so that you may be saved". Please explain WHY He said that in light of how you view the non elect.

Election is by faith. We are elected because we have faith, or will have faith.
If they were not chosen or elected by God to have salvation, then how can they have salvation?

Your questions are deflections. Please focus on the OP and explain WHY Jesus said what He did.

If they refuse to come to Christ and have life, then how can they have life?

Why did Jesus say what He did to those who refused to come to Him?

I know of a woman who was sick at home with pneumonia and could have died. Her doctor came to her house and after examining her he instructed her to go the hospital for treatment. He said these things to her so that she may be saved. She then followed the doctor's instructions and was saved. If she had rejected the doctor's instructions she would not have been saved.

Irrelevant to the OP. Please focus.

The gospel (God's instructions) is preached to us so that we may be saved, but if we refuse to believe and reject the gospel we will not be saved.

Irrelevant to the OP. WHY did Jesus say "so that you (unbelievers) may be saved"? That's your challenge.

Of course they might be saved, but only if they repent of their unbelief and come to Christ so that they will be saved.

Non responsive to the OP.

Even the crickets know that not everyone will be saved.

Not in reality. And irrelevant to the OP. Please focus.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So believers (who haven't made a freewill choice to believe because they don't exist) are elected to salvation before the foundation of the world. Okay.

Glad you agree. Since God is omniscient, it's no problem at all for Him.

The problem is in the false notion that God chooses who will believe, which Calvinists call the "elect", and those for whom Christ didn't die the non-elect, who will never have faith, or salvation.

So, can you explain WHY Jesus said what He did to those who refused to come to Him (sure sounds like a non elect)?

First of all that doesn't make sense.

OH, OK. So you don't believe that God is omniscient then. Wow.

But that isn't even the main point. If election takes place before the foundation of the world, then there is no possibility for the non-elect to be saved. Election is done. One is elect or non-elect based on whether God already elected them or not. That is the answer to your OP.

No, it's not. Eph 1:4 isn't about choosing people for salvation. It's about choosing believers (the "us") to be holy and blameless.

Why do you think that God can't make a choice in eternity past to save all who believe, all the while knowing who will or won't believe? Why is that such a difficult thing for God to do, since it appears that you don't believe that He can do such a thing?

NO. If you maintain that individuals are elected to salvation before the foundation of the world then your view is self defeating.

I haven't maintained that at all. That's a Calvinist claim, based on a misunderstanding of Eph 1:4.

In eternity past, God chose for all believers (unconditionally) to be holy and blameless. That's what believers have been called to and elected for.

You're still deflecting on the OP. WHY did Jesus say what He did to the non elect, if there is no possibility (in your view) that they "may be saved".

Thus far, not one Calvinist has addressed that question.

It is becoming apparent that they can't.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your understanding of who the elect are differs from Calvinism. So to address the OP properly, we'd have to assume your definitions. That would make either your point, and our response, non-sense.

Again, non responsive. The issue is WHY Jesus said what He did to the non elect? You haven't addressed that question. So any definition of the elect is irrelevant. We both know how Calvinists view the non elect; those for whom Christ never died for. So, with that, please address the OP. Otherwise you are just trying to hijack this thread.

 

[Hammster]

Again, non responsive. The issue is WHY Jesus said what He did to the non elect? You haven't addressed that question. So any definition of the elect is irrelevant. We both know how Calvinists view the non elect; those for whom Christ never died for. So, with that, please address the OP. Otherwise you are just trying to hijack this thread.

Would you like me to change the title of the thread? Because that is also part of the OP, and that's what is being addressed.

 

[extraordinary]

Wouldn't it be kind of foolish to tell your followers to
"go into all the world, preaching the gospel to all people"
if only a selected portion could be saved?
What a colossal waste of time and resources.

No, not at all, Willie.
This might be foolish to you, but not to the Lord.
Allow me to tell you how evangelism works.

The elect are living in amongst the heathen, the non-elect, etc.
And the Lord needs the elect to have the gospel presented to them so they can respond.

Evangelists don't have time to "pray through" about every person they come in contact with
... to determine if they should give him the gospel.

