can the non-elect be saved??

[FreeGrace2]

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.

 

[Ignatius21]

I'm not your intended audience, but I'm trying to figure out how the non-elect can be saved in anyone's theology...

The difference between Calvinists, Arminians, Catholics, Orthodox, and just about anyone else isn't about whether God saves the elect, or whether God saves only the elect, or even whether there is a group of humanity that can be called "the elect." The differences are over the basis upon which one becomes a member of "the elect."

As you've asked it, it's kind of like asking "can those who aren't on the boat be saved from the flood?" We may differ about exactly how one moves from the flood, to the boat, but anyone who doesn't end up on the boat is doomed.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'm not your intended audience, but I'm trying to figure out how the non-elect can be saved in anyone's theology...

That's actually a great question, Ignatius! We need to understand what the Bible says about those called the non-elect by Calvinists.

The difference between Calvinists, Arminians, Catholics, Orthodox, and just about anyone else isn't about whether God saves the elect, or whether God saves only the elect, or even whether there is a group of humanity that can be called "the elect." The differences are over the basis upon which one becomes a member of "the elect."

You mean either by grace through faith, or through works plus faith, or works alone?

As you've asked it, it's kind of like asking "can those who aren't on the boat be saved from the flood?" We may differ about exactly how one moves from the flood, to the boat, but anyone who doesn't end up on the boat is doomed.

I think you nailed it in your opening question. I believe the Bible's view of the non-elect is simply this: they are an unbeliever.

So, another question would be: can an unbeliever believe? Of course he can. Paul's entire ministry was trying to persuade both Jew and Greek to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

And you're right. My target is Calvinism, because of how they view the non-elect. How in the world can they argue against what Jesus said to those they view as unstable?

Jesus surely didn't view them that way.

 

[Willie T]

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.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

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.

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.

 

[Ignatius21]

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.

Some would argue (and do, fervently) that it would be foolish for God to send his Son into the world to suffer and die, on the off-chance that someone might choose to accept his salvation (hence the reason there must be a group that will accept it).

Either way, I think all agree that "the elect" are "the saved" and that asking whether one can be saved, and not be elect, is like asking whether one can be both saved and unsaved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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?

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.

What a colossal waste of time and resources.

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.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You proceed and posit an argument based upon an unsubstantiated presupposition.

We'll see about that.

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.

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

You then take this framework and cast it upon us who are Reformed.

Absolutely. Thanks for noting.

The main reason why this is problematic for your argumentation is that we don't equate unsaved with non-elect.

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

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.

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

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?

 

[Willie T]

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. Your OP is all over the place... up, down... yes, no... maybe, maybe not. And you want to whimper about not saying something that will support your Calvinistic view?

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.

 

[Skala]

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

PS: I'm extremely grateful to Ignatius for stepping up and providing the answer he gave. Thanks man

 

[guuila]

I'm not your intended audience, but I'm trying to figure out how the non-elect can be saved in anyone's theology...

The difference between Calvinists, Arminians, Catholics, Orthodox, and just about anyone else isn't about whether God saves the elect, or whether God saves only the elect, or even whether there is a group of humanity that can be called "the elect." The differences are over the basis upon which one becomes a member of "the elect."

As you've asked it, it's kind of like asking "can those who aren't on the boat be saved from the flood?" We may differ about exactly how one moves from the flood, to the boat, but anyone who doesn't end up on the boat is doomed.

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

 

[guuila]

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.

So you're an Open Theist?

 

[Willie T]

So you're an Open Theist?

I don't really follow all the labels. What's that?

 

[Skala]

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.

Not at all, but in fact, evangelism is the very tool and means that God uses to reach His elect people with the gospel message and convert them:

2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

1Th 1:4-5
(4) For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you,
(5) because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.

In the former, Paul tells us that his motivation is the salvation of the elect. In the latter, he tells his readers that he knows they are chosen by God because when the gospel came to them, it didn't just come to their ears, but with full conviction. In other words, the gospel message works on God's elect. That's how they are saved. Everyone else will reject it.

 

[Hammster]

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.

 

[Skala]

The OP's argument affirms open theism.

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"

 

[guuila]

I don't really follow all the labels. What's that?

It would be a person who denies God's omniscience.

 

[guuila]

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.

Whatever it takes.

 

[Hammster]

It would be a person who denies God's omniscience.

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

 

[guuila]

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

Good point.