can the non-elect be saved??

[FreeGrace2]

Would you like me to change the title of the thread?

You may leave the title alone.

Because that is also part of the OP, and that's what is being addressed.

Do you understand the question being asked?

 

[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.

And this is where you fail. This is a description of non-believers, not non-elect. All if us were non-believers at some point.

 

[Hammster]

You may leave the title alone.


Do you understand the question being asked?

Yes, I can read the title.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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".
.

Would you be able to address the OP, please? Explain WHY Jesus said "that you may be saved" to those who refuse to accept Him.

Thanks.

 

[janxharris]

You proceed and posit an argument based upon an unsubstantiated presupposition. For you, one isn't elect until they believe. Therefore when one is an unbeliever, they are of the non-elect. Then once they believe, they are elect. You then take this framework and cast it upon us who are Reformed. The main reason why this is problematic for your argumentation is that we don't equate unsaved with non-elect. We, the elect, were all once unsaved; and yet, during our period of rebellion, our election was still as real as it is now. How else could it be, if we were elected before the foundation of the world to be adopted as sons? Therefore to posit that those Jesus was talking to in John 5 were unequivocally of the non-elect is presumptuous, at best.

I think the point is that Jesus says 'I say these things so that you may be saved' to unbelievers that might also be reprobates.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I think the point is that Jesus says 'I say these things so that you may be saved' to unbelievers that might also be reprobates.

Understood, but the objection is based on a presupposition that Jesus knew who the reprobates were, and further, that there were no elect people present to whom He was speaking.

 

[janxharris]

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.

And yet again you make Jesus the great deceiver.

I say these things so that you may be saved

Jesus says this to REPROBATES ??

 

[Doveaman]

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.

*For those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son...And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified.* - (Rom 8:29-30).

It seems to me like God elects us beforehand because He already knows the freewill choices we will make?

*The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."* - (Jer 1:4-5).

God knew Jeremiah even before He was conceived and elected Jeremiah to be a prophet before he was born.

How could God elect Jeremiah to be a prophet before he was born unless God knew beforehand that Jeremiah would accept?

Did Jeremiah have a choice?

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

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

There is no Scriptural support for God choosing who will believe. It is a problem for Calvinism, but which they simply ignore.

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.

And I disregard your notion again that Jesus did not know who the non-elect are. He is omniscient, and He certainly knows all that he died for, even in your system. Your statement is false.

[QJOUTE] 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.

No, He spoke that way because anyone could accept Him. It's your faulty view of the non elect that is the problem and why you can't address the OP directly.

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.

I know exactly what it was. You are deflecting from addressing the OP.

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

From what you've posted here, it seems that I was correct.

Your view doesn't make sense, because it takes away from any purpose God had in electing us before the foundation of the world.

Your comment is a deflection from the OP, but I'll address it in order to help you understand my view. The purpose of God in electing believers per Epoh 1:4 is that each one be holy and blameless.

Why do it before the foundation of the world?

Because Eph 1:4 SAYS that's when God chose.

Why even mention that if you are Paul?

To instruct believers that we have been chosen to be holy and blameless. Is that such a weird thing to emphasize. Why did Paul tell the Ephesian believers to "no longer live as the Gentiles" per 4:17? Basically saying the same thing.

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.?

Might "what" point to the fact that God's election occurred before time?

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:

OK, I'll try to make it more clear. God chose those who would become believers.

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.

I think you're squibbling a bit. Of course no one had believed when He chose them. But being omniscient, He chose all who will believe to be holy and blameless.

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.

Sorry, but none of this makes any sense. It seems to be saying that unless something originates from within Himself, He can't know it. But that just denies the real meaning of omniscience, which may explain why we keep talking over each other's heads.

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.

You are forgetting that all who will believe were chosent to be holy and blameless. So when people are born or when they believe is totally immaterial and irrelevant.

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.

Yes, it does say that. You stopped the verse after "world", but the verse continues with to be holy and blameless. It seems the reformed never include that phrase, which is the purpose of election when they quote 1:4.

Again, how do you know they were non-elect?

So you think they were all just pre-believing elect? Then explain WHY Jesus used the subjunctive mood instead of the indicative mood, please.

Either way, you've not explained WHY Jesus said what He did, whether they were pre-believing elect or non elect, in your view.

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!

Correct! So, can you demonstrate that Jesus' words were only for the "elect" in that crowd? And again, WHY did He use the subjunctive mood rather than the indicative mood, since we all know that the elect will certainly believe and be saved. No subjunctive about it.

It is a completely nonsensical question led by an assault on Calvinism at all costs.

Seems the question does bother you, huh. If Calvinism had a good answer for the question, there should be no bother at all.

But your deflection by charging assault against Calvinism demonstrates your discomfort with my question.

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.

