What is Soteriology?

A drowned, unconscious person cannot react. 

a calvinist believes no one would chose of his own free will to receive the gift of salvation. and a person who is regenerated will always chose to receive Christ.. thus in essence, no free will even there

in essence. that is no free will.

Again, this is not correct. 

Everyone not compromised by sin would chose to receive the gift of salvation of his own free will. 

No one compromised by sin can choose to receive the gift of salvation because the effects of sin prevent such a choice, and that position is not limited to Calvinism. Everyone but those on the Pelagian end of the spectrum believes in what we now call "total depravity," even Arminius. In "Disputation 11: On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers, Arminius said the following, 

"In this state [the state of sin],the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man."

Arminius was a one-pointer and may well have been a two-pointer since he did not believe a person could lose their salvation. 

A regenerate person can choose Christ but may not always do so. 




It might help to understand the phrase "free will," because the phrase gets defined differently. Strictly speaking the word "free" means, "unfettered, not under the control or in the power of other influence; able to act or be done as one wishes," and no one believes the human is free in that sense. At its extreme free will means complete autonomy and humanity, as created creatures of the Creator have their existence dependent upon Him. None are autonomous. There are also a variety of limitations on our volition that have little or nothing to do with sin. We can't know or understand all the influences brought to bear on any given moment of choice, and neither can we know all the possible options, nor all possible consequences of all possible options and the influences that brought us to that moment. Lack of knowledge and ignorance limits us. Sin adds to that problem. No one but the Pelagian views "free will" to mean completely autonomous in all ways at all times. 

I, personally, prefer the term "liberty," because it avoids some of the problems tied to volition. No one can choose options not available to them. I can't choose to survive a 1000 foot fall off a cliff. I cannot choose to take a jet plane into outer space. Neither can I choose to reach God in a sinless state. It's simply not possible. Even the Traditionalist adheres to this position (they believe in the sinless state one can choose God, but once having sinned that liberty no longer exists). 


Prior to coming to Christ, you and I could freely choose our favorite flavor of ice cream, what make and model of car to purchase, what and how much to eat and when, but we could not choose God salvifically. I'm confident if you give your Bible a read through, you'll see there isn't a single example of a God-denier coming to salvation unless and until God was already at work in that person's life for that specific purpose. I also think you'll find there's not a single explicitly stated report of the sinner's will being causal to his/her salvation. On those occasions where the scripture does explicitly assign causation it is always God's will that is reported, not the sinner's. 

The drowned person was a sinner before he washed ashore. It was his sin that caused the drowning and rendered him unconscious and unresponsive. He cannot do anything. He cannot reject or receive from the already-sinful, dead, and enslaved state. Left unattended he will die, having already drowned in the sin. Blessedly, God attended to him, and only after having been revived is he able to sin or not sin, reject or receive Christ, and work out his salvation. 

I said from the beginning it was an imperfect analogy. You either want to understand it or you do not. Stop trying to find flaws where none exist. In the sinful state the sinner could surf. He could surf all over the ocean, but he could not surf his way to God. Sinful surfing led to his inevitably washing up on the shore where, otherwise destined to die, he was unresponsive to the one who could save, the one willing to save him, the one who did save him. 


Soteriologically speaking, we are all dead and enslaved to sin. The monergist position AND that of much of the synergist side of soteriology is that the sinner, the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner, is incapable of coming to God on his own unaided. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and many other from a wide range of spectrum agree. Only those on the Pelagian end of things believe humans are not inherently affected by sin (born dead in sin). The question chiefly debated among synergists and monergists is the point at which regeneration occurs. Monergists believe regeneration precedes faith, both regeneration and faith are gifts of grace from God
and only after a person is revived or regenerate can s/he respond salvifically. Only after the drowned, unconscious man is revived can he act in faith and obedience. 

Synergists believe faith precedes regeneration. The Pelagians believe sin has not rendered sinners incapable, but the Arminian side with the Calvinists on that point. Man can do NOTHING (I even quoted Arminius saying this) on his own salvifically. Arminius hypothesized a moment during which the sinner was rendered capable of seeing, of understanding, and of responding prior to regeneration and it was dependent upon that choice whether or not the sinner was regenerated.  

The sinner's regenerate's will is salvific versus the sinner's unregenerate will is salvific. 

Yep. I understood that. I am not, generally speaking, inclined to appraise others based on implication(s). That's whay I asked what I asked. I thought perhaps you might be aware of something more explicit. 

