Ever heard of the judgment of charity? Are you suggesting that Calvinism posits that elect people have red E's on their forehead and that they should not take people's profession of faith seriously and treat them as if what they professed was not true of them? You can't be serious.
What I said was that no one could introspectively know who has real saving faith and who doesn’t, and that it follows from that that no one can be sure whether the promises of God apply to them or not. I also said that this may or may not be a problem for Calvinism, a statement you overlooked completely, so far as I can tell. (That wouldn’t have even taken charity, just reading). What you are saying, I take it, is that you agree that these passages should be read with suppressed election clauses, and that in fact it would be absurd to take them otherwise. Strictly speaking, we haven’t gotten to a disagreement yet.
James 1: 2,3 So you believe that people can have saving faith and then lose it? And you believe that the testing of some people's faith does not develop perseverance.
What the verse says is that “you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.” But if Calvinism is true, no one can know whether they might not lose their faith and become a reprobate (reflecting, of course, God’s decision before the foundation of the world to withhold saving grace from them), and therefore nobody knows whether the testing of their faith will develop perseverance or not. An Arminian can understand this as implying that the perseverance will occur if the believer freely consents. Some crises of faith, as you know, have ended in disaster.
1 Cor 10:13 So why did the people you mention leave the church? If it was to all of them regardless, why did they get tempted and leave?
Again, read the verse. It says ”And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.”
It says can, not will. There is a way of escape and they can take it. But not every believer successfully resists temptation. It looks like libertarian free will is the only explanation that can reconcile this passage with the facts. (Calvinists keep asking for a biblical text for LFW, I think I've got one). If Calvinism is true, then given God’s plan before the foundation of the world, Ted Haggard could not have avoided committing the sins he committed. There was no way of escape, and it was more than he could bear.
Heb 13:5,6 Guess God didn't help them to not leave the church. If a crafty non-believer got them to deny Christ, guess they should fear what some men can do to them.
The passage says that God will not forsake us, it does not say that we will not forsake God.
Rom 5:3-5 Sucks that Jesus had to die for people that will leave the church and go to hell to pay for sins Jesus paid for. Or maybe we'll just give the atonement a makeover so natural man will not find it an offense but would find it the most reasonable thing ever.
To me, it sucks to go through life not being absolutely sure whether Jesus died for me or not.
The point I was making is that for every New Testament promise, there is room for doubt on the part of any believer as to whether that promise applies to that believer or not. Is this a disastrous consequence for Calvinism? You tell me. But that is the argument I was making. No more, no less.