can the non-elect be saved??

[FreeGrace2]

This is what WT responded to:

Since that is the great commission, no, I don't think that would be foolish at all. In fact, I think that would be obeying the great commission, which came from Christ.


Yes, that is the Calvinist default view.

I couldn't help notice there was no interaction at all with the OP. If you are considering entering this thread, I ask you to stick with the OP. There are rules against ignoring the OP or trying to hijack the thread.

Can you explain WHY Jesus said what He did to those you would consider the non-elect? That would address the OP. Your question and comment were distractions and deflections.

Boy are you ever so silly.

OK, could you be a bit more specific, please? That would be ever so helpful.

Your OP is all over the place... up, down... yes, no... maybe, maybe not.

Sounds as if you are that. The OP is very specific: how do Calvinists explain WHY Jesus said what He did to a crowd of those He described as refusing to come to Him for life. With emphasis on the subjunctive mood.

And you want to whimper about not saying something that will support your Calvinistic view?

Ah, what makes you think that I have a Calvinistic view? And why did add the snarky bit about "whimpering" when you know there isn't a bit of it in the OP?

Also, your first post was extremely Calvinistic.

You mention "obeying" in this last post. Didn't Jesus say, "Believe, and be saved?" Sounds like a decision left to be made by anyone in the entire world... not just a select group.

I did? Please point that out. in my 3 previous posts, there is no "obeying" in any of them.

At this point, you are very close to being reported for trying to hijack the OP. Either address it and post somewhere else, or you will be reported.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If the non-elect can be saved, they wouldn't be non-elect, but instead, be elect.

The OP wasn't asking for opinions. Would you please address the OP instead?

Explain WHY Jesus said what He did to the crowd He said it to, if you can.

Or you may post elsewhere. I'm not about to allow Calvinists to hijack this OP. There are forum rules against that sort of thing.

 

[FreeGrace2]

A-freaking-men. Some folks just can't get this through their noggin it seems.

You haven't addressed the OP. Which is a forum rule violation. Either address it or you may post elsewhere.

 

[FreeGrace2]

OP...elect = saved.
Calvinist...elect=those God will save.

OP...non-elect = unsaved
Calvinist...non-elect = those who God will not save.

Somehow, the OP thinks he can conflate the two and then pronounce victory.

I'll make this very clear to you, then. Either address the OP or you may post elsewhere. You know the rules against hijacking a thread. Which seems to be occurring.

Hijackers will be reported.

Well, I guess that's one way to do it.

The only way to keep this OP on track.

 

[Skala]

The OP wasn't asking for opinions. Would you please address the OP instead?

Explain WHY Jesus said what He did to the crowd He said it to, if you can.

Or you may post elsewhere. I'm not about to allow Calvinists to hijack this OP. There are forum rules against that sort of thing.

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

 

[FreeGrace2]

The OP's argument affirms open theism.

This is an unsolicited and unsubstantiated opinion. Either address the OP or you may post elsewhere.

It implies God doesn't know who the saved will be, until the moment in time that they become saved. Thus, only then does he "know them" as "the elect"

You haven't addressed the OP. Explain WHY Jesus said what He said to the crowd who He said it to. Or be reported for hijacking the thread.

 

[Skala]

The OP wasn't asking for opinions. Would you please address the OP instead?

You haven't addressed the OP. Which is a forum rule violation. Either address it or you may post elsewhere.

I'll make this very clear to you, then. Either address the OP or you may post elsewhere. )

So now you're a big fan of this rule? Curious why you haven't ever obeyed it.


That being said, the OP was addressed (and refuted quite easily) a long time ago.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Not exactly. They would say God has perfect knowledge of all known facts. Since the future hasn't happened yet, God cannot know it.

Please stop trying to hijack this thread. You know the rules very well.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

At this point all I've seen is opinions of the OP, but no substantive material on WHY it might be. And you are wrong about Ignat. He seems to be on the side of Calvinism regarding who the non-elect are.

So, you're on very thin ice if you want to continue posting here. So, can you explain WHY Jesus said what He did to the crowd He said it to? Or not?

If you can, please do. If not, post elsewhere, please.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The OP wasn't asking for opinions. Would you please address the OP instead?

