Scripturally,not just logically.
As far as predetermining, some Calvinists do and some do not. I assume you are knowledgeable about lapsarianism, infralapsarianism, and supralapsarianism? I would fall into the suprlapsarian camp; God sovereignly chooses those whom He will save and those whom He will not.
Call it what you will. I don’t limit the definition of “hyper-Calvinism” to whether the Determinist admits or not they preach a message of salvation to all or not. Believing in strict determinism amounts to a belief that some men have no hope because they not specially pre-selected to be predestined unto salvation.
In order to “truthfully” preach a gospel with such an understanding the Calvinist would have to include the possibility of no hope in his message. Otherwise he is like a parent who is putting his child to bed who lies to him, telling him that Jesus loves him, when instead he should be telling his child that hopes he is one of the specially pre-selected few.
I find no credibility in one claiming he is not a hyper-Calvinist based on that he holds back, or outright lies about the deterministic factors he believes are behind the ability for one to actually accept that offer. It is like walking into a room full of people and preaching supposedly “good news” to all while knowing it is only “true” for a specially pre-selected few. Deceit does not excuse the Calvinist from my definition of hyper-determinism.
It is the Gospel that is genuine and free, not every person's ability to respond.
Why not be “genuine” yourself then and include that inability aspect in your message? It is amazing to me that the Calvinist takes his ideas of genuineness and relates that to the attributes of a Loving, Merciful, Gracious and Holy God who has declared unto the world a “sincere” message of hope for all. I see a huge difference between the Nature in which God delivers the “Good News” to the creatures in world He created and that of the nature of the Calvinists’ message, thankfully!
Men are sinners for two reasons. 1. They are born in sin (original sin). 2. They sin. What you are missing in your appeal to the "genuine opportunity" is that all men are not given a genuine opportunity according to your definition. What do you say to the tribal person who will never hear the Gospel in his/her lifetime? If you say that God will judge them on the light that they live up to then you have emasculated Rom. 1:16.
I have nothing to be ashamed of when preaching as “I” have nothing to hide when preaching the Gospel (i.e. determinism).
Of course, you can go the route of Clark Pinnock's Open Theism, but I pray to God you do not advocate that teaching.
I hope you are not under the illsuion that these types of replies are logical, because it seems that way.
Your fallacious attempt to form a “false dilemma” of Open Theism and added fallacious rhetorical ploy of “argument from sympathy” is noted and considered not only “begging the question” but disingenuous in that I believe you know better than to make that accusation, FWIW.
Man's ability or inability does not nullify the commands of God. The command is there, "Be holy as I am holy." Can every person be holy? No. Are they commanded to be holy? Yes. Acts 17:30 calls on all men everywhere to repent. Will all repent? No. Are they exonerated if they do not repent? No. God judges the sinner not on his ability or inability but on the fact that they are sinners. Man is a sinner by nature as well as choice. Rom. 9:22 posits the idea that God tolerates the condemned for the sake of the elect.
Once again you have avoided my premise concerning the “truth” that all God’s ways are judgment in truth and are just. Rom 9:22 in no way discards or takes away from the truth of Deut 32:4:
You need to make up your mind:
Either (A) God has sovereignly pre-determined the choice of man whereby he can not do other than he was predestined…The offer is not real.
Or (B) God sovereignly designed men with the volition to respond and to be responsible for their actions...The offer is genuine.
If (A) Please explain how it can be “truth” that all God’s ways are judgment if it is true that are all men are pre-determined to respond as He precisely programmed them? How does God judge His creatures based on what He Himself is responsible for? How is His gracious offer of mercy genuinely applicable in “truth” before judgment if it is only through sovereign determinate action placed upon the creature according to the Calvinist/Determinist Doctrines of the as projected by the TULIP?
If (B) Free will should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose; one can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition logically becomes void.
(B) Is the only way that God’s judgment is in truth and just. Duet 32:4 is clear and there is no logical way the Doctrine of Pre-selected Deterministic Grace/Calvinism can can hold to that “truth”.
Concerning Deut 32:4 the Determinist Doctrines of Pre-selected Grace do not have a leg to stand on because they cannot maintain truth in God's judgment being His way because all points of the TULIP simply and logically deny the creature's responsibility.
This is simply a theological fact. But I feel compelled to bring it down to a practical level.
Your "fact" amounts to nothing more than question begging and your “level of practicality” is filled with non-discloser (of which another word for that kind message is “deceit”), nor is it logic.
When I preach I do not say to the congregation, "This message is only for God's elect. The rest of you tune out." I echo the words of Paul, "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5:20). Calvinist preachers do not worry about who the elect are, they are consumed with preaching the message that calls the elect.
Why not speak the “whole truth” then? Are you ashamed??? (Rom 1:16)
Obviously I disagree, but your response is logical given your assumption.
“Logic” philosophically speaking, is a science to draw out the truth in a matter and since you have not shown my "assumption" to be incorrect your disagreement has no leg to stand on.
I already explained what I logically believe.
Your “logic” has failed to show any validity in refuting my claim whatsoever as far as I can see.
Do you know where your theology leads you? It leads you to a limited God who cooperates with man in salvation. It is the doctrine of semi-Pelagianism.
Another futile fallacious attempt? Only this time to form a “false dilemma” of Semi-Pelagianism?!? Again, FWIW, these types of fallacious rhetorical ploys are merely seen by me as a disingenuous attempt to begin down the road of a strawman and to avoid the claims and issues in the premise at hand.
The rest of your post continues along this vein, and while I appreciate your response, you have already made your point.
Yes indeed, and my point that “all God’s ways are judgment, in truth”, which excludes the determinists’ doctrinal interpretations of inability, stands un-refuted by any truly logical means.
I also appreciate your response, but the vien of your posts seem to be requiring me to continually break out the nets to get you to directly address the premise with some credible logic.
Blessing to you.
