Why are Some Saved and Not Others?

[Imalive]

Why are we talking about all this theological nonsense?
Why are some not saved? Who freakin cares! Lets get them saved. Lets have united prayer meetings. Lets go tarry. Lets storm heaven and pray for everyone to get saved and that God revives His church. There will be a bunch thats uncountable according to revelations. The fields are white. Lets pray for harvesters.
Goodness, I feel like a farmer who looks at his field and wonders why it isn't harvested yet. How could that be? Lets have a theological discussion about it.
The whole discussion is nonsense. God does it vs I do also some. I'm supposed to be dead and Christ is supposed to live in me so then He does it all anyway.

 

[user1234]

Why are we talking about all this theological nonsense?
Why are some not saved? Who freakin cares! Lets get them saved. Lets have united prayer meetings. Lets go tarry. Lets storm heaven and pray for everyone to get saved and that God revives His church. There will be a bunch thats uncountable according to revelations. The fields are white. Lets pray for harvesters.
Goodness, I feel like a farmer who looks at his field and wonders why it isn't harvested yet. How could that be? Lets have a theological discussion about it.
The whole discussion is nonsense. God does it vs I do also some. I'm supposed to be dead and Christ is supposed to live in me so then He does it all anyway.

Yeah. I said the same thing many times, both publicly and in private.
It was ignored.
Now, all this time later....but hey,
No matter, I still say it.
I wonder if anyone will take me up on it or include me at all?

I wont apologize any more for believing in Jesus.
I wont apologize any more for not assuming every one is saved, just because theyre on the internet.
I wont apologize any more for offering the gospel and praying for ppl to be saved, if that's what God wants me to do, and I wont apologize for not praying 'the right way' ... I can only pray how I pray and it will just have to do, and if someone wants to block me out and excommunicate me, then maybe they need to take a good look in the mirror at what kind of brother or sister in Christ THEY are.

I'll tell ppl Jesus saves and He saves to the uttermost, He doesnt threaten ppl with being lost after He promises to save them, and thats the good news and thats the bible.

If ppl want to play religious games and have denominational nonsense keep ppl from getting saved, then the bible also says to contend for the faith, and also expose false teaching and practice, so thats part of it, but the main focus is Jesus, His Word, His salvation by Gods grace, and helping ppl to be saved and/or grow in His grace and Word, and if I cant do that here, or have no brother or sister here, or no one who wants that too together, then Im sure the Lord has somewhere for me to do it, bc arguing on the internet with ppl who like to be oppressed and oppress others, or get bogged down in a lot of religious mumbo-jumbo is not productive at all.

Theres a lost and hurting world out there, theres alot of false teaching leading ppl astray, and time keeps ticking.
I have no time for the religious self-righteous, or ppl playing games with the eternal destiny of others.
Too many ppl these days show no grace no mercy no forgiveness and no love, but want to sit on a religious high-horse and judge others personally.

I certainly dont want to be like that any more, the log and the speck, and I refuse to allow myself to be treated that way.
We just were praying this very way on Sunday nights prayer mtg at church, with a surprise guest speaker (a rarity on Sun nite) encouraging us on this very same thing.
Its nice to see someone else here desiring the same thing. Lets see if there are any others.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #13, based upon Fact #1: God wants all men saved from Post #5, and 1 Timothy 2:1-6 from which it was taken, [emphasis added]:

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.,

Pedrito asked:

In that context, might it be pertinent to ask regarding all men (people), "saved from what"?

What light does the Nicee Creed of 325AD throw on the matter?
How about the Nicee Creed of 381AD?
The Apostles' Creed?
The Athanasian Creed?

What does each or any of them have to say on the matter?

==============================================================================================

That question regarding “saved from what?” was “answered” in Post #16 with these (originally underlined) portions of the Nicene Creed:
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:
.
For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered died and was buried.

The statement was also made: The Athanasian Creed says something similar.

==============================================================================================

The Reader cannot help but notice that the stressed portions of the Nicene Creed as offered, do not even address the question, let alone attempt to answer it.

Could it be that the author of Post #16 was attempting to avoid an awkward issue?

Is this yet another example of the techniques that Pedrito has been warning of?

==============================================================================================

Pedrito asks again: What does any of the creeds above have to say about "saved from what?"?

