Elect means elected/chosen.
Yep, only those (the wheat/believers) that have chosen to keep the faith and not depart from it will be saved when the harvest of the wheat/believers happens at the 2nd coming and the unbelievers/tares will perish.
that is the only meaning i see in the NT
Does that alter its usual meaning in the NT?
You are conflating two different uses in Scripture for "Elect", the one being, at best, analogous or symbolic of the other. What is being discussed here is nothing like the members of the elect nation. In that case, just to clarify, the individual members of that nation were rather obviously not all, "elect according to the foreknowledge of God", in the same way as the Redeemed regenerated are. That the apples have worms is unrelated to whether the oranges are rotten or not.
I think that @1Thess521 's use of "elect" there, was pretty particularly not the same thing as Old Testament Israel's "God's chosen people".
right!!
As also elect unto various things that are particular to believers, such as [true] good works, in keeping with their new status with God.
is it possible that God's Elect unto salvation will not be saved?
Is God's arm too short?
there are those (especially Catholics) who believe that the Elect unto salvation may not be saved.
Why would one need to alter the meaning?
One could just as easily ask if God's arm is too short to save everyone that ever lived.
No kidding.
"Elect unto salvation" is not a phrase used by any NT writer.
Then show me any scripture that say "elect unto salvation" or that "elect means salvation".
To God’s elect,....who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:
Not even nearly. And the self-determinist's notion that Reformed Theology teaches that the Elect's salvation, or, in particular, the Perseverance of the Saints, is "automatic" ("---so why should the believer try to do anything..."), is so full of mistaken [supposed] principles as to suggest a basic misunderstanding of the ways of God and of his power. Their notion is superstitious, in my assessment, with a superstitious take of how God does what he does. They, like the NT fickle Jews, think in terms of sudden great intervention of what would otherwise be natural, ignoring that the Creator is the God of the natural, and that the natural is of his design. (See, I put all that in parenthesis so I can't be accused of departing from the OP).)
Why? If there is none of that particular wording does it mean it is not there? I should think you know better than that.
are you Catholic?
Nope.
