Pilgrim,

Please don't be frustrated with me. I am not purposely being thick headed. I just do not understand your linkings here. Like AC, you seem to be affirming premise A which rejecting premise B.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim
(A) Those who have been predestined to salvation will infallibly repent and believe because the Holy Spirit regenerates their dead soul and enables them to comprehend the Gospel. This new nature is predisposed to hate sin and love God and all that is good, which is antithetical to a person's natural condition.

It sounds like you are providing an explanation as to why premise A is true, which is the core definition of predestination according to Calvinism. It is from this definition that I formulated the first premise, so no issues here.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim
(B) The minister's bringing of the Gospel is an integral part of the means which God has ordained to save the elect. I've briefly mentioned this in my first response to you. Again, God has ordained the means as well as the end.

Now here you are denying premise B. And since I'm such a great writer ;P I'll quote myself...
Originally Posted by KentDMc
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.