 

[user1234]

In Post #13, based upon Fact #1: God wants all men saved from Post #5, and 1 Timothy 2:1-6 from which it was taken, [emphasis added]:

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.,

Pedrito asked:

In that context, might it be pertinent to ask regarding all men (people), "saved from what"?

What light does the Nicee Creed of 325AD throw on the matter?
How about the Nicee Creed of 381AD?
The Apostles' Creed?
The Athanasian Creed?

What does each or any of them have to say on the matter?

==============================================================================================

That question regarding “saved from what?” was “answered” in Post #16 with these (originally underlined) portions of the Nicene Creed:
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:
.
For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered died and was buried.

The statement was also made: The Athanasian Creed says something similar.

==============================================================================================

The Reader cannot help but notice that the stressed portions of the Nicene Creed as offered, do not even address the question, let alone attempt to answer it.

Could it be that the author of Post #16 was attempting to avoid an awkward issue?

Is this yet another example of the techniques that Pedrito has been warning of?

==============================================================================================

Pedrito asks again: What does any of the creeds above have to say about "saved from what?"?

Hi, Pedrito ... Tell Pedrito I said Hi.

I'm not too up on the creeds and formalized religion, but isnt their one that talks about being 'saved from aimlessness and sin?'

 

[user1234]

United Church of Christ Statement of Faith—original version
We believe in God, the Eternal Spirit, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and our Father, and to his deeds we testify:

He calls the worlds into being, creates man in his own image and sets before him the ways of life and death.

→→He seeks in holy love to save all people from aimlessness and sin.←←

He judges men and nations by his righteous will declared through prophets and apostles.

In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth, our crucified and risen Lord, he has come to us and shared our common lot, conquering sin and death and reconciling the world to himself.

He bestows upon us his Holy Spirit, creating and renewing the church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of all ages, tongues, and races.

He calls us into his church to accept the cost and joy of discipleship, to be his servants in the service of men, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil, to share in Christ's baptism and eat at his table, to join him in his passion and victory.

He promises to all who trust him forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace, his presence in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in his kingdom which has no end.

Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto him.
Amen.

 

[Pedrito]

Well, based on the responses so far, it would seem that none of the “anchor” creeds (to coin a phrase), have anything to say on the matter.

Those “anchor” creeds are:
- The Nicene Creed of 325AD;
- The Nicene Creed of 381AD;
- The Apostles' Creed;
- The Athanasian Creed.

If that is indeed the case, the question then becomes, where do we look for the answer? Do we look to the progressive philosophical deliberations (or accidentals) of later generations of theologians, or do we look to the Inspired Word of God, the Bible, to see what “the whole counsel of God” has to say?

==============================================================================================

And is it not just a little strange, that the Athanasian Creed states:

“At whose [Jesus’] coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire” ?

Salvation by works?

Not by faith in the saving act of Jesus?

Not by conforming to church ritual?

Do the Evangelicals, the Lutherans, and even the Roman Catholic Church, actually agree with that teaching – that particular teaching that is embedded within a creed that they and others promote so strongly?

 

[MennoSota]

Well, based on the responses so far, it would seem that none of the “anchor” creeds (to coin a phrase), have anything to say on the matter.

Those “anchor” creeds are:
- The Nicene Creed of 325AD;
- The Nicene Creed of 381AD;
- The Apostles' Creed;
- The Athanasian Creed.

If that is indeed the case, the question then becomes, where do we look for the answer? Do we look to the progressive philosophical deliberations (or accidentals) of later generations of theologians, or do we look to the Inspired Word of God, the Bible, to see what “the whole counsel of God” has to say?

==============================================================================================

And is it not just a little strange, that the Athanasian Creed states:

“At whose [Jesus’] coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire” ?

Salvation by works?

Not by faith in the saving act of Jesus?

Not by conforming to church ritual?

Do the Evangelicals, the Lutherans, and even the Roman Catholic Church, actually agree with that teaching – that particular teaching that is embedded within a creed that they and others promote so strongly?

There is only one inspired creed, found in 1 Corinthians 15. Any other creed is subject to false statements.
Indeed, what does God's word tell us?

 

[Albion]

And is it not just a little strange, that the Athanasian Creed states:

“At whose [Jesus’] coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire” ?

Salvation by works?

Not by faith in the saving act of Jesus?

Not by conforming to church ritual?

