Can a non elect person get saved?

[JIM]

Free will is about 180 degrees from the truth of Scripture.

Without free will, there is no such thing as disobedience and hence no such thing as sin.

 

[makesends]

Mat 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Rom 10:20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me." 21 But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

Sort of makes a sham out of the Calvinist teaching of "elect".

How so? Where is the implication that election means God doesn't care about those he has chosen as his particular people?

 

[Josheb]

Does God welcome the non-elect?

You're still dodging my question so why should I answer yours?

Does God welcome the non-elect?

Think it through. If the answer is, "No, God does not welcome the non-elect," then it was inappropriate to think Acts 10:34 has anything to do with the non-elect and Post #35 is mistaken. No foundation for appealing to fairness exists. If, conversely, God does welcome the non-elect then that welcome would be limited to the conditions or context of Acts 10:34. What does that text stipulate? First, the entire passage occurs in reference to the salvation of the Gentile Cornelius. Cornelius being a Gentile is inferred by Peter's comment to God in verse 28 when he informs God it is unlawful for a Jew (Peter) to unite himself and come near a foreigner. Cornelius was a Gentile, a centurion - which means he was a soldier in the army of the Jews' occupying enemies. Cornelius was chosen by God and called by God, and there's no record of Cronelius ever being asked if he wanted to be chosen or called. God then intervened in Peter's life without informing Peter beforehand, without asking Peter if he wanted any part of it and intervened in Peter's life for the express purpose of bringing Cornelius to salvation in Christ without asking Cornelius if Cornelius wanted any part of life in Jesus. By the time we get to verse 34 Cornelius is already saved.

In other words, the "welcome" Peter mentions is a post-conversion welcome.

Given the specifics of the surrounding text, Acts 10:34 cannot be made to apply to any fairness pertaining to the non-elect. Therefore, if we wanted to answer the question "Does God welcome the non-elect?" in the affirmative, then we are going to have to find some other scripture to which we can appeal for an affirmative answer and that.....


.....is entirely on you, not me.


Maybe there is a verse in the Bible that reports God welcomes the non-elect (in general or for a given purpose) but no such verse has yet been provided. I, therefore, again ask,


Why is fairness thought to be a concern in election in the first place?


Why is fairness in election thought to be relevant at all? If there's no basis for thinking fairness is relevant, then discard the premise in its entirety and reconsider the entire matter without "fairness" obfuscating election. Be free of that obstacle!

 

[JIM]

How so? Where is the implication that election means God doesn't care about those he has chosen as his particular people?

Did Jesus not know whom God has chosen? Why would He hold out His hand for the reprobate?

 

[makesends]

Without free will, there is no such thing as disobedience and hence no such thing as sin.

After defining your use of 'free will', there, prove: "Without free will, there is no such thing as disobedience and hence no such thing as sin".

There is nothing, without causation from God; so, without causation from God, there is no such thing as disobedience and hence no such thing as sin.

As WCF 3.1 puts it, "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." Not only can you have no will at all, nor even be a creature, but whatsoever comes to pass, to include your will and its every choice, does so by God's ESTABLISHING it!

 

[makesends]

Did Jesus not know whom God has chosen? Why would He hold out His hand for the reprobate?

Where does it say he held out his hand for the reprobate?

But to answer your question, no, Jesus did not know who was elect and who was not, unless the Father revealed it to him. He lived as we should. He did know that OT Israel was God's chosen nation, if that is what you mean to ask, but it doesn't sound like that's what you are referring to.

 

[JIM]

After defining your use of 'free will', there, prove: "Without free will, there is no such thing as disobedience and hence no such thing as sin".

There is nothing, without causation from God; so, without causation from God, there is no such thing as disobedience and hence no such thing as sin.

As WCF 3.1 puts it, "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." Not only can you have no will at all, nor even be a creature, but whatsoever comes to pass, to include your will and its every choice, does so by God's ESTABLISHING it!

I have nothing to learn from the hard determinist as you present yourself.

 

[makesends]

I have nothing to learn from the hard determinist as you present yourself.