So now you're a big fan of this rule? Curious why you haven't ever obeyed it.

The problem goes to both sides. But this time on this thread I'm not going to allow a lot of Calvinistic opinions rule the day. Either address the OP or don't post.

That being said, the OP was addressed (and refuted quite easily) a long time ago.

No. It was criticized by opinion without a shred of substance.

In fact, there isn't anything to refute, so that must be a figment of an imagination to think it was. In fact, it was an invitation to explain WHY Jesus said what He did to the crowd He said it to.

And include the significance of the subjunctive mood, if you would.

Anything else is an attempt to hijack the thread.

 

[guuila]

Can the non-elect be saved?​

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.

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

John 5:33-47​

33 “You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 “But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 “He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36 “But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. 38 “You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. 39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 “I do not receive glory from men; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? 45 “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

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.

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.

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

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.

I disagree with your assessment.

 

[guuila]

You haven't addressed the OP. Which is a forum rule violation. Either address it or you may post elsewhere.

Done.

 

[Skala]

So, can you explain WHY Jesus said what He did to the crowd He said it to? Or not?

Sure. When you're preaching the gospel, you simply tell people that if they want to do such and such, they can.

Does Bob want to repent and be saved? If so, fantastic! Go right ahead Bob! Nobody is stopping you!

I'm not sure what you think the texts you quoted prove.

In a practical sense, there is no other way to preach the gospel. At present state, the audience was unbelievers. But Jesus kept on preaching the gospel to them. He was saying it to them because the message is the method of salvation. "I am saying these to you so that you might be saved". That's an evangelists job. To preach the message so that the hearers might be saved.

There's nothing inherently non-Calvinistic about that one way or the other. It doesn't prove anything, other than Jesus' obedience to preach the gospel the lost.

He simply preached the message, and lets the Holy Spirit do His work. He preaches the message, and anyone who wants to be saved by repenting and trusting in Him can do so. If they are unwilling, they are judged for their unwillingness.

Pretty basic stuff. I'm not sure what you think you have proven.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Can you refute this from Scripture? And you can't refer to the WCF.

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.

That would be problematic for…you, not for me. Given what Jesus SAID. Which is why I posited the challenge.

It's not problematic for the reason I originally stated. Further, the context is clearly of one not even to the present crowd, but extends to all of Israel. Jesus was pleading with His own people to believe who He actually was, their Messiah. And now we have to get into issues regarding the Christ consciousness... Luke 2:52 says He grew in "wisdom and stature" which would seem to indicate that His knowledge as a man was somehow less than omniscient, and He relied on the Spirit for His directing and action. Is it possible here in John 5 that Jesus still thought and hoped the Jews might accept Him?

OK, then, why isn't it just as "presumptous" to believe that He was talking to "future believers" all?

...because of what we are told in Ephesians 1.

And you have the additional problem in that Jesus used the subjunctive mood, not indicative mood. He was speaking in possibilities, not actualities.

You can review that mood here: Course II, Lesson 9

Would you address that problem of yours next?

All the subjunctive shows here in addition to the preceding subordinating conjunction is to show purpose. The reason why He says X is so Y might happen. Jesus is intending for Y to happen based on ἵνα. What the subjunctive here proves for your case, I have no idea.

 

[guuila]

Well, that didn't take long.

 

[Hammster]

Can the non-elect be saved?​

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.

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

John 5:33-47​

33 “You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 “But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 “He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36 “But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. 38 “You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. 39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 “I do not receive glory from men; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? 45 “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

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.

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.

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

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.

OP...elect = saved.
Calvinist...elect=those God will save.

OP...non-elect = unsaved
Calvinist...non-elect = those who God will not save.

Somehow, the OP thinks he can conflate the two and then pronounce victory.

Well, I guess that's one way to do it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Sure. When you're preaching the gospel, you simply tell people that if they want to do such and such, they can.

Does Bob want to repent and be saved? If so, fantastic! Go right ahead Bob! Nobody is stopping you!

I'm not sure what you think the texts you quoted prove.

