Calvinism

Now he addressed some of my arguments but not all of them(I assume he used 8,000 characters but who knows). Now concerning Total Depravity, my opponent is claiming that if a non-elect person were to beg to God on his knees to not send him to Hell, it wouldnt matter because God would still send him to Hell because God just DID NOT CHOOSE HIM. Sound fair? Further, when God told Adam to not eat from the tree, God was really willing it for Adam to eat from the tree. It wasn't Adam's free will that did it, God willed it to happen and then punished Adam for it afterwards! My opponent also glanced over John 3:16. Why would God say, "that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH" when He already chose the elect before the foundation of the world? It wasn't really "whosoever" if it was JUST the elect, now is it? Ephesians 1:13 says "ye believed" AFTER "ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise. " You BELIEVE FIRST, THEN get saved. John 1:12 says God gave power to "as many as received Him" FIRST. You must receive Him before you get power. Concerning Unconditional Election, Simon Peter said the "elect" were those "sprinkled by the blood of Christ. " That sounds CONDITIONAL to me. You cant get the blood of Christ by being in Christ, but you have to trust Him first(Ephesians 1:13). Election is CONDITIONED upon SALVATION. Now with Limited Atonement, my opponent is going to have to ignore a plethera of verses. Consider 1 Timothy 2:4, [God] "who will have ALL MEN TO BE SAVED. " Verse 6, "Who gave himself a ransom for ALL. " 2 Peter 2:1 says false prophets were BOUGHT by the Lord. To be bought, means God atoned for their sins. Further my opponent quotes verses from Isaiah 53:8 and Matthew 1:21 which concerns THE JEWS NOT GENTILES. Unless my opponent is a Jew, then even he is not one of the elect if the elect are Jews. "His people" is a reference to Jews, not Gentiles. Now my opponent failed to talk about Michael Servetus being burned at the stake by John Calvin. This quote from Arminius hurts him more than helps him. It shows how much nicer Arminius was compared to Calvin who killed people. Arminius never killed anyone and showed respect to his enemy-John Calvin. Further let me mention that John Calvin grew up as a Roman Catholic and kept many of their traditions: infant baptism, transubstantion, the sacraments, amillenial(my opponent is a Baptist and most Baptists are premillenial! ) and killed those who disagreed with him. Jacob Arminius was much more Protestant than Calvin, after all, Arminius rejected the sacraments of the Catholic Church. My opponent says I'm avoiding Hebrews, Romans, and 1 John. Well, let me use them then. 1 John 2:2 I already used earlier. Hebrews 10:29 destroys Limited Atonement. It says, "how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, and HATH COUNTED THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHEREWITH HE WAS SANCTIFIED, AN UNHOLY THING,(God ATONED for his sins), AND HATH DONE DESPITE UNTO THE SPIRIT OF GRACE? There also goes Irrisistable Grace out the window because someone resisted the Spirit of grace. Now the idea of God creating some people to be saved and others not to be saved is BLASPHEMOUS. Calvinism is saying God created some people to be saved and others to ,"Fuel the fires of Hell"(R. C. Sproul- Calvinist). I am not exaggerating one bit. Calvinists admit that man has no free will to receive Christ and God arbitrarily chose some to be saved and others to fuel the fires of Hell. Doesn't this border on the definition of a cult?