God foreknew Tyre, Sidon and Sodom's free choice NOT TO REPENT in the case of His non-performance of such Miracles;
AND
God foreknew Tyre, Sidon and Sodom's free choice TO REPENT in the case of His performance of such Miracles;
AND
God CHOSE NOT TO PERFORM these Miracles in Tyre, Sidon and Sodom, a choice which had as its perfectly foreknown result the NON-Repentance unto Damnation of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom -- just exactly as He foreknew would be the certain and determinate result of Creating this particular scenario.
TRUE or FALSE??
What you say which simply restates what Jesus said is of course true. The conclusions you draw are at least partly false.
First, it is always dangerous to base an argument on a, "what if," or rhetoric, which obviously was the case here. If you are a thorough-going Calvinist, the argument you are making contradicts Calvinism. If people are predestined to heaven and hell, or only to heaven and the rest to hell by default, and can only believe if the Holy Spirit quickens them, and only the elect are so quickened, it, would not have made any difference what was done in any city in terms of visible events, appealing only to the natural mind and man. Unless the miracles are accompanied by the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those who see them, their affect will only be hardening, as in Korazin and Bethsaida; but, if the Holy Spirit does His quicken work, no miracles are necessary.
If you are not a Calvinist, you are still drawing a conclusion that was not intended by our Lord. He was obviously berating the citizens of Korazin and Bethsaida for their hardness of heart. These fine citizens were no doubt sure they were righteous and holy people, so Jesus used cities most obviously sinful as an example, to indicate the profound sinfulness of the people of Korazin and Bethsaida that had made their hearts so hard, harder even than the hearts of the wicked of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom.
Nowhere does Jesus say the citizens of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom could not have repented and been saved without the miracles performed in Korazin and Bethsaida, Jesus only said they would have repented if the miracles had been performed there. There are other ways of reaching men with the truth. God could have, and may have used others, which were also rejected.
Why did God not perform the miracles in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom? This passage does not say. To presume it is sheer conjecture. To presume it was so the people of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would not be saved is not even hinted at in this or any other passage.
Since your conclusion is just your reasoning from the evidence, and when more than one conclusion can be drawn form the same evidence, no conclusion can be considered definitive. In this case, the reason the miracles were not performed in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom may have been because God, in his foreknolwedge, had alreay extended to them ample opportunities to repent, which they rejected. God's Spirit will not always strive with men. There is point at which God ceases to reprove. Pr 29:1 He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.
I am not here arguing against any of the views, themselves you have presented, only that you cannot use this passage to prove them.
Hank
What you miss is this: God certainly knew what level of miracles would have bought about repentance in Tyre and Sidon. The fact that they did not repent shows that God did not perform that level of miracles. The fact that they did not repent shows that God withheld from them that which He knew would bring about repentance. The fact that they did not repent shows that God did not utilize any other means, as you suggested, of reaching them with the truth.
In your scheme, God hopelessly reaches out to these men, and fails to persuade them. Your God is too small.