HOW can the offer of the Gospel be "genuine and real" in reformed/calvinistic theology, when Jesus Christ is said to have Died only for the elect? The ONLY way that the offer can be "genuine and real", is if Jesus also Died for the so called non elect.
You have to remember a couple of things:
1. Not everyone even hears the gospel. This has been pointed out to you on this thread. Those that don't hear the gospel don't respond and are lost. So the "fairness" issue is something universal atonement people have to deal with anyway.
2. There is NO case where someone in scripture responds to the gospel and is turned away because Christ didn't die for them. So if I say that all the non elect reject the gospel and the elect don't you cannot refute that - because it looks the same whether you are a limited or universal atonement believer.
3. There are timing issues that men cannot explain involving God's eternal decrees, the atonement and men's response.
4. There are verses in scripture that indicate God wants everyone to be saved. There are also verses that explain he has chosen not to do that. If we try to over emphasize one doctrine over the other we have to twist words and meaning of scripture.
5. All these doctrinal positions from yours to the hyper-Calvinists can be logically arrived at using scriptures we have available. Clearly, we are in over our heads trying to figure out God.
Basically, Calvinists want to honor God and give him all the glory for anyone being saved. Sometimes I think some of them go to far with their logical conclusions.
Most non Calvinists honestly want to protect God's honor too. They see reformed doctrine as making God unloving or even cruel. I understand that.
But if you are viewing this as an issue that God owes man some kind of fair chance or equal opportunity because man is not all that bad and God owes us something you are on very dangerous ground. Every Calvinist of any kind will be upset over that view and so should every good General Baptist or classic Arminian.
SBG, it would be helpful if you would explain your reasoning - which of the two above describe you?