Some comments I left at Beggars All:
I'd note that this Mohammedan was all nicey-nice over at Articuli Fidei when Waltz made himself a doormat for this enemy of the faith. But see how he now unfurls his true colors.
9:22 PM, JULY 12, 2010
David Waltz said...
"Me: I personally do not like the term 'rape' for the Reformed position concerning regeneration (i.e being born again) prior to belief. Yet with that said, I think I understand why non-Reformed folk invoke the term, for despite protestations, when one breaks down Reformed soteriology, one is left with the fact that regeneration occurs against the will of the unregenerate sinner—the sinner has NO CHOICE in the matter; as such, there is some truth to the claim that it is 'a forced love'."
Everyday we have patients wheeled into the ER who can't give informed consent. It maybe because they are comatose, or high on drugs, or poisoned, or psychotic, or suffering from head trauma, or some infection in the brain.
So the ER physicians act on their behalf when the patient is unable to act in his own best interests.
Do you think ER physicians should be prosecuted for "rape" when they intervene to save someone who is not in his right mind, who is unable to make decisions for himself in his current diminished condition?
What about a spouse or grown child who has to care for a senile parent or husband or wife. Should the caregiver be prosecuted for rape?
Parents often make decisions for young children, against their will, to protect them from harm. Should caring parents be prosecuted for "rape"?
It's a remarkably revealing and twisted view of saving grace to cast it in such invidious terms.
9:06 AM, JULY 13, 2010