I believe the work of Christ is, has always been, and will always be sufficient to save everyone God chooses to save. I believe God chooses to save people based on His will and His purpose(s) and not any attribute of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner. 

I'm not sure what you're asking because there is absolutely no conflict with the proof-texted verse, 2 Peter 2:1 and the doctrine of Limited Atonement. No conflict whatsoever. A person denying their purchase does not negate the purchase. I'd be more inclined to say that particular verse is more problematic for the doctrine of Perseverance or Assurance than that of Limited Atonement. If you are going to be critical, if you are going to complain about something others believe then it is incumbent upon you, not the other person(s), to 1) NOT proof-text, 2) correctly understand their position (so as not to argue straw men) and 3) explain the criticism. Merely citing one verse does not do any of that. 

2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

Here's a question for you to consider: Is that verse soteriological, eschatological, or both?

Here's another thought for you to consider. As I have already shown from direct quotations of Arminius, Calvinists and Arminians agree with three positions: 1) those God has saved cannot and will not lose their salvation, 2) they can lose their fruitfulness within that salvation, or 3) they were never saved to begin with. There's no disagreement between Cals and Arms there. Others within the pale of synergism may disagree, but not Cals and Arms. On the occasion of 2 Peter 2:1 and most other examples in the epistolary the New Testament writers appear to treat the heretical and apostate as if they are actual bondservants or saints. Both the man in Corinth who was having sex with his father's wife AND those who tolerated it and did nothing about where called, "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." 

Was Paul wrong? Was Peter? Or are false prophets and false teachers also false saints? If you say they are false saints then 2 Peter 2:1 has absolutely nothing to do with anything in TULIP, Limited Atonement or otherwise and what you've done is commit a fallacy of false equivalence (treating the unsaved and the saved as identical when they are in fact not the same. 

Breath

Correction is not rejection. Just saying.

No, that is not at al what the doctrine of Limited Atonement asserts and since I have already provided you with a link to the correct understanding of that doctrine there is now absolutely no justification for your continuing to argue that straw man.

As long as you do that, you'll always be arguing a straw man.

You'll always look foolish to the Calvinist and self-righteous in your own mind. 

The fact of the Bible is that ALL people were destined for destruction simply because of sin. God is not the author of sin and God did not force anyone to sin or become sinful. Sin is the default setting. It has ALWAYS been a straw man to say God "selected" people for hell. It's just wrong to say that's what Calvinists believe. 

So, you and I are not going to get one letter of one word of one sentence further in this discussion until you let go of that dross. If you want to understand, then you will put in the effort and if you want to hold on to that bias EVERYONE reading this exchange will know it. Don't bother replying if you're not interested in learning a correct understanding of Limited Atonement. Don't expect me to continue this conversation if and when you prove your own unwillingness. 

The doctrine of Limited Atonement is quite simple. It's not complex or complicated. All have sinned and fall short of God's glory. As a consequence, all are destined for destruction. Got did not select them for that destruction. God's response to that problem was Calvary, and the atonement accomplished at Calvary is sufficient to address the sin of every single person who will ever live. God doesn't choose who gets destroyed - we did that ourselves. Form the group of all people who have brought upon themselves their own destruction God has chosen to save some AND that decision is not based on the attribute or character, will or action of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner.

When you say God chose some for hell you are arguing something that has nothing whatsoever to do with Limited Atonement. 

When you hear preachers or read authors saying God willfully chose some people to go to hell they are teaching you a falsehood!!! Those preachers/teachers should not be relied upon, especially if they are theologically educated preachers/teachers. Why do I say that? Because the average person may not understand the simplicity of TULIP, but any seminarian should. A theologian with a doctorate definitely knows better so there is the inescapable implication they are teaching something they know not to be true of others. They are either lying or they are incompetent. 

And that is just as true of Calvinist critics of synergism as it is of synergists criticizing monergism. I am an equal opportunity critic and I will ask the same of you. That will never happen as long as you have a mistaken view of TULIP. 

Chance does not exist. Everything has a cause, and everything is in some way contingent upon prior conditions. 

Proverbs 16:33 
The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD. 

Westminster Confession of Faith 3.1 
God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.


If you do not get this correct, then everything you will ever argue will be incorrect. You'll always be arguing strawmen, delusionally thinking you're correct and never understanding why Cals find your protests lame. Calvinism is NOT robot soteriology. It is is NOT determinism. WCF 3.1 clearly states God is NOT the author of sin, God did NOT do violence to the human will, and God did not do violence to the contingencies of secondary causes. Implicit in this article of confession is the existence of the human will AND its volitional agency AND the existence of contingencies AND their efficacy. 