No, actually I let the Calvinists disprove themselves, by the non answers they give. You've made clear you view my question as an "assault" on Calvinism, when in fact it is a very logical question, given your view of the non elect, and WHY Jesus said "so that you may be saved" in the subjunctive mood.

Whether any of them were elect or non elect, according to your own definition, you have a problem that you haven't even addressed.

Think it over.

 

[Skala]

I think the point is that Jesus says 'I say these things so that you may be saved' to unbelievers that might also be reprobates.

So you are affirming that some people are reprobates, as part of your argument? What do you mean by reprobate?

 

[janxharris]

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.

You are limiting God's omniscience. God knows all things (and even counterfactuals) eternally.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Sorry, but none of this makes any sense. It seems to be saying that unless something originates from within Himself, He can't know it.

Not that He can't know it... He can't foreknow it, let alone know it innately.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

God knows all things (and even counterfactuals) eternally.

Agreed, but what is the point of that phrase?

 

[janxharris]

Understood, but the objection is based on a presupposition that Jesus knew who the reprobates were, and further, that there were no elect people present to whom He was speaking.

?

The point of the OP is that we have God in flesh telling reprobates (as Calvinists would define the term) that they might be saved. It proves that Christ died for everyone, else He couldn't have said it.

 

[Ignatius21]

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?


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.


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.


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.


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

The very first thing you post in the OP is your question, "Can the non-elect be saved?" And you answer this in the affirmative. You then go on to argue against Calvinism's specific doctrines of unconditional election and limited atonement. This is where I see the disconnect. What I think everyone here has tried to say, and you've so far dismissed all of us as dodging the question and hijacking threads, is this:

There is no such thing as a saved person who is not elect.

I think you actually agree with this statement, at least it's what I've drawn from your rather agitated responses, when you aren't reprimanding people for avoiding your questions, or threatening to report them to the authorities

So if you agree with that bolded statement, then your very opening lines of the OP don't make sense. They aren't even self-consistent with what you yourself profess to believe.

If this is about the basis of why a person is among "the elect," then that's a topic unto itself, one debated here ad nauseum. But I don't think anyone can agree with your answer to your own question. We must all say "NO. The non-elect cannot be saved."

As to Jesus' words to the crowd, how do you know--whether from a Calvinist, Arminian or any other perspective--that any of those people there were, or weren't, elect? He was preaching to a crowd of unbelievers, which is not at all the same as a crowd of "non-elect."

Calvinism can very consistently say that in that crowd, some, all, or none could have been elect, though all were unbelievers at that moment. If anyone in that crowd later repented of their sin and came to faith, sought baptism in the Church and renounced their former unbelief, then we--Calvinists, non-Calvinists and crickets alike--would all agree that those who came to faith, were the elect.

Those who persisted in their hardness of heart, were not elect.

I don't see how the passage quoted in the OT is even relevant to the question you're asking.

If your real challenge here, is for Calvinists to defend their views of unconditional election and all that goes with it, then let's keep it on that topic.

And I'm glad to see that you don't accept Open Theism

 

[janxharris]

So you are affirming that some people are reprobates, as part of your argument? What do you mean by reprobate?

I use the term as defined by Calvinists.

 

[Ignatius21]

?

The point of the OP is that we have God in flesh telling reprobates (as Calvinists would define the term) that they might be saved. It proves that Christ died for everyone, else He couldn't have said it.

Would Calvinists identify these unbelieving Jewish leaders, addressed in John 5, as reprobate per their understanding of the term?

Seems to me that Paul, while still Saul, quite likely would have been among these same zealous Jews who were told by Jesus that they refused to receive the one whom God sent (had he been there on that day, of course). Yet Paul himself was awakened from his hard-heartedness later, and became a believer.

 

[janxharris]

Not that He can't know it... He can't foreknow it, let alone know it innately.

?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

?

The point of the OP is that we have God in flesh telling reprobates (as Calvinists would define the term) that they might be saved. It proves that Christ died for everyone, else He couldn't have said it.

First, that is quite an unsubstantiated premise, and second that is NOT what Jesus said. God in the flesh, Jesus, was a man. We do not fully know what He was conscious of during His earthly ministry. As I said before (and was told it was unrelated somehow), Jesus is said to have grown in wisdom and stature, meaning He was something less than omniscient during His earthly ministry [at least consciously]. Therefore it is perfectly plausible that He was unaware of who the elect were. As we Reformers believe that we should share the Gospel with all (since we don't know who the elect are), we see Jesus doing the same thing. Second, Jesus never said "Reprobates might be saved". That is totally unsubstantiated. We have Jesus telling people (elect or not, we do not know) that they should believe so they may be saved. Why that would be contrary to Reformed theology, I have no idea.

 

[janxharris]

Agreed, but what is the point of that phrase?

In God's mind, our belief or non-belief was known by Him before the foundation of the world.

There is no before or after with God.