No, God WILL NOT save him without his consent. It is called LOVE, and true loved is never forced on someone who doesn't want it. And conversion is gauranteed because GOD SAID SO!!

"Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out"
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou SHALT be saved"

How else will God Gaurantee our salvation?

"Draw nigh unto God, and he will draw nigh unto you"

Remember when the desciples asked Jesus to increase their faith, he said "if ye had faith..." There is never any indication that our faith is increased.

It's like someone saying " the dump trunk threw up into the air the dirt from his container"

The very word Dump doesn't mean to throw up into the air.
And Baptise doesn't mean "to sprinkle"

It's amazing how much God is supreme in the life of the Calvinist, except when it comes to the words God chose to put in His Book.

Abigail - you are right. It is interesting that the mind is at enmity with God, but not dead. It was Paul who, when struggling with the flesh, ended up realinzing that the way to victory over the flesh was a changed mind. He said in Romans 7:25
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
And also in Romans 12:2 it says
And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed, by the renewing of your mind...

Although both cases were dealing tiwh saved people, the very word Repent has the meaning to Change your Mind, or simply, Agree with God.

As with the Prodigal, some dispute the fact that he was saved or backslidden. Some, even like James Vernon McGee (if I remember correctly. Please don't quote me on this), believed the prodigal was lost. Although I am ashamed to say I don't recall their reasoning.

However, I totally agree that repentance must come before salvation.
I guess the continuing priciple is God is Holy, and we are not. Because of this, the guilt is on man, and it is man's responsibility to come to God for forgiviness. And to this God says, "...and those who come to me, I will in no wise cast out"
And another passage, although in context dealing with the relationship of Father and Son, says "Draw nigh unto god, and he will draw nigh unto you."
This order is backward from what the Calvinist would say. It seems like here man is the initiater (sp.?).

I already addressed this, which I believe is taught in principle with David, and also with the children of Israel when those under 20 were allowed to enter the promised land, eventhough those above were not. God obviously shows distinction in accountablilty.

One question though...
Why is it acceptable to draw principles from Confessions, and treat them as if they are nearly equal to Scripture, but it is not acceptable to draw very plain principle from Scripture alone? It only seems to me to be a little bit of a double standard.

I agree with JD on most everything, but I don't know what his position is on this, seeing I haven't read what he says, or why he believes the way he does.

One thing about Dispensationalism:

"Yamil, you are faced with a great dilemma. How oft then was Christ's death in vain? And His precious blood spilt for naught?"

Where does it say that Christ's death would not be in vain in some instances?
Actually, "Christ's death, according to your logic, was in vain because of all of those who God would not save.
are you forgetting that the OT sacrifice was applicable to Israel and the stranger that was in the land, IF THEY WOULD BELIEVE?
Something is not made vain if it is offered to everyone, but only some accept it, because how much worth is on one soul? But, something is vain if it is offered, yet some can not accept it. The death of Christ was not in vain because even those who would not accept it, are guilty, and are without excuse because they could have been redeemed, but they loved their sin, and would not!

I think the calvinistic position has problems due to the fact that man is trying to put a finite mind around an infinite God.

"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

No, not everyone is saved, and I appologize for not clarifying. What I was trying to show was If by one Man sin entered into the word, and it did, Paul was drawing a corrolation with the second Adam, who's death was for all, so that life could be for all. The problem is man's free will, which caused the Holy Spirit to use the word "many" and not "all" in Romans 5 in speaking to who would be saved.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
5:6
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

What is amazing to me is all of the "protestors" who helped Rome murdered baptists.

It was Luther who said:
"...they (Anabaptists) are not only blasphemous but also seditious men, let the sword exercise its rights over them. For it is the will of God, that he shall have judgement who resistith the power." (Arthur B. Strickland, Roger WIlliams (Boston: The Judson Press, 1919) p.72 ) Obviously he did not know the will of God!!!

And it was John Clark Ridpath, Methodist Historian, who stated:
"I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as 100 A.D., although without doubt there were Baptist churches then, as all Christians were Baptists.
-W.A. Jarrell, Baptist Church Perpetuity or History(Dallas, TX: By the Author, 1894)
Quote taken from "The Coming Destruction of the Baptist People"
James A. Beller, 2005.