I understand what you are saying, but if a Calvinist is going to be fair to the text, Jesus spoke largely in terms of repentance, faith, and action. In other words, Jesus spoke, as he walked the earth, more like an Arminian, as if people actually had the choice to repent and believe. As a result you get things Christ said such as, “You are near to the Kingdom of God.” Here he spoke to a person who was not yet a part, not yet a sheep. He said, “Go to all the earth and make disciples…” not “gather the elect”. Contrasting that, Paul spoke from both perspectives, that of choice and election. But if you are going to be fair to the words of Christ, there were those outside the kingdom, then they would repent, then they were a part of the kingdom. Sure you could argue from a heavenly perspective that they were chosen from the foundations of the world, but we’re talking about the words of Christ, which typically involved choice, repentance, and salvation.
Rev 12:5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne.
The word rule here is the word shepherd here:
Jo 21:26 He *said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He *said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.”
Jesus also told the disciples that there were other sheep of his that were not of that flock (probably referring to gentiles). Once again, read in isolation, you could come to the exclusivist conclusion. But that verse of course does not exist in a vacuum.
Do you need thoughts or the truth? All I am hearing in this thread is speculation, "Well I think…“well I believe” You should never start with I think or I believe.
It means what it says. Jesus clearly says, "only my sheep hear my voice, I know them, they follow me, I give them eternal life and they will never perish. PERIOD. Now trying to prove that this verse supports the doctrine of election is another matter.
Do you want the truth of this verse or some philosophical explanation on how to refute election?
It is true that too many times verses are ripped from it’s passage and somehow given their own context, but you just did the same with “I have this sheep not of this fold”. These are two different verses that contextually have nothing to do with one another other than they share the word ‘sheep’. In the verse you gave, Jesus was directing it to the Jews about about the Gentiles being a part of the kingdom (please note: a Gentile was present) and in the aforementioned verse, Jesus is addressing Jews in a revealing way of how God works (please note: No Gentile was present)
That’s just silly. You can’t come to the bible without “having thoughts”. God gave us a brain. We need that brain to read the bible and interact with it. “Come let us reason together”. Are you really saying that people shouldn’t think when reading the bible? Every book you have ever read about scripture contains man’s thoughts. Every sermon you’ve ever heard contains man’s thoughts on the bible. Every conversations you’ve ever had with a brother or sister about the Lord contains man’s thoughts.
As a Calvinist I agree dirtboy, but we can only make a commitment to Jesus Christ and repent of our sins until God supernaturally changes our hearts towards Him.
This beautiful verse is clear. Jesus said (paraphrasing), if you were my sheep then you would follow me, but since you don’t follow me then you are not my sheep. Jesus was not telling them they were not or never will be His “elect”. He was merely telling them that the Holy Spirit hasn’t drawn them.
In John 3: 7-8 "Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wwhere it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
You misunderstand me my friend. I said, we should never start with “I think” or “I believe” because no one can care less what I think or what I believe. What we should care about is the truth of the interpretation.
God gave everyone brains, but He didn’t give everyone the gift of interpretation
Hello Oxy,
Haven’t seen you around for awhile – welcome back!
God has the truth – what I’m looking for are what others thoughts are about that truth. I know what I think the truth is … but I am not under the delusion that my idea about the truth is unquestionably the truth.
Agreed.
Also agreed. 
And actually, I believe in election of a chosen people, called out to be a royal priesthood.
Neither, quite. My friend has a different understanding than me of what the truth of this verse implies … what I was looking for is input on how – scripturally – to explain my viewpoint that this verse does not rule out the possibility that the “not flock” will someday be “flock”. And I was opening the floor for other people to express perspectives and understandings that I may not have thought of.
I still mean to get back to this, but have been busy with other things.
Sonia
I am a Calvinist and I agree with dirtboy.
Paul was an object of “honor”? I don’t know what that means nor do I nor Paul think he should be honored?
Paul showed himself through his perseverance till death as one of the elect, and the bible is clear in Ephesians 1:4 4 "even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
Thank you!! 
Interesting. I would like to here you expound on this
Basically, the idea is that God has elected a chosen people as a “holy nation, a royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2) for salvation in this age. Just as the nation of Israel was chosen out that “all the nations of the world would be blessed” through them, so it is with the Church – we are saved and called out for the purpose of the ministry of reconciliation. We are a nation of priests, ministering under and with our High Priest, offering spiritual sacrifices for the people, revealing God to them, calling them to worship. We are a nation of kings, ruling under and with our High King, in God’s upside down kingdom where the greatest One is the servant of all, where love is the highest order, and the One who lays down his life for his brethren receives the highest honor and the Name above all names – and calls us who would follow Him to do the same.
The appointed feasts of the Jews are a picture, in one year, of the plan of God. The called and chosen are the firstfruits – the early harvest of spring … the main harvest comes at the end of the year, in the fall, when everything is gathered in.
This doesn’t rule out an ET paradigm – the question remains, what is the nature and purpose of judgment and punishment? From the UR perspective, we will fully succeed in our mission to present every man complete in Christ, and not only that but to demonstrate the wisdom of God to the spiritual powers as well, so that all will see and appreciate the goodness of God, and glorify Him with their love and obedience.
That’s my understanding, in summary – a lot more could be said.
Sonia
Do you mean “until”, or “after”. I don’t quite understand how one can only make a repentant commitment to Yeshua until (“up to”) Yahweh changes their heart. 
Object of honour – vessel4632 of honour. Apologies if my poor choice of words confused you. (Though ***skeuos ***4632 can be translated “object”, as it is done a couple of times in the NAS.)
Are you saying that you can become the elect. According to Calvin anyway, some are foreordained to belief, strength, renewal and eternal life. Others to eternal conscious torment. You either always were or you always weren’t. Or are you saying that the Holy Spirit meaningfully draws those who aren’t the elect?
Would you be able to sketch out what you believe in regards to election? Thanks brother.