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.
Typical sidestep, again, Harley. You simply evade my point.
I know very well that McGrath is not your brand of Calvinist. But you did not state that only non-Arminian Calvinists meet your scrutiny. You dismissed his work as irrelevant because he's C of E. (Typical cheap shot--when you have no case you try an ad hominem, accuse someone of bias.) You didn't say he was no good because he's an Arminian. He's a C of E evangelical Protestant. He's not a Catholic. To you anyone whose not a puppet-God Calvinist is wrong. Fine--your pre-judice is showing.
And spare me the claim that you believe in free will but the free will you believe in is unfree. We believe the will (orientation, voluntas) is bound to sin but consent/choice (arbitrium) remains free. Choice/consent needs a freed up will (voluntas) in order to choose God but, having had its companion, formerly bound, will (voluntas) freed, choice/arbitrium/consent acts freely. What you call "free will" is a phantom, given the way you explain the functioning of choice and the meaning of "boundness." It boils down to whether we can refuse God and again and again you've said no. So YOU DO NOT IN FACT BELIEVE IN FREE WILL and you insult my intelligence by trying this dodge on me. The "free will" you believe in, in fact, is not free ever to choose against God and when it chooses God you believe that in fact God moves it like a puppeteer moves the strings on a marionette. So your lip service to free will is just that: mere words, denied by the rest of your doctrine.
We've been round and round on this. Keep up the sidestep dance, my friend.
All the essential points have been made many times over; you have no response to a single substantive argument I or other Catholic and Orthodox posters have made. You constantly shadowbox with straw men.
But why do I even try to point this out? You seem incapable even of understanding what people write, much less what yourself write, having repeatedly refuted yourself in your own questions and statements.
It's been fun Harley.
Harley, I believe that statement is entirely consistent with classical Reformed Calvinism.