What Describes You Best?

No Christians needs to take on any of those labels. The fact of the matter is that TULIP itself is heresy -- a false gospel. And all false gospels are accursed (Galatians 1).

Please choose one that best describes your position regarding man's role in salvation.

Yes. I agree with Rev. John Wesley's "Complete Sanctification" too. Please note he said, we aspire for perfection, but we cannot claim to be sinless. "Complete Sanctification" is understood to be "the Second Work" of the Holy Spirit in regenerate souls after Justification itself.

Source: "We believe sanctification is the work of God's grace through the Word and the Spirit, by which those who have been born again are cleansed from sin in their thoughts, words and acts, and are enabled to live in accordance with God's will, and to strive for holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
Entire sanctification is a state of perfect love, righteousness and true holiness which every regenerate believer may obtain by being delivered from the power of sin, by loving God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength, and by loving one's neighbor as one's self. Through faith in Jesus Christ this gracious gift may be received in this life both gradually and instantaneously, and should be sought earnestly by every child of God.
We believe this experience does not deliver us from the infirmities, ignorance, and mistakes common to man, nor from the possibilities of further sin. The Christian must continue on guard against spiritual pride and seek to gain victory over every temptation to sin. He must respond wholly to the will of God so that sin will lose its power over him; and the world, the flesh, and the devil are put under his feet. Thus he rules over these enemies with watchfulness through the power of the Holy Spirit.[3]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_perfection

Speaking of Wesley.
Been wondering lately if there might be a connection with the decline of the Methodist church and their acceptance of Arminianism? Same question for classic Pentecostals.
And the Catholic Church, didn't they officially adopt semi-Pelagianism around the time of the reformation?

I'm no scholar, very limited knowledge of church history. 🤷‍♂️

monergist

Well, I think that's a misunderstanding, as the Catholic Church, in Trent, rejected Pelagianism in its first Canon on Justification: "Canon 1. If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema." https://www.k-state.edu/english/baker/english233/Council_of_Trent6.htm

But in 529 A.D. so long ago, there was a Council of Orange that shows what the early Christians believed. This was an Council that endorsed Augustinian Theology, and thus heavily emphasized the Grace of God, yet without denying Free Will, nor the necessity to pray for Perseverance: "According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema [rejection of predestination to hell].

We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness." Taken from: http://www.crivoice.org/creedorange.html

God Bless.

Correct as wrong as arminianism. Calvin was a mess, im not a fan.

@wattie You might find this short article helpful, I sure did.
https://www.gotquestions.org/monergism-vs-synergism.html

No Christians needs to take on any of those labels. The fact of the matter is that TULIP itself is heresy -- a false gospel. And all false gospels are accursed (Galatians 1).

Yes.. I'm not in either camp here. Synergism... the saved person definitely IS going to persevere to the end or they were never saved. Same with monergism.

A saved person can get caught up.in the world. Doesn't mean they lose salvation or never had it. Works have zero to do with receiving salvation.

Anyhoooo.. as well as monergism and synergism being hotly debated for hundreds of years .. it's also been hotly debated here for two decades.

The two options are essentially all encompassing. In other words, all Christians are either monergistic or synergistic.

Okay.. well I suppose I'd be synergistic, but I don't believe salvation can be undone in anyway whatsoever. Not by someone 'leaving God'.. you can't leave something that is inside you and the salvation isn't owned by the person saved.

So free will to receive salvation I believe.. but not to reject it after salvation. Neither calvin nor armenian