can the non-elect be saved??

[Skala]

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.

Based on that knowledge, would you say he chose, before the foundation of the world, those who were known by him to be believers?

If yes: then you affirm that some are born into this world as "non-chosen" ie "non-elect"

If no: you contradict the Bible at Eph 1:4, and you unravel and refute all the hard work you've done over the past year in using Romans 8:28 and 1 Peter 1:1-2, asserting they are speaking of choosing according to foreseen faith.

So you're in a tough spot here.

 

[janxharris]

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.

Okay, I assume there were some reprobates in the crowd, but that would be quite likely, surely?

Very likely, considering this:

Luke 8:1
After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God.

 

[guuila]

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

So refreshing to see a non-Calvinist accurately represent Calvinism. I didn't think it was possible. Thank you.

 

[janxharris]

Based on that knowledge, would you say he chose, before the foundation of the world, those who were known by him to be believers?

Yes

If yes: then you affirm that some are born into this world as "non-chosen" ie "non-elect"

Some are born that will reject Christ - and God knows them - yes.

If no: you contradict the Bible at Eph 1:4, and you unravel and refute all the hard work you've done over the past year in using Romans 8:28 and 1 Peter 1:1-2, asserting they are speaking of choosing according to foreseen faith.

Ok. I said 'yes', so I'll leave this.

So you're in a tough spot here.

What is the tough spot?

 

[Skala]

Yes



Some are born that will reject Christ - and God knows them - yes.



Ok. I said 'yes', so I'll leave this.



What is the tough spot?

Cool. so you affirm that some people are born into this world who have no "access" to salvation, as you once argued Calvinism is guilty of.

Also, you're totally refuted and debunked all that work you've done over the past year in using Rom 8 and 1 Peter 1:1-2.

Congrats!

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

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.

That idea is foreign to Ephesians 1:4 though. You have to read that in. It specifically says we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. "Chosen" ἐξελέξατο is the verb being acted by the subject "God and Father" θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ, the only nominative found in v3-4. The accusative ἡμᾶς shows we receive the action of the subject, and "before the foundation of the world" πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμουthe is the adjectival phrase referring to the action being performed. The clear idea is that we were chosen to be adopted as sons into the family of God before anything had happened within history. And if that is not the point of the phrase, then what is? Why did God choose us before the foundation of the world, if in fact He was just planning to look at what we were going to do and elect based on that? The timeframe of His election then becomes unnecessary. It defeats the whole purpose of Paul's mention. You could remove it from the text and it would make no difference for your exegesis!

 

[janxharris]

Cool. so you affirm that some people are born into this world who have no "access" to salvation, as you once argued Calvinism is guilty of.

Welcome to Calvinism Janx!

I don't even know why you are saying this.

At point of being presented with the Gospel every man has access. Why do you find this so difficult?

That God has knowledge of their refusal does not take away their access.

 

[janxharris]

That idea is foreign to Ephesians 1:4 though. You have to read that in. It specifically says we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. "Chosen" ἐξελέξατο is the verb being acted by the subject "God and Father" θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ, the only nominative found in v3-4. The accusative ἡμᾶς shows we receive the action of the subject, and "before the foundation of the world" πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμουthe is the adjectival phrase referring to the action being performed. The clear idea is that we were chosen to be adopted as sons into the family of God before anything had happened within history. And if that is not the point of the phrase, then what is? Why did God choose us before the foundation of the world, if in fact He was just planning to look at what we were going to do and elect based on that? The timeframe of His election then becomes unnecessary. It defeats the whole purpose of Paul's mention. You could remove it from the text and it would make no difference for your exegesis!

Very interesting, thanks...but another time - I must sleep.....

 

[Skala]

I don't even know why you are saying this.

At point of being presented with the Gospel every man has access. Why do you find this so difficult?

That God has knowledge of their refusal does not take away their access.

So by "access" you never, in the past, meant "has a real chance to be saved"?

Good to know.

I wonder what you meant then.

