Matthew Waymeyer's Response to my Articles
Recently Phil Johnson and I have had a brief exchange, found here:
Pyromaniacs
He said I wasn't serious. In reply, I spoke of Matthew Waymeyer's post on Acts 17:30,31 and Free Grace Theology and my 7 part article responding to it, and how Matthew has turned a blind eye. Matthew Waymeyer shows up in the thread and says that he did leave a response on his blog. I went to it and here is what I found:
----------
...to the point, it is true that I have not read your series on repentance. It took me longer than it should have to conclude that blogosphere interactions with certain people over certain issues are simply not worth the time and effort. Furthermore, and more importantly, these interactions are often dishonoring to the Lord. I simply have no time or desire to be part of that. This was solidified in my mind some time back in July.
I may or may not post more articles on FG in the future; I’m not really sure. If I do, feel free to post comments and/or links to a multi-part series of response, as long as you can abide by the biblical standards of communication that we maintain at Faith & Practice. But please don’t interpret any future articles on FG as my promise or obligation to interact with you in particular.
----------
Was this a response or an excuse for not having a response?
to which I responded in the meta:
----------
Matthew,
You figured this out in July, but you decide to continue to write provocative posts about Free Grace theology in August?
It is a bit disingenuous to enter yourself into the fray with articles that substantially mischaracterize Free Grace theology and then remove yourself from the discussion when someone call you on it.
Furthermore, if you were to read any of the posts I have constructed in response to you, I am sure that you would not find any discourse that is dishonoring to the Lord.
Your decisions to speak authoratatively (sp?) on Free Grace theology, in a sense, necessitates that you interact with those of the Free Grace persuasion. Otherwise, it will paint you as one who asserts and contends much about a position that you find objectionable, and at the same time refusing to interact with those who intelligently contradict your arguments.
Are you not a seeker of the truth? Or is it that you merely wish to pose the "killer question" for your loyal fans [those brothers of the Traditionalist fraternity]?
----------
It is a shame and a travesty of great proportion that Matthew Waymeyer has engaged in a one-sided attack on Free Grace theology.
He has placed himself in the role of a teacher who refuses accountability.
Can there be any respect for him or his companions when they operate this way?
Pyromaniacs
He said I wasn't serious. In reply, I spoke of Matthew Waymeyer's post on Acts 17:30,31 and Free Grace Theology and my 7 part article responding to it, and how Matthew has turned a blind eye. Matthew Waymeyer shows up in the thread and says that he did leave a response on his blog. I went to it and here is what I found:
----------
...to the point, it is true that I have not read your series on repentance. It took me longer than it should have to conclude that blogosphere interactions with certain people over certain issues are simply not worth the time and effort. Furthermore, and more importantly, these interactions are often dishonoring to the Lord. I simply have no time or desire to be part of that. This was solidified in my mind some time back in July.
I may or may not post more articles on FG in the future; I’m not really sure. If I do, feel free to post comments and/or links to a multi-part series of response, as long as you can abide by the biblical standards of communication that we maintain at Faith & Practice. But please don’t interpret any future articles on FG as my promise or obligation to interact with you in particular.
----------
Was this a response or an excuse for not having a response?
to which I responded in the meta:
----------
Matthew,
You figured this out in July, but you decide to continue to write provocative posts about Free Grace theology in August?
It is a bit disingenuous to enter yourself into the fray with articles that substantially mischaracterize Free Grace theology and then remove yourself from the discussion when someone call you on it.
Furthermore, if you were to read any of the posts I have constructed in response to you, I am sure that you would not find any discourse that is dishonoring to the Lord.
Your decisions to speak authoratatively (sp?) on Free Grace theology, in a sense, necessitates that you interact with those of the Free Grace persuasion. Otherwise, it will paint you as one who asserts and contends much about a position that you find objectionable, and at the same time refusing to interact with those who intelligently contradict your arguments.
Are you not a seeker of the truth? Or is it that you merely wish to pose the "killer question" for your loyal fans [those brothers of the Traditionalist fraternity]?
----------
It is a shame and a travesty of great proportion that Matthew Waymeyer has engaged in a one-sided attack on Free Grace theology.
He has placed himself in the role of a teacher who refuses accountability.
Can there be any respect for him or his companions when they operate this way?
posted by Antonio at 11:42 PM
8 Comments:
His response seems remarkably unimpressive.
Antonio,
I applaud all the work you put in answering Matthew Waymeyer's article. I would like to add a couple of general comments regarding the various responses you received. While you have focused on the free grace gift of salvation offered to all by the work of Christ on the cross, the concept of grace extends beyond salvation and into every facet of the Christian way of life. Those who believe in free grace salvation usually recognize the need of being gracious not only to unbelievers but to fellow members of the body of Christ. However, those who do not believe in this kind of grace, those who believe that grace equates with compulsion by God, do not appear to feel the need to be gracious to anyone they regard as apostate. If God chooses who will believe and if those who believe must persevere in truth, then anyone who disagrees is immediately suspect. As you have stated in some of your other posts, repentance is for both the believer and unbeliever alike. The flip side of this is that both believers and unbelievers can harden their hearts towards God and his truth. The ungracious responses you have received while sad are not totally unexpected.
That being said, I would like to encourage you to continue on in the difficult work you have taken on. While some have rejected what you have written there are others who have not. There are those who read the posts and their comments who have never heard the free grace message and will give you an honest hearing. The different approaches each side has taken to this debate speaks volumes as to the participants grace orientation.
Keep on keeping on.
Glenn W.
Antonio,
Don't let it get you down, man. Even Paul had to contend with this kind of treatment.
One nice thing is, you'll be ready to talk about repentance at the drop of a hat. Next time you're in a crowd and somebody brings it up, you're ready!
Very dissapointing hit and run. I think it could have been beneficial to others for the two of you to "discuss."
Now I read the blogspot mention of Bud and the comments between you and Phil in the meta. How very dissapointing. While you do seem to be fixated on this one issue, I do not think that is a reason to disrespect you. It is THE most important issue.
Take heart, brother. I think you are very serious and well-written and have appreciated your posts.
Thank you all for your encouragement.
Glenn, that was very eloquent and heartfelt. I appreciate your kind words and encouragement.
Bud, you are right there. So often I have studied for my blog articles and, who knew, I learned something that I will take with me wherever I go!
Rose, you are a dear sister.
I would not say that it is merely "one issue". You see, in soteriology there are actually numerous issues that I tackle. Furthermore, Free Grace theology has a much wider emphasis then just soteriology, as its soteriological doctrines impress rewards theology, accountability, and the true principles of discipleship and sanctification truths.
I believe that I have written on all these topics as well, and do comment on them when I find them on other people's blogs.
I don't think it is fair to characterize me as a one issue guy when the evidence is that I have written on much more than the simple appropriation of eternal life.
Antonio
I thought the violin analogy summed it up beautifully.
Pastor Jim,
You are such a kind soul.
Antonio,
You are right! You have written on all of those things. I take it back what I said about you being fixated on this one issue. The issue branches out and you have written on all of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home