Nothing in this is strange or a problem. Those who are God's elect will do good because that is a necessary consequence of Faith. Those who are not righteous cannot do good even if the acts appear good to us. Those are acts of supererogation, acts that are not acceptable, whatever they are, because of the unrighteousness of the one performing them. As for the judgment, those who do good go one way and those who have not done so go the other way. It's not that difficult UNLESS you mistakenly assume that they go one way or the other BECAUSE of having done good or evil. The Scriptures do not support that view. They merely record which group goes which way.

 

[MennoSota]

Nothing in this is strange or a problem. Those who are God's elect will do good because that is a necessary consequence of Faith. Those who are not righteous cannot do good even if the acts appear good to us. Those are acts of supererogation, acts that are not acceptable, whatever they are, because of the unrighteousness of the one performing them. As for the judgment, those who do good go one way and those who have not done so go the other way. It's not that difficult UNLESS you mistakenly assume that they go one way or the other BECAUSE of having done good or evil. The Scriptures do not support that view. They merely record which group goes which way.

Even the elect cannot attain the righteousness God demands. Our works will be judged and found worthless, but the work of Jesus will be found perfect as our substitutionary atonement. We fall upon the mercy and grace of God alone.

 

[Albion]

Even the elect cannot attain the righteousness God demands. .

That's true.

What I had said, however, was simply that their works, objectively speaking, are good. Some people would describe them as "God pleasing."

 

[MennoSota]

That's true.

What I had said, however, was simply that their works, objectively speaking, are good. Some people would describe them as "God pleasing."

Objectively, our works are still bad by God's standard of good. All humans are capable of doing acts that are obedient to God's will. If we judge by that standard, we can find good in any human. But, that "goodness" is irrelevant to our position before the throne of God.

 

[Josiah]

Fact #1: God wants all men saved.
Fact #2: All unsaved men are spiritually dead.

CALVINISM:
Strength: God does 100% of the saving.
Weakness: Denies Fact #1.

ARMINIANISM:
Strength: Places fault for damnation with man, not God.
Weakness: Even if God does 99.999% of the work of salvation, it still requires some effort from a corrupt (dead) man to save himself so salvation is not 100% of God.

LUTHERAN:
God calls all and those who are saved are 100% saved by God.
Those who are damned are 100% responsible for their own sin and rejection of the Gospel.
The reason why some are not saved is a mystery that cannot be explained by logic without falling into error.
(The famous Lutheran "MYSTERY").



.

God must have a soft voice if he calls all, but only a few show up.

This is EXACTLY the kind of anti-biblical mess that happens when self places self above God, when self subjects the words of God to the opinions/philosophy/'logic' and conjectures of self. It's why both Calvin and Arminius are wrong here.

IMO, what God says is true - just as he says it. If what God says appears "weak" to some sinful, limited, fallen bloat then the problem lies not with God but with that fallen, sinful, limited bloat; the "weakness" is likely to be on the side of the egotistical human bloat than with God.

LUTHERAN:
God calls all and those who are saved are 100% saved by God.

It's just a version of semi-pelagian thinking. It's synergistic.

No, obviously. Synergism, by definition, is the opposite of the Lutheran position. Synergism and any form of Pelagianism mandates that God is less than 100% responsible for our justification and since Lutheranism holds that God is 100% to credit, that makes Lutheranism impossible of being synergistic or Pelagian in justification. Your comment is both impossible and absurd.



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

This is EXACTLY the kind of anti-biblical mess that happens when self places self above God, when self subjects the words of God to the opinions/philosophy/'logic' and conjectures of self. It's why both Calvin and Arminius are wrong here.

IMO, what God says is true - just as he says it. If what God says appears "weak" to some sinful, limited, fallen bloat then the problem lies not with God but with that fallen, sinful, limited bloat; the "weakness" is likely to be on the side of the egotistical human bloat than with God.






No, obviously. Synergism, by definition, is the opposite of the Lutheran position. Synergism and any form of Pelagianism mandates that God is less than 100% responsible for our justification and since Lutheranism holds that God is 100% to credit, that makes Lutheranism impossible of being synergistic or Pelagian in justification. Your comment is both impossible and absurd.



- Josiah




.