If 'Hard Determinist' means that God equally intended to damn the non-elect as he intended to save the elect, I am not a hard determinist. God's reason for creation, after all, was to make a people for himself, for his own glory. (Conversely, God's reason for creating was not because he relishes anyone's torment. That is logically vapid.)

But if 'Hard Determinist' means that God intended for all things to come to pass, precisely to the smallest detail, as they have (and will) come to pass, then the logic is inescapable. God is the creator. All things causally descend from that. The Bible does agrees with the logic. "All things came into being through him and without him came into being nothing that has come into being."

If you wish to learn nothing from me, maybe I can learn something from you! Maybe my reasoning here does not follow.

1) Explain to me how it is possible for God to know and create, yet not pre-know or not cause some things.​

2) Explain how his knowing-yet-causing does not imply intention.​

3) And explain how it is possible for mere (and fallen) creatures to be some of them more worthy than others, some more wise than others, or whatever other reason you might come up with, that some choose him and some do not, all of themselves and apart from God's causing it to be so.​

 

[Arial]

Without free will, there is no such thing as disobedience and hence no such thing as sin.

Without a will and without being made in God's image and likeness, and without the position assigned by God to tend the creation and have dominion over it, and the implicit moral obligation to his Creator in doing so, there would be no such thing as disobedience. The will does not have to be free in order to disobey. In fact Adam's disobedience put us in bondage to sin. We can't escape it. We have to be delivered from that bondage in order to be free.

 

[Red Baker]

The problem with this topic is that it begins with a false concept or meaning of "elect", or at least a concept or meaning of "elect" that is not universally held. The lack of agreement on word meanings leads to all manner of strange discussion.

What does the word election mean? It signifies to single out, to select, to choose, to take one and leave another. We just had an election in our nation for a president.

Bible election of grace means: that God has singled out certain ones to be the objects of His saving grace, while others are left to suffer the just punishment of their sins. It means that before the foundation of the world, God chose some and left others before they had done any good, or evil, solely based upon the good pleasure of his will. God knowing that if he did not have an election, then none would have ever been saved from sin and condemnation. Election means that there are certain precise number given to Jesus Christ to secure their eternal salvation from sin and condemnation and predestined them to be conformed to the image of His Son. "Simeon has declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name" (Act 15:14).

We cannot do better than here amplify our definition of election by quoting from a sermon by the late C.H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) on "Things That Accompany Salvation": "Before Salvation came into this world, Election marched in the very forefront, and it had for its work the billeting of Salvation. Election went through the world and marked the houses to which Salvation should come and the hearts in which the treasure should be deposited. Election looked through all the race of man, from Adam down to the last, and marked with sacred stamp those for whom Salvation was designed. 'He must needs go through Samaria' (John 4:4) said Election; and Salvation must go there. Then came Predestination. Predestination did not merely mark the house, but it mapped the road in which Salvation should travel to that house. Predestination ordained every step of the great army of Salvation; it ordained the time when the sinner should be brought to Christ."

The problem with this topic is that it begins with a false concept or meaning of "elect", or at least a concept or meaning of "elect" that is not universally held. The lack of agreement on word meanings leads to all manner of strange discussion.

Now, it is you turn to give what yo think is the correct concept, or meaning of elect, since you believe that most have a false concept of election of grace's doctrine.

 

[prism]

Without free will, there is no such thing as disobedience and hence no such thing as sin.

I'll grant you this much, Adam had free will, since then, mankind has been a slave to satan and his own lusts.

Ephesians 2:2-3 (KJV) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

That's why we need a Savior.

 

[prism]

In other words, the "welcome" Peter mentions is a post-conversion welcome.

Post-conversion welcome?
You had said previously,...
"God then intervened in Peter's life without informing Peter beforehand, without asking Peter if he wanted any part of it and intervened in Peter's life for the express purpose of bringing Cornelius to salvation in Christ without asking Cornelius if Cornelius wanted any part of life in Jesus.

It may be a 'pre-conversion' welcome; but not a post conversion welcome, unless we have different concepts of what conversion is.