If you get this wrong, then everything built upon that error will also be wrong.

And you've just demonstrated you have an incorrect understanding of Limited Atonement. 

That's just wrong. 


Fix that if you want to continue this conversation with me. 

Or go find someone else with whom to argue. 



The fact of scripture AND the fact of everyday observance is that not all people are saved, nor will all people be saved. Calvinists and Arminians, monergists and synergists ALL agree with this position. Only the universalist or apokatastasist believes everyone will be saved and that position has long been held to be heresy. The difference between Cals and Arms is not the position itself. The difference is how each group explains why that condition exists. The Calvinist, and all monergists will explain that condition by starting with God and God's will and God's purpose(s). The Arminian, and all synergists explain that condition based on the sinner's will. God saves those who choose Him. 

That has NOTHING to do with Limited Atonement. 

That's just wrong. 

HERE is a more accurate understanding of TULIP. 


I will wager I can persuade anyone relying solely on scripture as written of the veracity of TULIP. It's those who will not read scripture as written and those who proof-text it that will not be persuaded. This is evidenced in the fact 2 Peter 2:1 says nothing about Limited Atonement and was incorrectly imagined to do otherwise. 


That's just wrong.

If you want to ask me about Limited Atonement, then you'll have to make these changes. Get the doctrine correct, stop proof-texting scripture, and ask me something that is actually relevant to a correct view of plainly read whole scripture.



I may have gotten GotQuestion's orientation incorrect, but I do not have TULIP incorrect. Try to follow my example: when I received appropriate correction based on evidence, I took it in, accepted it, adjusted my thinking AND my practice accordingly..... and expressed my sincere appreciation. You weren't called names. Your character was not impugned, nor was your eternal disposition called into question. You've got the "L" wrong. I've provided a correct view and, if you like, I can provide scores of resources for more accurate and thorough understanding of the "L". Take it in, accept it, adjust thinking and posts accordingly, and walk with me through the scriptures. 

Because what extra-biblical doctrines sometimes assert is irrelevant. You and I both want to rely on God's word as well-rendered as we can fathom. Yes? If you and I agree with each other and our mutual agreement bears no consistency with whole scripture then our shared, mutual, collaborative agreement is worthless. Yes? 

That is the horse before the cart. My analogy stems from my theology, not the other way around AND my theology comes from scripture, not Calvin. Most of the rest of the post has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted or what I believe scripture to teach. I read that post and think, "Well, eg is just making up a pile of crap because none of it has anything to do with what I believe." I'll bet that's not your intent. I'll bet it is not your intent to make up stuff and pretend it has anything to do with my views.
Sure, He does. If statements like that are going to be made, then some form of scriptural justification for doing so should be posted (preferably with explicit statements in scripture and not inferentially read scripture rendered from an already existing doctrinal bias).

Remember: BOTH Calvin AND Arminius believed in total depravity. BOTH men argued the unregenerate sinner is incapable of trusting God salvifically. BOTH men taught the unregenerate sinner is incapable of choosing God salvifically. BOTH men believed God must first act upon the sinner BEFORE the human could choose Christ as their Lord and Savior. Calvin simply placed that act in regeneration. Arminius hypothesized a moment of intervention he called, "prevenient grace," whereby the sinner was sufficiently liberated just enough to choose God before being made regenerate. BOTH men said regeneration is an act of God alone. Both men believed God made a person alive so he can choose to trust God for his salvation.

• God can be trusted to do many things.
• God can be trusted to do many things apart from salvation.
• God can be trusted to do many things apart from salvation by unregenerate people.

God cannot be trusted by the unregenerate to save them. At least there is no explicit example of such a person in the Bible. ALL the accounts of people being saved are people who already believed in God AND already had God at work in their life for the specific purpose of their salvation. God worked in Pharoah's life, but it was not for the purpose of Pharoah's salvation. Faith, or trust, is a gift from God and it is not something of our own.

Ephesians 2:4-10
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

• It was because of God's mercy we were made alive together with Christ.
• It was because of His great love, even while dead in sin we were made alive with Christ.
• It was by grace we are saved.
• It was through faith we are saved.
• That mercy, that grace, and that faith because of which, by which, through which we are saved are not of ourselves. They are gifts.
• God has mercy upon whom He has mercy and it does NOT depend on how a person wills or walks (Ex. 33:19; Rom. 9:15-19). It is not of ourselves.
• We are not saved by faith; we are saved through faith. Grace is the cause.
• We are created in Christ for works, and those works for which we are created in Christ having been saved, are works God had already planned in advance for us to perform.
• We are God's workmanship.

