Open Letter to Frank Walton
The following has also been sent to the last known e-mail address for Frank Walton. I hope that he gets this message one way or the other. My previous posts bashing Frank Walton have been removed.
I know I’ve blasted you in the past, and I want to apologize for that. After dealing with atheists these past few days on my blog, I now see why you were so confrontational with them. Some times–lots of times–they deserve it. No matter how many times you refute the same points about their understanding of Christian theology, they still use the same arguments. I’ve been asked by several of them if I condone slavery, even though I’ve written and linked to articles that refute the notion that the Bible is pro-slavery. I’ve been asked by them if I favor the stoning of disobedient children, even though I’ve written extensively on the fact that we are no longer under the Mosaic Law. The list goes on.
Anyway, I now see that you just got tired of refuting the same tired old points again and again, and just got mean. I think that I might start doing that now, too.
Anyway, I just wanted to apologize for my blasting of you now that I understand a little bit more of why you did it.
Posted on March 6, 2009, in Uncategorized and tagged Personal. Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.
It is a tiresome waste of time to argue with someone who has made up his mind concerning a matter.
What are you talking about?
If you would really drop the Calvinism for real and not just in name, you’d not have such a hard time from the atheists. Some of my comments on the deconversion story thread might help. Remember, most atheists become atheists because the view of God they grew up with was Calvin’s, and that god IS a monster unworthy of worship and they saw that and began to hate that god. Their comments only pertain to Calvin’s god. Unfortunately your view of God is still Calvin’s god. You need to grow past that view of God, that explanation of the cross, and move on to true Christianity, and then the atheists nay-sayers will not have any legitimate nay to say. But for now, they’re right. Your god is not worthy of their interest whatsoever. Starting people off condemned and not giving them any chance to become condemned except by being possessed by a grace he may or may not give them? That’s a demon, not a god. With the true God we start off with a blank slate and when we sin are condemned but we always retain the ability to respond positively to God and return.
Rey, come on! Do you really think we like your God any better than Calvin’s? Sure, your God might not delight in condemning children to hell for no apparent reason other than grand pappy having eaten an apple a gazillion years ago, but he still requires belief in himself or he roasts you right?
Marcion, how can you compare broiling little innocent babies for what someone did 6000 years ago (not a gazillion as you say) with requiring that you believe? Belief is something you do yourself, so its not like holding someone responsible for their distant ancestor eating something. You’ve got no argument. You’ve got no leg to stand your atheism on. If you think you’ve got something, bring it on.
typo above, “Starting people off condemned and not giving them any chance to become UN-condemned except by being possessed by a grace he may or may not give them” and so on.
Don’t take the cowards way out and say “They’re a bunch of morons.” Re-examine your latent blasphemous Calvinism in light of scripture, condemn it, and learn the truth. Don’t be cowardly and cling to Calvin’s monster god.
You have no idea what I believe anymore, since I haven’t publicly stated it, Rey. Let’s use the TULIP as a model, and I’ll try to keep this as brief as possible.
T)otal Depravity. I still believe in this petal. I believe that humans are born sinful, but I don’t believe that babies roast when they die (just as a point of clarification, neither do orthodox Calvinists). See, you have to reach the age of accountability before God will send you to hell for your sinfulness. I believe that humans are born sinful and they cannot, through their own effort, be saved.
U)nconditional Election. Here we get a little fuzzy. I believe that predestination is Biblical, but I’m not yet sure how to reconcile that with our free will. I do not, however, believe that God unilaterally elects people to be saved anymore.
L)imited Atonement. I don’t believe in this petal anymore. I believe that the Atonement was made for all of mankind, and that it is our choice to accept or reject that gift.
I)rresistable Grace. It was trying to write about this petal that made me rethink Calvinism, because I can’t seem to find much biblical support for this notion. I believe that it is solely by the grace of God that we come to Christ, but I believe that that grace is resistible.
P)erseverence of the Saints. Once saved, NOT always saved. You can reject the free gift of salvation anytime. But you are eternally secure as long as you don’t neglect your salvation. For example, sinning too much isn’t going to lead you to hell. Only a free will rejection of the gospel is going to do that once you’re saved.
Hopefully this clears things up. I’m sorry that we still disagree on the issue of original sin.
I think we basically agree, actually, but your terminology is somewhat misleading. SinFUL means “full of sin.” If you are FULL of sin, you should be punished, so how can you reconcile the notion of being born sinFUL with not being punished unless you reach the age of accountability? You can’t, which is why it is clear that you do not really mean sinFUL but simply have not yet realized this is not the word you are looking for. We are born with an inclination towards sin. A new born child is NOT full of sin but he/she is, however, predisposed to sin. There is no way a child could be born full of sin without malevolence in God, without him counting the sins of their ancestors as their own.
I can agree to what you say. I’ll try, in the future, to use more precise terminology.