Acts 10:34-35 (KJV) Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

In any case maybe you can pray God opens up my understanding on this issue of election...

Luke 24:31 (KJV) And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

 

[Red Baker]

Mat 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Rom 10:20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me." 21 But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

Sort of makes a sham out of the Calvinist teaching of "elect".

Matthew 23:37~"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

The question is asked, Do not these words show that the Saviour acknowledged the defeat of His mission, that as a people the Jews resisted all His gracious overtures toward them? In replying to this question, it should first be pointed out that our Lord is here referring not so much to His own mission as He is upbraiding the Jews for having in all ages rejected His grace-this is clear from His reference to the "prophets." The Old Testament bears full witness of how graciously and patiently Jehovah dealt with His people, and with what extreme obstinacy, from first to last, they refused to be "gathered" unto Him, and how in the end He abandoned them to follow their own devices, yet, as the same Scriptures declare, the counsel of God was not frustrated by their wickedness, for it had been foretold (and therefore, decreed) by Him: see, for example, 1st Kings 8:33.

Matthew 23:37 may well be compared with Isaiah 65:2 where the Lord says, "I have spread out My hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts." But, it may be asked, Did God seek to do that which was in opposition to His own eternal purpose? In words borrowed from Calvin we reply, "Though to our apprehension the will of God is manifold and various, yet He does not in Himself will things at variance with each other, but astonishes our faculties with His various and 'manifold' wisdom, according to the expression of Paul, till we shall be enabled to understand that He mysteriously wills what now seems contrary to His will." As a further illustration of the same principle we would refer the reader to Isaiah 5:1-4: "Now will I sing to my well Beloved a song of my Beloved touching His vineyard. My well Beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: And He fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and He looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt Me and My vineyard. What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, it brought forth wild grapes?" Is it not plain from this language that God reckoned Himself to have done enough for Israel to warrant an expectation-speaking after the manner of men-of better returns? Yet, is it not equally evident when Jehovah says here "He looked that it should bring forth grapes" that He is accommodating Himself to a form of finite expression? And, so also when He says "What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it?" we need to take note that in the previous enumeration of what He had done-the "fencing" etc.-He refers only to external privileges, means, and opportunities, which had been bestowed upon Israel, for, of course, He could even then have taken away from them their stony heart and given them a new heart, even a heart of flesh, had He so pleased.

Perhaps we should link up with Christ's lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37, His tears over the City, recorded in Luke 19:41: "He beheld the city, and wept over it." In the verses which immediately follow we learn what it was that occasioned His tears: "Saying, if thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side." It was the prospect of the fearful judgement which Christ knew was impending. But did those tears make manifest a disappointed God? Nay, verily. Instead, they displayed a perfect Man. The Man Christ Jesus was no emotionless stoic, but One "filled with compassion." Those tears expressed the sinless sympathies of His real and pure humanity. Had He not "wept" He had been less than human. Those "tears" were one of many proofs that "in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren" (Heb. 2:17). Also, we would add, if he had not desire for all men to come unto him, then he would have not been both God and man in one body of flesh! (much of this was taken from one of the greatest little books on the sovereignty of God ever written by A. W. Pink published by Baker house...not the one by Banner of Truth)

Romans 10:20,21​

“But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

Jim, in verse 21 we see what is the result, when God employs only outward means to lead men to obedience, and does not accompany them with the influence of His efficacious grace as he does in verse 20! Where he manifest himself to those who do not ask after him nor seek him! Verse twenty of Romans 10 should help you see the truth concerning verse 21!

 

[JIM]

What does the word election mean? It signifies to single out, to select, to choose, to take one and leave another. We just had an election in our nation for a president.

But unlike the Calvinist concept of election, the election of Trump was clearly a function of who Trump was, his views, and his actions. The election of Trump was clearly about Trump as the electee. But most importantly, those who chose Trump chose him for what they thought he will do in the future.

