Re-read my post. I am presenting Luther's perspective of what saith the Scriptures?" So, Luther is on my side, not Hank's.
And in the matter which Luther considered the pivotal controversy of the Reformation, Luther stands with me against you. And Luther makes his case from the Scriptures. You just ignore Luther's Scriptural arguments.
By the same token, you twist things in the larger discussion to fit your unscriptural presuppositions. For example, you abused RnMomof7's words to Romulus concerning the idea of how a man falls in love with his wife-to-be. You said God did not make a man fall in love. You are misrepresenting RnMomof7's point in this. This is obvious when you go back to her statement to Romulus.
We Calvinists--and RnMomof7 is now one of us (having finally figured out, by the grace of God, what we have been saying on these threads all along!)--maintain that God causes the man to fall in love with his wife-to-be. The idea of compulsion is not the issue so much as is the idea of causality. The reason why RnMomof7 and I both say that is because the mechanism of the effect of the cause does involve choice. It does involve what can properly be called "free will."
We have said this over and over and over. You are continuing to construct straw men for your own purposes. You need to chill out, just as RnMomof7 eventually did.
The issue you were attacking Hank on was not listening to teachers (as you do) and thus being close minded. Luthers view was Sola Scriptura. Hank contention with you was that you were always appealing to scholars. That was the issue I addressed.
And in the matter which Luther considered the pivotal controversy of the Reformation, Luther stands with me against you. And Luther makes his case from the Scriptures. You just ignore Luther's Scriptural arguments.
I never claimed otherwise in regards to Predestination. All the Reformers were wrong on that one.
By the same token, you twist things in the larger discussion to fit your unscriptural presuppositions. For example, you abused RnMomof7's words to Romulus concerning the idea of how a man falls in love with his wife-to-be. You said God did not make a man fall in love. You are misrepresenting RnMomof7's point in this. This is obvious when you go back to her statement to Romulus.
I abused it how? The statement was made on falling in love with your wife and who would reject that. The issue in love is both making a choice. So if love is going to be a subject, choice always comes in. Thats why you Calvinist avoid that word like the plague. You use 'grace' and take the love out of it by adding 'Sovereign' tying it to power and not compassion.
We Calvinists--and RnMomof7 is now one of us (having finally figured out, by the grace of God, what we have been saying on these threads all along!)--maintain that God causes the man to fall in love with his wife-to-be.
Well, that is an interesting notion. God makes us fall in love. So if we stop loving someone, is God responsible for that also?
The idea of compulsion is not the issue so much as is the idea of causality. The reason why RnMomof7 and I both say that is because the mechanism of the effect of the cause does involve choice. It does involve what can properly be called "free will."
That is nonsense! The 'cause' must either go back totally to God, in which it is compulsion since man does not have a choice, or to man, in which he has to make decision he is responsible for. Your sophistry is just another word for Philosophical Determinism.
We have said this over and over and over. You are continuing to construct straw men for your own purposes. You need to chill out, just as RnMomof7 eventually did.
I cannot 'chill out' I have the 'free will'but just cannot seem to effect the cause.
Even so, come Lord Jesus
P.S. Doc, you sound positively goulish-Rnmomof7 is one of us now,ha, ha, ha!