God is not only 100% responsible for our justification, he is 100% responsible for our election, our adoption, our atonement, our sanctification and our existence. You stop short and thus entertain a synergism with God when it is all God and God alone.
Lutheranism misses the full picture and dumps it in a stew of mystery.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #88, the statement quoted below was made regarding the Athanasian creed's stating that people’s everlasting fate will be based on their works in this life

(Athanasian Creed: At whose [Jesus’] coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire):

Nothing in this is strange or a problem. Those who are God's elect will do good because that is a necessary consequence of Faith. Those who are not righteous cannot do good even if the acts appear good to us...

But: Was not “Saint” Paul one of God’s elect?

Are his statements to be considered trustworthy?

What did he say?

Romans 7:14-25:
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
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.

So even Paul committed evil. He said so himself.

==============================================================================================

The Athanasian Creed specifically refers to actions, not thoughts or reformed mindset.

==============================================================================================

The Athanasian Creed is thus exposed as just one example of the confusion associated with the progressive development of Post-Apostolic doctrine.

What credence can be given to any creed from which “acceptable” statements and doctrines must be cherry-picked, and others explained away?

 

[MennoSota]

In Post #88, the statement quoted below was made regarding the Athanasian creed's stating that people’s everlasting fate will be based on their works in this life

(Athanasian Creed: At whose [Jesus’] coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire):



But: Was not “Saint” Paul one of God’s elect?

Are his statements to be considered trustworthy?

What did he say?

Romans 7:14-25:
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
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.

So even Paul committed evil. He said so himself.

==============================================================================================

The Athanasian Creed specifically refers to actions, not thoughts or reformed mindset.

==============================================================================================

The Athanasian Creed is thus exposed as just one example of the confusion associated with the progressive development of Post-Apostolic doctrine.

What credence can be given to any creed from which “acceptable” statements and doctrines must be cherry-picked, and others explained away?

How does your comment fit with the topic for this thread? Please tie it in or perhaps consider creating a new thread regarding the various creeds.
"Why are some saved and not others?"
What is your answer to the question?

 

[Pedrito]

Post #95, commenting on the contents of Pedrito’s Post #94:

How does your comment fit with the topic for this thread? Please tie it in or perhaps consider creating a new thread regarding the various creeds.
"Why are some saved and not others?"
What is your answer to the question?

The topic of this thread, as pointed out, is: Why are Some Saved and Not Others?

In Post #94, Pedrito eliminated “salvation by works” as a possible selection criterion. He thought that was a positive step.

As a byproduct of so doing, Pedrito also exposed the Athanasian Creed, a creed quoted heavily by most churches, as containing teaching that is actually contrary to the doctrines of those churches that use it for support.

(The dishonesty of every church that chooses to ignore that major conflict, was not mentioned.)

==============================================================================================

And by exposing the Athanasian Creed, by performing a reverse-sweeping-under-the-carpet on the matter so to speak, was Pedrito not in fact giving an example of MennoSota’s statement in Post #87?

MennoSota: There is only one inspired creed, found in 1 Corinthians 15. Any other creed is subject to false statements.

==============================================================================================

Pedrito must admit to being a little mystified by MennoSota’s question: “How does your comment fit with the topic for this thread?”.

 

[MennoSota]

Post #95, commenting on the contents of Pedrito’s Post #94:



The topic of this thread, as pointed out, is: Why are Some Saved and Not Others?

In Post #94, Pedrito eliminated “salvation by works” as a possible selection criterion. He thought that was a positive step.

As a byproduct of so doing, Pedrito also exposed the Athanasian Creed, a creed quoted heavily by most churches, as containing teaching that is actually contrary to the doctrines of those churches that use it for support.

(The dishonesty of every church that chooses to ignore that major conflict, was not mentioned.)

==============================================================================================

And by exposing the Athanasian Creed, by performing a reverse-sweeping-under-the-carpet on the matter so to speak, was Pedrito not in fact giving an example of MennoSota’s statement in Post #87?

MennoSota: There is only one inspired creed, found in 1 Corinthians 15. Any other creed is subject to false statements.

==============================================================================================

Pedrito must admit to being a little mystified by MennoSota’s question: “How does your comment fit with the topic for this thread?”.

What is your answer?
Why are some saved and not others? If you'd be so kind, please add scripture to strengthen your answer. Thanks.