I never said that proved anything. And your answer is familiarly vague. The crowd were obviously rejectors of the Messiah. Your challenge is to explain WHY Jesus mentioned what He did so that they "may be saved" (subjunctive mood). If they were all pre-believing elect, in your view, WHY the subjunctive mood instead of the indicative mood? Please explain that.

And if they were never to believe, WHY did He say "so that you may be saved"?

You still haven't addressed those specific questions.

Your answer is just a vague explanation of evangelism. Please be specific regarding that crowd.

In a practical sense, there is no other way to preach the gospel. At present state, the audience was unbelievers. But Jesus kept on preaching the gospel to them. He was saying it to them because the message is the method of salvation. "I am saying these to you so that you might be saved". That's an evangelists job. To preach the message so that the hearers might be saved.

Non-responsive. His comment about "that you may be saved" wasn't "selective". You need to deal with both the subjunctive mood and the fact that without a doubt there were those who would never believe, in spite of what Jesus said to them.

There's nothing inherently non-Calvinistic about that one way or the other. It doesn't prove anything, other than Jesus' obedience to preach the gospel the lost.

It's already been established in other threads that there is no good news to the non-elect. Given your understanding of the non-elect, WHY did Jesus say what He said to the crowd He said it to?

He simply preached the message, and lets the Holy Spirit do His work. He preaches the message, and anyone who wants to be saved by repenting and trusting in Him can do so. If they are unwilling, they are judged for their unwillingness.

Jesus was very specific: "so that you may be saved". Can you address WHY He said that?

Pretty basic stuff. I'm not sure what you think you have proven.

At this point, there is evidence that Calvinists are not able to actually deal with the question of WHY Jesus said what He did to those He said it to.

You mentioned "at the present stage", the audience was unbelievers. But you didn't face the problem of what you consider the non-elect. So again, WHY did Jesus say "so that you may be saved" to non-elect people?

You either have to admit that everyone in the crowd was a pre-believing elect one, or that there is nothing to hinder any unbeliever from believing.

Yet Calvinism claims that Christ didn't die for any of the non-elect, and Jesus used the subjunctive mood when He said "so that you may be saved".

Please explain that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

Except the "us" of 1:4 is defined clearly as "us who believe" in v.19. So the verse is about God choosing believers to be holy and blameless. Nothing about being chosen for salvation here. You've missed the point entirely.

It's not problematic for the reason I originally stated. Further, the context is clearly of one not even to the present crowd, but extends to all of Israel.

Hold on. Jesus was addressing a specific crowd. Please don't deflect from that. The "you" really meant each one of them. Or prove that His use of "you" was somehow "selective" from what He said.

Jesus was pleading with His own people to believe who He actually was, their Messiah. And now we have to get into issues regarding the Christ consciousness... Luke 2:52 says He grew in "wisdom and stature" which would seem to indicate that His knowledge as a man was somehow less than omniscient, and He relied on the Spirit for His directing and action. Is it possible here in John 5 that Jesus still thought and hoped the Jews might accept Him?

This has nothing to do with the OP at all.

...because of what we are told in Ephesians 1.

Non-responsive to the OP. And irrelevant as well. Eph 1 doesn't refute anything about the OP.

All the subjunctive shows here in addition to the preceding subordinating conjunction is to show purpose. The reason why He says X is so Y might happen. Jesus is intending for Y to happen based on ἵνα. What the subjunctive here proves for your case, I have no idea.

Sure, I'll explain it to you. X refers to believing in Him, and Y refers to salvation.

But you haven't explained WHY He said that to a crowd of negative unbelievers.

Do you think all of them were just pre-believing elect, or were some of them just the non-elect in your view?

Please deal with WHY He said "so that YOU may be save" to the non-elect, you know, those for whom He wasn't gonna die.

 

[FreeGrace2]

OP...elect = saved.
Calvinist...elect=those God will save.

OP...non-elect = unsaved
Calvinist...non-elect = those who God will not save.

Somehow, the OP thinks he can conflate the two and then pronounce victory.

Well, I guess that's one way to do it.

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

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Except the "us" of 1:4 is defined clearly as "us who believe" in v.19. So the verse is about God choosing believers to be holy and blameless. Nothing about being chosen for salvation here. You've missed the point entirely.

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

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

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