“he word for “know” or “knew” is the Greek word ginosko which means “to learn to know” or “come to know.”
Strong’s Greek dictionary declares that the meaning in general means Know, perceive, to be aware of, to understand, etc. The obvious meaning being that Christ knows His sheep, and does not come to know His sheep, as if He did not know about them from before the foundation of the world, which is clearly taught in other places. You basically deny your own argument of foreknowledge.
Furthermore, I did not actually argue against God’s general foreknowledge of all things. But used it to prove the difference between the Sheep of God, whom God is said to know, and the reprobate, whom God is said to have “never” known, and thus were strangers to His grace and adoption. Though this only in the sense off familial adoption, and not of His knowing all things, since in other places it is plainly declared that they were known and fitted to destruction from the very beginning.
“The key to this verse is knowing that the Greek words for “come” (as in “shall come to me”) and “cometh” (as in “him that commeth to me”) are different.”
An absurd little statement, and one you must know is also absurd, since you did not touch upon what it means that “all that the Father gives,” do come to the Son, and in the latter verse which declares that it was not given by the Father to the unbelieving Jews. That “coming” in this context means “to believe” is obvious, because Christ says ‘There are some of you that believe not.” And he goes on, ‘Therefore I said unto you, no man can COME unto me unless it is given by the Father.” Thus to come is to believe, and all those who receive it from the Father do believe. And those who do not receive it from the Father, do not believe.
So your argument collapses in on itself due to its own omissions.
“This is AFTER a person has made a commitment for Jesus, not before.”
And this you say without any scriptural proof, denying outright the scriptures which say that no man can call Jesus Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. And in another place, that it is not flesh and blood which revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Christ, but our Father who is in heaven.
Thus the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ comes from God, and all those who learn of the Father do inevitably come to the Son.
You also deny the scripture which says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”(Joh 15:16)
Thus, we can only conclude that our choosing Christ is utterly dependent on Christ choosing us, and not for any good that He foresaw in our future, but for the purpose that we do good.
“They aren’t sheep because they didn’t believe at that point. Nobody is Jesus’s sheep until they believe. The verse doesn’t prove what you think it does.”
Again, you deny the foreknowledge of God, even after using it to explain away such passages. Because if God foreknows His sheep, certainly they must all be His sheep, from His standpoint, from before the foundation of the world, though in time they have not yet been brought forward.
If what you say is true, Christ has no sheep from before the world began, since no one has yet to believe, and Christ’s declaration that they do not believe because they are not His sheep is completely nonsensical, since to not be the sheep is a natural condition, and cannot be an explanation for why they do not believe.
It only makes sense is God both foreknows and predestinates His sheep, so that they are Sheep by His divine grace, and the others are not sheep because He passed them by, leaving them to be “the children of disobedience” and of the devil.
“Christ, but it most certainly doesn’t say that not all people are led to Christ or given a chance to believe.”
You deny the obvious and don’t even attempt to explain the passage in a way that makes sense for your world view. It is self-evident that they do not believe because it was not given to them to believe. What other reason is there to say “you do not believe... therefore I said unto you, no man can come unto me unless it is given by my Father?” According to you, it WAS given to them. So why explain their unbelief with something, you say, doesn’t explain it?
“That verse still doesn’t say anything which would contradict that all people have a chance at salvation. All it illustrates is Christ prayed for different things at different times.”
The passage and, indeed, that entire chapter, most certainly limit salvation to those who are “given by the Father to the Son.” And, certainly, differentiates between those who are given, and those who are not given, as otherwise the whole world is “given.” And as for the claim that only the Apostles are given, in other places Christ plainly declares that He has sheep elsewhere, which He must shortly gather together. So all the sheep of God are those who have been given by the Father to the Son, and all of them must be gathered and will be gathered, with none left behind.
“Verse 30 is expanding on the last part of 29 which talks about those who chose God or the “first born amoung the brethern.” So if you accept Christ THEN you are justified, and glorified.”
This is barely coherent, since you don’t explain why God is said to infallibly justify and glorify all that He calls. Nowhere between verse 29 and 30 is there a phrase which says “and of those who accepted it, or were foreknown to accept it, were called, justified, and glorified.” It simply says that all whom God predestinated and calls are justified and glorified.
“Paul was talking about the difference between Jews and Gentiles. Before Jesus, the Jews had a unique relationship with God, but after Jesus, ALL have the same opportunity for a relationship with God.”
But notice you do not even attempt from the scripture to explain how it is in reference to Jews and Gentiles as groups, even though the immediate context is of the Jews, the seed of Abraham, differentiated between Abraham’s children of the flesh, and Abraham’s children of the promise.
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
(Rom 9:7-8)
It is from here that Paul launches into a discussion of the election, of God choosing one over another, according to His own good pleasure.
There are also lots of other inconsistencies with your reading, since you do not even attempt to make a scriptural argument to support your claim, and so you bypass them all without note.
You also ignored all my arguments, and did not even attempt to explain or disprove them. Which, I suspect, is impossible for you to really do in any detailed way, other than by simply asserting that they are wrong.
“Romans 10:13 “WHOSOEVER shall call upon the name of the Lord, SHALL be saved.””
That “whosoever” shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, does not disprove that only those given by the Father can believe in the Son. After all, both are taught in the scripture. The Gospel is offered freely to all, but its effects are not all equal; it is an instrument of power and salvation to those who do believe, who are the elect, and a ‘savour of death unto death” for those who do not believe, seeing as how they reject such a free and easy forgiveness.
You also put forward that thing which I even took the time to correct myself, the idea that God makes it impossible for those who do not receive special revelation to believe. He simply passes them by, as I said, and they do not believe by their own will.
“but after Jesus, ALL have the same opportunity for a relationship with God.”
But notice the suggestion that exists within such statements as these. Was God unrighteous when He did NOT give that same opportunity to the Gentile world prior to Jesus Christ?
Furthermore, that not all have the same OPPORTUNITY is obvious, because Paul got stopped on the road to Damascus by Christ Himself. Others, in our own day, have not seen Christ, nor even heard of Him, and die all day long without having any opportunity at all to believe the Gospel. And this has been true for 2,000 years. Thus your argument is refuted by the simple facts of reality.