AC,

Thank you for the effort of trying to explain. I'm really enjoying this discussion.

I promise that I'm not intentionally being difficult, but I feel the answers you are giving are self-contradictory.

It is reminding me of the world of physics where the rules of quantum physics and rules of macro physics completely disagree with each other. Yet the physicist is fine with this and just picks whichever set of rules he feels best applies to the situation. I'm not comfortable with a theology that assumes man has no role in salvation when talking theology or personal salvation, but diverts from that when talking about evangelism and missions. Just my thoughts at the moment, no insult intended of course.

But where I would direct you first, AC, is back to my first two premisses.

(A)Calvinism believes that a person is predestined to be saved, regardless of that person's actions or the actions of any other persons.
(B)The action that the minister takes of going to witness to the dying man or not will have no bearing on the man's eternal soul.

You said that (A) is true, but (B) is false. That cannot be because (A) and (B) are the same exact premiss. Premiss (B) is simply an application of premiss (A) to the scenario. It would be similar to if I said: (A) All lies are a sin. (B) Lying on your taxes is a sin. They're either both true or both false.

So if you want to be able to disagree with (B) you must change (A). Agree? And you might be able to do so without deviating from Calvinism, which I think is where this conversation should continue.