Featured Some Clarification On C.H.S's Calvinism

People hated "Calvinism" from the time when Jesus first taught it.

John 6:65–66

And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. (ESV)

 

"He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11 Calvinism denied in the Gospels
"O Jerusalem Jerusalem..How I WANTED ... but YOU would not" Matthew 23. Calvinism denied
"every branch IN ME that does not bear fruit is pruned and if no fruit then cast away" John 15 Calvinism denied in the Gospels

"we BEG you on behalf of Christ BE reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5 - Calvinism denied by the NT church

"I STAND at the door and KNOCK if anyone hears my voice AND OPENS the door - I WILL come in" Rev 3 -- Calvinism denied by John

". 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" John 6:44
"I will DRAW ALL mankind unto Me" John 12:32 -- Calvinism denied in the Gospels

 

Context is key my brother! This is a historical narrative. Christ is talking to people that would have been under the Old Covenant--they would have--potentially--been following Yahweh. This is literally a transfer of ownership from The Father to the Son. Those who were rejecting Yahweh would reject His Son (See parables about the servants killing the Husbandman's Son). Those who have received and believed Yahweh also receive and believe the Son. Nobody could come to the Son unless the Father (because of their regenerated hearts) led him--as a Shepherd. That is why Christ kept saying, "I and the Father are One." "If you reject the Son you have rejected the Father because we are One." The Father would "Draw" those who were following Him towards Christ.

 

NONE of those quoted passages would be denying it.....
You are just reading into them your own erroneous "free will" salvation ....

 

Your off topic post with failed proof text does not speak to the O.P.

 

The Father draws All He gave to the Son in the Covenant of Redemption before the world was.
Not all were given....not all were drawn.
Not all drawn would be from Israel....but worldwide.
The context cannot be limited by Jewish lack of understanding.

 

Proper hermeneutics demands the background I just posted brother.

 

“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” is no more historical narrative than John 3:16 is.

You're going to have to try a bit harder.

 

Look bro, you can Eisegete the text with your theology or you can let the text speak for itself. This is a historical narrative with implications to the audience of the story.

 

"Jesus walked down the road" is historical narrative. You are the one getting "creative" with the text. I'm reading it plainly.

 

I would not say i'm being creative, and if you would just listen to what i'm saying, you would come to the same conclusion. Christ is saying, "If you listened to my Father, you would have listened to me." This is the canonical reality of Christ's rebuke to the spiritual rebels in the Gospels, ie. Pharisees, saducees, scribes...etc.

And we know, the Pharisees would say, "We do listen to the Father and accept the Father," And Christ is saying, "Nope, because if you accepted the Father, you would have Accepted ME as well." And His Declaration is, "You can't come to me unless the Father draws you," is one to the audience He is speaking with for a particular reason.

This Man shows up on the scene and says He is One with the Heavenly Father. And Those who are "Already Believing on Yahweh" will be "Drawn to the Son" because they are The Same God! It's really not that complicated, you just have to have Ears to hear my brother.

 

Hello Jon.....isa54....modifies and gives biblical context to this narrative portion. The work of the Servant of the Lord is being accomplished right before their unbelieving eyes....The Covenant is in view....and that being worldwide...lengthen the cord...strengthen the stakes..

 

If we are going to be textual, we must focus on the implications for the audience in context. A historical narrative demands we understand some background information and realize that something is happening in time and space.

Do you Take 2 Chronicles 7:14 as some thing we should desire for America? Or do you believe the audience at hand is being addressed in a particular way?

 

If you eliminate us as the secondary audience in this instance, you make the entire Bible irrelevant.

 

All of the Bible based upon your framework would be a historical narrative though, as God was just describing things to us from a certain time and space, at a a certain time, to a specific audience, correct?

 

That's not what i'm doing. Proper hermeneutics says, "What did it mean for them, then" so that we can properly understand, "What it means for us, now." Do you live out 2 Chronicles 7:14 identically to the original audience? Can we?

 

We Reformed folks, better than most, understand that the proper way to interpret the scriptures is to understand what the original audience would have heard and what the author intended for them to hear; however, in this case (and many others) the meaning is identical.

This is didactic teaching; "No one", not, "you guys".

 

Ok, Brian

 

Well, it is important to understand the text's historical context, correct?