LOL. I'm subjective in my reading and you are not? Bradwardine, Luther and Calvin were the first in a thousand years to get it right?
Last time I checked McGrath is an Evangelical C of E person. If you knew anything about Church history, Harley, you'd know that Evangelical C of E's come from the Calvinist side of the ledger.
And finally but most importantly, once more you did the HarleyD sidestep. Augustine states explicitly that he believes in free will in a letter written shortly before he died to clarify arguments over what he meant.
Now pay close attention, Harley. What I wrote in my preceding post is not a matter of subjective interpretation. It is not a case of he said/she said. Those of us who believe in free will have Augustine's explicit statement supporting our case. In order to interpret him in the opposite way, you and Luther and Calvin have to find an alternative interpretation to his explicit words. Of course anyone can explain away someone's explicit words. I'm not saying that you can't mount an argument for Augustine's having denied free will.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THOSE WHO MOUNT SUCH AN ARGUMENT, WHETHER LUTHER OR CALVIN OR HARLEYD ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE HEAVIER BURDEN OF PROOF. To tell me that I'm arbitrarily misinterpreting Augustine and you are objectively interpreting him is a crock.
And, dear, dear Harley, do you really want to employ this postmodern lateral move and explain your opponent's view as subjective interpretation? Don't you get it, Harley: when you make that move, you simultaneously undermine your own claim. If I'm subjective, so are you. At that point, there can be no further conversation.
No, I think that arguments can be made for common and specific meanings of words, that one can use principles of reason to interpret Augustine's words, principles that are accepted by those in possession of reason and intelligence and decent knowledge of languages. When someone disputes my reading of Augustine, I don't tell him he's just subjective. He can then reply to me, so's your old man.
No, I gave reasons why the free-will reading of Augustine is the most persuasive reading. You have no reply except to label it biased.
And we've been round and round on this point before, Harley. Don't you ever get embarrassed by trotting out the same old tired non-arguments? Don't you ever get tired of sidestepping?
When you are ready to mount a genuine argument as to why Augustine's 426 letter explicitly defending free will does not mean that he explicitly defended free will, let me know. Save the "subjective bias" argument for the Dimwits in Congress.
Lutherans believe and teach that God in His infinite love did not abandon men in their doom but resolved to save them through the sacrifice of His only Son; that the Gospel is the special revelation in which God offers to all men forgiveness of sins and salvation through Jesus Christ; and that those who penitently embrace this Gospel of reconciliation through Christ are declared righteous before God and saved - not through their own merit, but for Christ’s sake, by grace and through faith. References: John 3: 16-17; 1 Timothy 2: 4; Romans 3: 22-24, 28; Ephesians 2: 8-10.
The question is whether this will of man is bound by original sin-so bound that it is impossible for him to squeak for help. You and others would say that God turns the light beam on and *pop* man is capable of making a decision. Luther, Calvin, Augustine and I would say that man is bound to sin and God releases us from that bondage of sin. The Son must set us free and you must be born again-two recurring themes. Only after the Son has set us free can we exercise our wills to do right or wrong. But if we do wrong the Lord chastises us and brings us back. He doesn't leave us to drive off a cliff. You are either a "slave to sin" or a "slave to righteousness" (Rom 6)
Man's will while it is free is tied to the path God establishes just like Jonah heading to Nineveh via Tarshish.