.
In other words, there's not a single thing in the entire narrative that makes the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's will relevant. Every single aspect of it is explicitly assigned to God.
That has yet to be proven. I read the protest and I acknowledge that is your position, but I read absolutely NOTHING proving the claim correct. So far it is a baseless claim built on misconceptions of TULIP and a willful effort to find flaws where none exist.
The two are not mutually exclusive conditions. The sinfully dead and enslaved sinner "living" in a "sea of despair" is still sinfully dead. The supposedly "better alternative" has not been shown to be viable, much less "better". Protests without any evidence don't prove anything.

Scripture says quite a lot about people "living" in sin. It says those people are dead. It says they are enslaved. They have a will and that will has some modicum of volitional agency but it is not the will or the volitional agency of those who are not already dead and enslaved to sin and the two should NEVER be treated synonymously. Neither should the unregenerate be treated as identical to the regenerate. If and when some scripture is posted, please make sure those two errors of false equivalence are not committed. Work hard so as not to give me those reasons to dismiss the post because if that error is made, I will dismiss the entire argument.

As you have already noted, EVERYONE is all already dead in sin. Because of the disobedience of one man, sin and death have come to all men because ALL will sin. All will sin. This turns out to be very important because the Traditionalist does not always believe in original sin. Traditionalist soteriology (SBC) believes it is not until a person sins that they are compromised. Doesn't much matter because according to scripture all will sin and all have sinned. All have sinned and all will sin and there's not a single example in the entire Bible of a sinless person coming to Christ on his own for salvation.

Scripture says the heart of man is deceptive above all else. The heart is many things, but above all else it is deceptive. It's not honest. Scripture says the mind of those who deny God is futile in its thinking. The heart of such a person is darkened. Not only is the mind thinking futilely and the heart darkened and deceptive, but God has given the God-denier over to his lusts. The mind of the flesh is hostile to God; it does not and CANNOT please God. It is the mind of Spirit that is life, and the sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate sinner does not have the Spirit. He is only a natural man. The natural does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

These are not things I am reading into scripture. Every single one of those statements is something explicitly stated in God's word. My reading is not inferential. If I were asked, "Where does scripture says, X ?" I am able to cite book, chapter, and verse to show that's what scripture actually explicitly states without any added inferences.


So when you say....
...that is demonstrably not true. Scripture, not Josh, explicitly states the mind of flesh CANNOT please God. Scripture, not my "theology," explicitly states the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit. Scripture explicitly states no one can come to Christ unless God first drags that person to Jesus. Scripture explicitly states it is God who gives knowledge, God who gives understanding, God who gives both hearing and understanding, both seeing and perceiving. Apart from all these works of God - we are His workmanship - we cannot and do not come to God for salvation.

Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley all agreed. The traditionalist agrees once the person has sinned.


The analogy was based on scripture, not merely monergist soteriology, but the fact is the overwhelming majority of orthodox mainstream Christian soteriology agrees humanity is unable to respond to God unaided.
LOOK at what you've just posted. You've just contradicted yourself.

A person with no hope, and no way of saving themselves cannot do something to save themselves! If a person has no way of saving themselves then not even their choice will save them. This "better alternative" is no different or "better".
Irrelevant. A person's acceptance, acknowledgment or denial of the state does not change the state. In point of fact none can adequately understand the state of sin absent the power of the righteous One to understand their inherent condition of death and slavery. Adam was the last man to have known both sinlessness and sinfulness and after having sinner he could no longer adequately understand his prior state. It was only a memory. None of us have ever had such a memory. We are dead whether we know it or not. We are in need of salvation whether we know it or not. Denial is irrelevant to necessity.
No one can get out of their own way. You just got done stating the better example would be "No way of saving ourselves." No one can get out of their own way because there is no way of saving ourselves. Even if a person could get out of their own way, they have no way of saving themselves.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "seeing" the savior, but "seeing" is not enough. He must be seen AND understood AND understood salvifically AND he must know that sinner salvifically, too.

Matthew 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you...."

Galatians 4:8-9
However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?


We must BOTH know AND be known. Many people know Christian theology but are not saved. Knowing is not enough. That's Gnosticism. All people are known by God. All people bear His image, but not all people bear His image found only in Christ. All are known by God but not all are known salvifically. Most are known only in sin, judgment, and wrath. It is from that condition we are being saved!
Incomplete sentences.