IMO, this would increase the time of evangelism by a factor of 1,000 or 10,000!
Nice idea, but someone once said, "the workers are few".
.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Glad you agree. Since God is omniscient, it's no problem at all for Him.

Claiming "God is omniscient" doesn't actually explain away your inconsistency. It just masks it with an idea. Yes, we believe God knows all things innately. But He cannot innately know something that originates within us, otherwise it first originated in Him first (hence innate). If it is a free choice and a self-determined action completely free of God's purpose or intention without any outside determining factors or limitations, then necessarily, God cannot know it lest we choose it. Which is why it is nonsensical to propose it.

The problem is in the false notion that God chooses who will believe, which Calvinists call the "elect", and those for whom Christ didn't die the non-elect, who will never have faith, or salvation.

That's not a problem... it is the truth.

So, can you explain WHY Jesus said what He did to those who refused to come to Him (sure sounds like a non elect)?

You disregarded my explanation last time, so apparently you want to hear it again. There is good reason to believe that Jesus did not know who the non-elect are, just as we are unaware. It is also possible that the full revelation of His purpose in death was not made known to Him yet, which is why He spoke to the sons of Israel as if they still might have accepted Him as their king. Jesus' plea to them is also not a reflection of the divine decree from all eternity, that it was possible for them to believe or not believe and have a unforeseen affect on the entirety of history. Instead, it was a simple statement of purpose: I say this to you so that you might be saved.

OH, OK. So you don't believe that God is omniscient then. Wow.

Thanks for trying to accurately represent me. Really appreciate that.

Your view doesn't make sense, because it takes away from any purpose God had in electing us before the foundation of the world. Why do it before the foundation of the world? Why even mention that if you are Paul? Might it point to the fact that it happened before we were ever born, before we ever existed, before we could make any choices, before we could ever do right or wrong, etc.?

No, it's not. Eph 1:4 isn't about choosing people for salvation. It's about choosing believers (the "us") to be holy and blameless.

Again, God didn't choose "believers" i.e. people who already believe. By your own admission, we weren't believers when He chose us.... because we didn't exist yet. See here:

1. Does the election of certain individuals take place before the foundation of the world?

Yes

2. Before the foundation of the world, had you or I believed in anything yet?

No.

So then by your own admission, God doesn't elect believers, he elects those who will later believe. Meaning that at least for some portion of their life, they are elect although unbelievers.

Why do you think that God can't make a choice in eternity past to save all who believe, all the while knowing who will or won't believe? Why is that such a difficult thing for God to do, since it appears that you don't believe that He can do such a thing?

It's not a matter of difficult, it's a matter of possibility. There is nothing for Him to know if the choice hasn't been made yet in time. It has no ontological substance or existence for God to know it if it does not first originate within Him, which is partly the reason why we believe in the eternal Divine Decree. Otherwise nothing exists for Him to know.

I haven't maintained that at all. That's a Calvinist claim, based on a misunderstanding of Eph 1:4.

Huh? You said earlier that individuals are elected before the foundation of the world HERE:

1. Does the election of certain individuals take place before the foundation of the world?

Yes, believers.

Whether they are believers or not, it does not matter. What matters is that you see election as taking place in eternity past. If it takes place in eternity past, then there can be no election after the fact. Therefore the non-elect can be nothing but the non-elect, since they are non-elect from the foundation of the world.

In eternity past, God chose for all believers (unconditionally) to be holy and blameless. That's what believers have been called to and elected for.

Okay well the text doesn't say that, that is an interpolation. God chose us before the foundation of the world. What purpose does before the foundation of the world have if he is going to base it on what we do in the world? It destroys the whole meaning of the phrase.

You're still deflecting on the OP. WHY did Jesus say what He did to the non elect, if there is no possibility (in your view) that they "may be saved".

Again, how do you know they were non-elect? There is nothing telling us they were ALL non-elect, in fact to ask that very question is SO speculative that it just has no credibility whatsoever! It is a completely nonsensical question led by an assault on Calvinism at all costs. Proof for the reader:

Thus far, not one Calvinist has addressed that question.

It is becoming apparent that they can't.

It seems you don't care what the text actually says, you just care to disprove us at any and all costs no matter how far off point or out of context you actually are.