 

[atpollard]

Post #95, commenting on the contents of Pedrito’s Post #94:

The topic of this thread, as pointed out, is: Why are Some Saved and Not Others?

In Post #94, Pedrito eliminated “salvation by works” as a possible selection criterion. He thought that was a positive step.

As a byproduct of so doing, Pedrito also exposed the Athanasian Creed, a creed quoted heavily by most churches, as containing teaching that is actually contrary to the doctrines of those churches that use it for support.

(The dishonesty of every church that chooses to ignore that major conflict, was not mentioned.)

==============================================================================================

And by exposing the Athanasian Creed, by performing a reverse-sweeping-under-the-carpet on the matter so to speak, was Pedrito not in fact giving an example of MennoSota’s statement in Post #87?

MennoSota: There is only one inspired creed, found in 1 Corinthians 15. Any other creed is subject to false statements.

==============================================================================================

Pedrito must admit to being a little mystified by MennoSota’s question: “How does your comment fit with the topic for this thread?”.

Romans 2:5-10 NASB
5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Seems to say something close to what the Athanasion Creed says, does it not?
The critical question is why do some do good and why do the others do evil? Is the eternal destiny a reward for their actions, or are their actions the fruit of their eternal destiny?
Is that even a question for men to answer?

 

[Josiah]

This is EXACTLY the kind of anti-biblical mess that happens when self places self above God, when self subjects the words of God to the opinions/philosophy/'logic' and conjectures of self. It's why both Calvin and Arminius are wrong here.

IMO, what God says is true - just as he says it. If what God says appears "weak" to some sinful, limited, fallen bloat then the problem lies not with God but with that fallen, sinful, limited bloat; the "weakness" is likely to be on the side of the egotistical human bloat than with God.






No, obviously. Synergism, by definition, is the opposite of the Lutheran position. Synergism and any form of Pelagianism mandates that God is less than 100% responsible for our justification and since Lutheranism holds that God is 100% to credit, that makes Lutheranism impossible of being synergistic or Pelagian in justification. Your comment is both impossible and absurd.



- Josiah

God is not only 100% responsible for our justification, he is 100% responsible for our election, our adoption, our atonement, our sanctification and our existence.

True.

And since Lutheranism affirmed this before Calvin did, this undermines your point that Lutheran justification is Pelagian and synergistic. For Lutheran justification to be synergistic and Pelagian, Lutheranism would be MANDATED to hold that LESS THAN 100% of such is the work of God. And as everyone knows Lutheranism does not, it affirms that 100% of it IS God's work and accomplishment. Making your accusation IMPOSSIBLE and absurd.

Lutheranism misses the full picture and dumps it in a stew of mystery.

No. Lutheranism lacks of supreme egoism of Arminianism and Calvinism in insisting that God MUST agree with the sinful, limited, fallen conjectures of man which contradict the Word of God or else God is illogical and incomplete and wrong since His Word says less than they do. The problem with both radical Arminianism and Calvinism is that BOTH insist on human conjectures that end up making a MESS of God's Word and creating much error. Neither have the humility to shut up, to let God be God, to let God "have the last word".... and in the process lead many to absurd, unbiblical theories that deny His revelation.

 

[MennoSota]

True.

And since Lutheranism affirmed this before Calvin did, this undermines your point that Lutheran justification is Pelagian and synergistic. For Lutheran justification to be synergistic and Pelagian, Lutheranism would be MANDATED to hold that LESS THAN 100% of such is the work of God. And as everyone knows Lutheranism does not, it affirms that 100% of it IS God's work and accomplishment. Making your accusation IMPOSSIBLE and absurd.





No. Lutheranism lacks of supreme egoism of Arminianism and Calvinism in insisting that God MUST agree with the sinful, limited, fallen conjectures of man which contradict the Word of God or else God is illogical and incomplete and wrong since His Word says less than they do. The problem with both radical Arminianism and Calvinism is that BOTH insist on human conjectures that end up making a MESS of God's Word and creating much error. Neither have the humility to shut up, to let God be God, to let God "have the last word".... and in the process lead many to absurd, unbiblical theories that deny His revelation.

Just an historical point...Pelagius comes before Luther. My point stands and you add a synergistic element to your teaching. Therefore, you are not holding to a monergist position.
More so, it's your pride and ego getting in the way. You refuse to let the scriptures alone teach while you cling to your traditions.