Bible election of grace means: that God has singled out certain ones to be the objects of His saving grace, while others are left to suffer the just punishment of their sins. It means that before the foundation of the world, God chose some and left others before they had done any good, or evil, solely based upon the good pleasure of his will. God knowing that if he did not have an election, then none would have ever been saved from sin and condemnation. Election means that there are certain precise number given to Jesus Christ to secure their eternal salvation from sin and condemnation and predestined them to be conformed to the image of His Son. "Simeon has declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name" (Act 15:14).

And from Calvinism, none of that had anything to do with the individual. God could have saved them all; but instead, according to you, He intentionally and for His own glory, abandoned most of humanity to the wiles of Satan. Certainly not the God that I believe in.

We cannot do better than here amplify our definition of election by quoting from a sermon by the late C.H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) on "Things That Accompany Salvation": "Before Salvation came into this world, Election marched in the very forefront, and it had for its work the billeting of Salvation. Election went through the world and marked the houses to which Salvation should come and the hearts in which the treasure should be deposited. Election looked through all the race of man, from Adam down to the last, and marked with sacred stamp those for whom Salvation was designed. 'He must needs go through Samaria' (John 4:4) said Election; and Salvation must go there. Then came Predestination. Predestination did not merely mark the house, but it mapped the road in which Salvation should travel to that house. Predestination ordained every step of the great army of Salvation; it ordained the time when the sinner should be brought to Christ."

Maybe C.H. Spurgeon could tell us why God purposely created most of mankind for sole purpose of eternal condemnation. Particularly when all He had to do was to choose all of them.

Now, it is you turn to give what yo think is the correct concept, or meaning of elect, since you believe that most have a fable concept of election of grace doctrine.

Just as those who chose Trump chose him for what they think he will do in the future. In the case of God's choosing us, He did so not just thinking what we will do in the future; rather, He did so knowing beforehand what we would do. By his foreknowledge, He knew who would love Him (Rom 8:28-29). Those are the ones he predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. Not just Paul, but Peter also declared that our election was based upon God's foreknowledge (1 Pet 1:1-2).

 

[JIM]

I'll grant you this much, Adam had free will, since then, mankind has been a slave to satan and his own lusts.

Clearly, Adam was a slave to Satan and his own lusts also. And he neither more nor less than the rest of mankind. But even the slave can have the earnest desire to be set free.

Ephesians 2:2-3 (KJV) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

That's why we need a Savior.

No argument there. But it is and was a choice. If the life of Jesus here on earth showed us nothing else, it showed us that doing the right thing is a choice. He was "One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15). He wasn't externally prevented from sinning; rather He decided, he chose, to not sin.

 

[JIM]

Matthew 23:37~"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

The question is asked, Do not these words show that the Saviour acknowledged the defeat of His mission, that as a people the Jews resisted all His gracious overtures toward them? In replying to this question, it should first be pointed out that our Lord is here referring not so much to His own mission as He is upbraiding the Jews for having in all ages rejected His grace-this is clear from His reference to the "prophets." The Old Testament bears full witness of how graciously and patiently Jehovah dealt with His people, and with what extreme obstinacy, from first to last, they refused to be "gathered" unto Him, and how in the end He abandoned them to follow their own devices, yet, as the same Scriptures declare, the counsel of God was not frustrated by their wickedness, for it had been foretold (and therefore, decreed) by Him: see, for example, 1st Kings 8:33.

Matthew 23:37 may well be compared with Isaiah 65:2 where the Lord says, "I have spread out My hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts." But, it may be asked, Did God seek to do that which was in opposition to His own eternal purpose? In words borrowed from Calvin we reply, "Though to our apprehension the will of God is manifold and various, yet He does not in Himself will things at variance with each other, but astonishes our faculties with His various and 'manifold' wisdom, according to the expression of Paul, till we shall be enabled to understand that He mysteriously wills what now seems contrary to His will." As a further illustration of the same principle we would refer the reader to Isaiah 5:1-4: "Now will I sing to my well Beloved a song of my Beloved touching His vineyard. My well Beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: And He fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and He looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt Me and My vineyard. What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, it brought forth wild grapes?" Is it not plain from this language that God reckoned Himself to have done enough for Israel to warrant an expectation-speaking after the manner of men-of better returns? Yet, is it not equally evident when Jehovah says here "He looked that it should bring forth grapes" that He is accommodating Himself to a form of finite expression? And, so also when He says "What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it?" we need to take note that in the previous enumeration of what He had done-the "fencing" etc.-He refers only to external privileges, means, and opportunities, which had been bestowed upon Israel, for, of course, He could even then have taken away from them their stony heart and given them a new heart, even a heart of flesh, had He so pleased.

