• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

can the non-elect be saved??

Status
Not open for further replies.

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,730
USA
✟184,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
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?
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,730
USA
✟184,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
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.
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married

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.
 
Upvote 0

Charis kai Dunamis

χάρις καὶ δύναμις
Dec 4, 2006
3,766
260
Chicago, Illinois
✟20,154.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married

And yet again you make Jesus the great deceiver.

I say these things so that you may be saved

Jesus says this to REPROBATES ??
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
*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?
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,730
USA
✟184,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Upvote 0

Skala

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him
Mar 15, 2011
8,964
478
✟35,369.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married

You are limiting God's omniscience. God knows all things (and even counterfactuals) eternally.
 
Upvote 0

Charis kai Dunamis

χάρις καὶ δύναμις
Dec 4, 2006
3,766
260
Chicago, Illinois
✟20,154.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟43,897.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius21

Can somebody please pass the incense?
May 21, 2009
2,237
322
Dayton, OH
✟29,518.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married

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
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius21

Can somebody please pass the incense?
May 21, 2009
2,237
322
Dayton, OH
✟29,518.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
?

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.
 
Upvote 0

Charis kai Dunamis

χάρις καὶ δύναμις
Dec 4, 2006
3,766
260
Chicago, Illinois
✟20,154.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
?

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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.