In the Gospel cited Jesus specifically says that the apostles were slaves before but are friends now. Friends do not act under compulsion. Slaves act under compulsion - in other words, the Calvinist model.
If any theology is a "pet theology" instead of a Scriptural one, it would be Calvinism. It was unknown among Christians for 1500 years, it was introduced by a small clique and remains the doctrine of a small clique.
“No one is “redefining” words.”
Well, you certainly are, since you’re imagining a use of the word “cooperating” that involves no willing or working, which is exactly what one must do even if they’re willing themselves to have no will.
I can also say that your entire post is an attempt by which to redefine biblical language. I asked you to support your use of the language based on Biblical precedent, which you have not done. You simply repeated the argument you’ve already made.
You said “In the Gospel cited Jesus specifically says...”
Let me give a new ending to that sentence: “...that He chose the Apostles, that they did not choose Him, one verse after He calls them friends.” So if Jesus says that He chose the Apostles directly, they did not choose Him, and yet calls them friends, upon what foundation would you call them slaves? Except, of course, to continue abusing the terms “slaves” and “friends” and “freedom.”
Your final outrage is when you talk about “pet theology” invented by a random cliche of people 1,500 years after the fact. In this very thread there was discussion and quotations of Augustine, way way before Calvin:
http://www.covenanter.org/Predestination/augustin_predestination.html
Did Calvin go back in time and warp Augustine’s view, making him a pre-Calvinist Calvinist? Or maybe you should just start taking what the scripture says plainly, instead of inserting your own sensibilities and made-up words into it.