When you say "let him save them" do you realize you are subordinating God to the sinner? Do you understand you are subjugating God's will to the will of the unregenerate sinner? Do you realize you're contradicting your own post because you've also said the person is incapable of doing anything to solve their own problem. "Letting" God do something is the dead sinner doing something to solve his own unsolvable problem. Can't be had both ways. 

Furthermore, I can think of several scriptures explicitly stating God helps the sinner, but I cann think of a single verse stating sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate the sinner helps God save the sinner. Not only does anyone who believes that believe something irrelevant.... they are believing an irrelevancy that compromises the attributes of God (something that was protested earlier) and something nowhere found in scripture!
No, they don't. They see AND understand because God gave them those abilities AND because God gave those abilities specifically for the purpose of God saving them from the destruction that was otherwise awaiting them.
THINK about what you just posted. All that does is modify the analogy to say they did not wash up on the beach on their own..... they were pulled from the sea of sure death onto the beach by God and then made alive by God! That's exactly what the analogy says. 

THINK about what you've just posted. Dead people have neither belief or unbelief. They are dead! The dead know nothing (Ecc. 9:5). The "dry land" is not free of unbelief and if your argument is God first brings them to a different land then you're arguing monergism, not synergism. 

THINK about what you've said because you have said, "...rescued from death," but you've also said they are already dead. What the Bible says is t the sinners are being rescued from the already existing death AND rescued from the future wrath that comes consequent from that already existing death. As it turns out, you have fixed the analogy based upon your theology, not scripture, and as a consequence judged me to be doing the same.

Ephesians 2:1-6
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus...

Colossians 2:13-15
When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

Being dead in sin is the default state. The only way to not be dead is to be made alive. Unless a person is born anew from above, he CANNOT see the kingdom of God. That is what scripture explicitly states. I'm not saying anyone cannot, scripture plainly states the "cannot".
Scripture says otherwise. 
And yet all are not saved.
Unless that statement is intended as an expression of agreement with what I have posted, I completely agree and NOTHING I have posted should even remotely be construed to say otherwise. Otherwise, the comment has absolutely NOTHING to do with my position.
Irrelevant.
Got scripture for that or are you just making stuff up as you go?


God did not ask a single individual in the Bible if they wanted to be brought into any of God's covenants. God initiated every single covenant in the Bible ALL on His own. He willfully chose those people before they were even aware they were chosen. He called AND commanded their obedience, and He did not allow for any possibility they'd say "No." In point of fact, it was not until long after the covenant was initiated, the person was brought into the covenant, and the person's obedience was commanded that any of them were ever offered a choice.

Look it up.

God saves people against their will all the time. God literally knocked Saull off his donkey, struck him blind, and commanded him to go see Ananias expressly for the purpose of Saul's salvation and Paul was not asked if he wanted to be chosen, asked if he wanted to be saved, asked if he wanted to be blinded, asked if he wanted to go see Ananias, wanted to hear anything God had for Ananias to say. Saul was not asked if he wanted a life of suffering for Christ. Saul was not asked if he wanted to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Saul was not asked if he wanted any of it.


Acts 9:15-16
15But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

It had ALL already been decided before Saul knew about any of it. His choices came only after those things were decided. He was chosen by God without his knowing it. He was chosen by God as an instrument of God's before he even knew it. He was chosen as an instrument of God's for suffering before he knew anything about it or was asked if he wanted any part of it.
Scripture says otherwise.

And God's will should not be predicated or in any way shape or form be made subordinate upon the will of the fleshly sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate sinner's will, especially without scripture that actually, explicitly states God will not save someone against their will - especially if it's also going to be claimed they cannot get out of their own way and have no way of saving themselves. If they have no way, then they cannot "let" God save them. That would be a way out and you've said that's not possible.


So.....

• A clear misunderstanding of the monergistic soteriolgy (and straw men and non sequiturs being argued as a consequence).
• An observable lack of scripture.
• An observable external inconsistency with explicit scripture.
• Several internal inconsistencies that contradict and thereby self-refute what's been posted.

Changes are warranted one way or another. Either reconsider the monergistic position since you clearly believe several things in agreement with the monergist, or reconcile the several inconsistencies o they no longer exist and don't contradict themselves or scripture.
That has ALWAYS been an assumption on the part of the synergist so before you post any other response to this post first provide scripture explicitly stating God will not save someone against their will. 

The point of my analogy is that the sinner's will is irrelevant. The dead know nothing. So, show me where scripture explicitly teaches God won't save someone against their will.

Do not assume it.

Prove it.