No that is not true Scott. It's a timing issue. The gospel was brought to the Jews first then to the Gentiles. I'm not trying to argue that their is a different means to their salvation or that Christ didn't provide salvation for them all, just that he deals with them differently due to the fact that Israel is hardened for the purpose if ingrafting the Gentiles.
"The gospel is the power of God unto Salvation for everyone who believes, first for the Jews then for the Gentiles."
Scott, what you are failing to see is that the "mystery" of the gospel that is referred to numerous times throughout the scripture is the fact that God was now allowing Gentiles entrance into the Kingdom. This was a major issue that everyone and their dog was talking about. This was the center of their debates, struggles and their joy. We take it for granted now that Salvation is for both Jews and Gentiles, but to them it would have been like in modern day a doctor announcing that men can now birth babies, it was unheard of and caused all kinds of turmoil and excitement in the first century.
So, for Christ to speak to the Jews in this manner would not have been assumed to be applicable to all believers. The Jews were a unique group of people who were in the process of being hardened. How can that fact not affect how we understand Jesus' words to them in John 6?
Scott, the Remnant are Jews who were not hardened as seen very clearly in Romans 11. Jesus is speaking to Jews in this text. How does those facts not imply that the Remnant are those he is speaking about in this text?
"Christ died for all." How do Calvinists interpret that phrase? They say, "This phrase has the audience in focus and would mean "all of you," referring to the elect.
The same principle is being applied here. "No one" could simply mean, "No one of you" can come to me. As Jesus is addressing Israel some of which are hardened, some of which are not. And on top of that he has only chosen 12 to learn directly from him so as to receive Apostolic Authority. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that most of his crowd wasn't enabled to come to him either because they were hardened or because they were not selected to be one of his apostles. That is very reasonable, and quite probable if you are honest with this text.
Scott, this is simple hermeneutics. Who is his audience and what is the historical context? The text should not have the burden of having to say, "No one of you Jews," any reasonable reader of the text can see that he is speaking to Jews and that when he says, "no one" that he may very well be referring to them, especially in light of the historical context in which these words were being spoken. Jews were being hardened for the ingrafting process and Jesus was divinely appointing and training apostles to usher in the church age.
Again, I am not being unreasonable in my interpretation, I think you have just been so use to reading the text without even considering who and what the author might be referring to that you can't bear someone telling you that you may have had it wrong all these years. (I know because I've been there)
I think if you will view the text with an open mind and with sincere objectivity you will see that my interpretation is very likely correct.
The fact that you have drawn these ludicous conclusions from what I have stated proves that you either don't understand my view, or you don't know how to deal with my actual arguments so you falsely attribute absurd conclusions that have nothing to with my claims in order to dismiss them. I don't believe there are different "means" of Salvation in the way you assert nor do I believe that there is more than one resurrection of the saints.
Were you saved in the same manner as Paul or any of the apostles were saved? Of course not. They were unique and divinely called and gifted to carry the message of Christ's infalliable word. To take everything that was said to them and apply to us in the same manner is poor hemeneutics and poor theology.
Scott, you are just so use to your method of interpreting the text you wouldn't know good hermeneutics if they bit you on the nose. Knowing context, audience and issues of the text is not "twisting and distorting," but ignoring these facts does lead to false conclusions.
Again, the fact that you point out these issue proves you don't understand my point. I realize that terminology and the effects of salvation are shared with all believers, present and future. My point is the fact that when the terminology is being used in this context that at times Christ may be speaking about a unique situation.
Let me give you an example. When Jesus says to his apostles, "You will do signs and wonders even greater than these." Did he mean that all future believers would be able to do miraclous signs? I don't think so, do you?
This is my point. We must understand the text in context. The context of Israel's hardening is significant when interpreting Christ's words concerning man's ability or lack thereof, especially when his audience is Israel.
So you say. Scott, honestly I was surprised that you admitted that even "some" of the passages are unique to Israel seeing how unobjective you are dealing with these texts in order to support your viewpoint. Your bias, to win this argument, to prove Calvinism and to save face is keeping you from objectively reading these texts in light of their intended context.
Once again, the fact that you even make this comment, as if I don't agree with it, proves either your complete lack of understanding or your creation of a straw man for you to destroy while the real issues go unaddressed. Do you actually think I don't believe that Christ is God's salvation to all people? Get real. Let's deal with the issues Scott.