Perhaps we should link up with Christ's lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37, His tears over the City, recorded in Luke 19:41: "He beheld the city, and wept over it." In the verses which immediately follow we learn what it was that occasioned His tears: "Saying, if thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side." It was the prospect of the fearful judgement which Christ knew was impending. But did those tears make manifest a disappointed God? Nay, verily. Instead, they displayed a perfect Man. The Man Christ Jesus was no emotionless stoic, but One "filled with compassion." Those tears expressed the sinless sympathies of His real and pure humanity. Had He not "wept" He had been less than human. Those "tears" were one of many proofs that "in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren" (Heb. 2:17). Also, we would add, if he had not desire for all men to come unto him, then he would have not been both God and man in one body of flesh! (much of this was taken from one of the greatest little books on the sovereignty of God ever written by A. W. Pink published by Baker house...not the one by Banner of Truth)

Romans 10:20,21​

“But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

Jim, in verse 21 we see what is the result, when God employs only outward means to lead men to obedience, and does not accompany them with the influence of His efficacious grace as he does in verse 20! Where he manifest himself to those who do not ask after him nor seek him! Verse twenty of Romans 10 should help you see the truth concerning verse 21!

Obedience is, by definition, a choice.

 

[Red Baker]

Obedience is, by definition, a choice.

Both obedience and disobedience is by choice~BUT both are done by the nature each possess.

Matthew 7:17-20~"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Do I need to spend time here?

 

[Red Baker]

But unlike the Calvinist concept of election, the election of Trump was clearly a function of who Trump was, his views, and his actions. The election of Trump was clearly about Trump as the electee. But most importantly, those who chose Trump chose him for what they thought he will do in the future.

And from Calvinism, none of that had anything to do with the individual. God could have saved them all; but instead, according to you, He intentionally and for His own glory, abandoned most of humanity to the wiles of Satan. Certainly not the God that I believe in.

Maybe C.H. Spurgeon could tell us why God purposely created most of mankind for sole purpose of eternal condemnation. Particularly when all He had to do was to choose all of them.

Just as those who chose Trump chose him for what they think he will do in the future. In the case of God's choosing us, He did so not just thinking what we will do in the future; rather, He did so knowing beforehand what we would do. By his foreknowledge, He knew who would love Him (Rom 8:28-29). Those are the ones he predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. Not just Paul, but Peter also declared that our election was based upon God's foreknowledge (1 Pet 1:1-2).

Later....RB

 

[JIM]

Both obedience and disobedience is by choice~BUT both are done by the nature each possess.



Do I need to spend time here?

Perhaps you should back up a couple of verses and begin with verse 15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves". It is they, the false prophets, not the ordinary man on the street that is being addressed in Matthew 7:15-20.

And perhaps back even more to verses 12-14 where it is pretty clear that it is a choice to enter by the narrow gate.

 

[Red Baker]

Perhaps you should back up a couple of verses and begin with verse 15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves". It is they, the false prophets, not the ordinary man on the street that is being addressed in Matthew 7:15-20.

Jim, I can back up all the way to Genesis, that proves a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, impossible! The flesh, or natural men unregenerate, void of the Spirit of God, are not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Romans 8:7​

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”

Is the testimony of the scriptures from the beginning to the end, go where you desire to go, and the same truth are found therein, if interpreted correctly.

And perhaps back even more to verses 12-14 where it is pretty clear that it is a choice to enter by the narrow gate.

Jim, you are presenting a Straw man, when no one is arguing that it is not a choice to enter the narrow gate and walk the narrow path~but, as I said above, only those men whom God freely quickens to life would ever desire to do this. Enough on this point.