 

[jamantc]

I was once told: "God, before the foundation of the world, looked down the corridor of time and in His foreknowledge saw those who would accept the offer of His salvation through His Son Christ Jesus and He also saw those who would not accept it and they have therefore been left to their sins and disobedience toward God".
Ok, let's say this is what is meant by foreknowledge and this is true. It still places burden on the Arminian to prove the atonement of Christ isn't particular. If God saw who would be saved, then those are the only people Christ died for, which makes those who wouldn't accept the offer excluded from Christ atonement. Yes, I am a Calvinist because I believe foreknowledge is more intimate than just knowing and because scripture tells me that faith is a gift from God. As a Calvinist, I don't have to prove Christ's death wasn't limited, because even if foreknowledge is merely that and not more intimate, than Christ still died for only those whom God saw would believe. No matter how one looks at it, only those that either God chose unto salvation will be saved or those whom God saw would accept salvation would be saved, which leaves the rest without hope of salvation, therefore making the great commission still effective for only those who are God's. The proof of non-particular atonement rest solely on the shoulders of the Arminian in either view, but he can't deny in either view (especially if he believes the corridor of time statement) that Christ's death is sufficient for all, but effective only for those whom God chose or for those whom He saw would accept. Christ death is particular in either circumstance, that's why he was a substitute, the propitiation for many. It's why the narrow gate take few and the path to death takes many.

 

[Ignatius21]

I was once told: "God, before the foundation of the world, looked down the corridor of time and in His foreknowledge saw those who would accept the offer of His salvation through His Son Christ Jesus and He also saw those who would not accept it and they have therefore been left to their sins and disobedience toward God". Ok, let's say this is what is meant by foreknowledge and this is true. It still places burden on the Arminian to prove the atonement of Christ isn't particular. If God saw who would be saved, then those are the only people Christ died for, which makes those who wouldn't accept the offer excluded from Christ atonement. Yes, I am a Calvinist because I believe foreknowledge is more intimate than just knowing and because scripture tells me that faith is a gift from God. As a Calvinist, I don't have to prove Christ's death wasn't limited, because even if foreknowledge is merely that and not more intimate, than Christ still died for only those whom God saw would believe. No matter how one looks at it, only those that either God chose unto salvation will be saved or those whom God saw would accept salvation would be saved, which leaves the rest without hope of salvation, therefore making the great commission still effective for only those who are God's. The proof of non-particular atonement rest solely on the shoulders of the Arminian in either view, but he can't deny in either view (especially if he believes the corridor of time statement) that Christ's death is sufficient for all, but effective only for those whom God chose or for those whom He saw would accept. Christ death is particular in either circumstance, that's why he was a substitute, the propitiation for many. It's why the narrow gate take few and the path to death takes many.

Well phrased.

Do you believe that his death on the cross was the only way in which Christ made atonement between God and man?

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

Non response. Irrelevant. Can you prove that all of them were pre-believing elect? Of course not. And doesn't matter. Even if they were, WHY did Jesus use the subjunctive mood instead of the indicative mood? You can't explain that.

Now, you have failed to address the OP. Lots of dodging and dancing around. Please address the OP. Answer the question.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yes, I can read the title.

Non responsive. I asked if you understand the question. Do you or not?

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

Correction: there is NO presupposition in the OP. Please keep the OP in focus when answering. The question is legit.

And whether there were any elect there is irrelevant to the question. In fact, that brings up the challenge to Calvinists as to WHY Jesus used the subjunctive mood instead of the indicative, since we all know that the elect will certainly be saved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And yet again you make Jesus the great deceiver.

I say these things so that you may be saved

Jesus says this to REPROBATES ??

Maybe Skala just doesn't want to admit it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

*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?

Please do not try to hijack this thread. If you aren't interested in addressing the OP, please post elsewhere. Hijacking any thread is a forum violation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

Please stop trying to hijack the thread. Focus on the OP. Reprobates isn't the issue. Non elect is THE issue, and what Jesus SAID to them.

Can you prove that all of the crowd were pre-believing elect or not?

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

Please define "innately" so I know what you mean exactly.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Agreed, but what is the point of that phrase?

Please focus on the OP only. Your question is irrelevant.

 

[Hammster]

Non response. Irrelevant. Can you prove that all of them were pre-believing elect? Of course not. And doesn't matter. Even if they were, WHY did Jesus use the subjunctive mood instead of the indicative mood? You can't explain that.

Now, you have failed to address the OP. Lots of dodging and dancing around. Please address the OP. Answer the question.

I proved that your premise presented in the OP is false. Because of that, the rest of your argument is pointless. How many ways have we proven this now?