-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Loveship Salvation
- Thread starter webdog
- Start date
Thinking back on my conversion, I realized I was a sinner separated from God, God made a way of reconcilliation by sending His Son to take my punishment, and all I needed was faith in this who Jesus is and this act, that no works were required. I don't think love was even part of the equation UNTIL one comes to Christ. An infant doesn't know it loves it's parents until some point after birth. New believers are referred to as infants. So...if love is a requirement for salvation, that is just another extra biblical addition to faith.Marcia said:
Tom Butler
New Member
I don't think Free Gracer is allowed to post in this forum. He is not a Baptist, according to his profile.
He needs to head for Other Christian Denominations and post to his heart's content.
He needs to head for Other Christian Denominations and post to his heart's content.
May I offer a small "Turning Point", here. :smilewinkgrin:Tom Butler said:
Despite the appearance of the 'name' you may have found in the profile, the Shadow Mountain Community Church, which is the home church of free gracer, happens to be the name of a 'Baptist' Church, just as is Saddleback Community Church a 'Baptist' Church (and both happen to be affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, as well, just as are your and my home churches), in defense of free gracer posting in this forum.
If one were to check my own profile, I also list my denomination as "Christian", although I do add the further identifying note of "Member of a So. Baptist Church", which the Forks of Dix River Baptist Church clearly is, as well.
I don't "make the rules", but we all are under the same ones. And since this forum is open to "Baptist Only", one who is a "Baptist" yet who is far removed from your or my own positions, or the position of most 'Baptists', is permitted to post here, yet, one who is extremely close to the positions of you, me, or most Baptists, would not be permitted to post in this forum, presenting a bit of a 'pickle', at best, IMO. For an example, I would offer that the late Dr. H. A. Ironside or Dr. Charles Ryrie, or even Dr. John MacArthur, Jr., despite my own obvious differences with the tenets of Lordship Salvation, although none of whom are or ever were identified as 'Baptist', yet all would be closer to my own positions (and I suspect yours, although I do not know that for certain) that those of Fred Phelps (who manages to makes now banned 'Baptist' BBer sanderson (Pastor Steven L. Anderson) look like Dale Carnegie, by comparison) or the late Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, the prototype 'Baptist' liberal/modernist, all of whom are/were "Baptists."
Yet technically, by the BB rules, Drs. Ironside, Ryrie and MacArthur cannnot post here, yet Pastors Phelps, Anderson (before he was 'banned'), and Fosdick all could.
As I said, 'tis 'a bit of a pickle', I would say.
As a disclaimer, I am in no way delineating, by particularly supporting or not supporting any or all of the views of any or all of the above, in this post, but merely referencing this for an example.
Ed
Free Gracer
New Member
Dear BB readers,
The cross and deity of Christ is central to the gospel that Zane Hodges and I preach. It is only through misinformation, straw men, and flat-out falsehoods that Lou makes his hub-ub.
Lou wishes to detract from the published fact that his doctrine of repentance parallels Lordship Salvation thought.
Antonio
The cross and deity of Christ is central to the gospel that Zane Hodges and I preach. It is only through misinformation, straw men, and flat-out falsehoods that Lou makes his hub-ub.
Lou wishes to detract from the published fact that his doctrine of repentance parallels Lordship Salvation thought.
Antonio
Free Gracer
New Member
Hey Web-Dog,
There is a context for every quote. So I suppose you can make that quote of mine mean what you and everyone else would love it to mean.
Frankly, such misquoting is unethical.
The context of my quote is that since the Mormons and the Evangelicals both refer to Jesus out of the New Testament (the Mormons use the King James Version) they are referring to the same historical person. Yes, when it comes down to the details, they have greatly differing conceptions of the Jesus they read about in their New Testaments.
I have never or would ever state that the Mormon's view of Jesus is the same as the Evangelical's view. They are not the same!
Once I was having a discussion with a friend of Lou Martuneac's. Her name is Rachel. I asked her if it were possible for someone to have major misconceptions about someone yet still refer to them. She said it was possible.
In the course of her answer to me [it was in the context of the Mormon understanding of Jesus and the Evangelical] she stated these things:
Lou was asked if he agreed with Rachel's quotes, and Lou answered:
The most anyone can even say about the quote you give of me is that I believe that the Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus are one in the same HISTORICAL person. That is all your quote of me signifies in its context. Furthermore, both Lou and his friend Rachel stipulated as much!
To continue to use that quote as an offensive weapon is shady and unethical.
I certainly do not believe that the Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus, in the sense of conceptions, are the same! I have merely stated and believe that they refer to the same historical Person, yet with some widely divergent conceptions.
Antonio
There is a context for every quote. So I suppose you can make that quote of mine mean what you and everyone else would love it to mean.
Frankly, such misquoting is unethical.
The context of my quote is that since the Mormons and the Evangelicals both refer to Jesus out of the New Testament (the Mormons use the King James Version) they are referring to the same historical person. Yes, when it comes down to the details, they have greatly differing conceptions of the Jesus they read about in their New Testaments.
I have never or would ever state that the Mormon's view of Jesus is the same as the Evangelical's view. They are not the same!
Once I was having a discussion with a friend of Lou Martuneac's. Her name is Rachel. I asked her if it were possible for someone to have major misconceptions about someone yet still refer to them. She said it was possible.
In the course of her answer to me [it was in the context of the Mormon understanding of Jesus and the Evangelical] she stated these things:
Lou was asked if he agreed with Rachel's quotes, and Lou answered:
The most anyone can even say about the quote you give of me is that I believe that the Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus are one in the same HISTORICAL person. That is all your quote of me signifies in its context. Furthermore, both Lou and his friend Rachel stipulated as much!
To continue to use that quote as an offensive weapon is shady and unethical.
I certainly do not believe that the Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus, in the sense of conceptions, are the same! I have merely stated and believe that they refer to the same historical Person, yet with some widely divergent conceptions.
Antonio
Lou Martuneac
New Member
To view some of the most egregious doctrinal errors of the Crossless gospel, which is held to by the GES and its members such as Free Gracer, see
A Refresher on the "Crossless" Gospel
LM
A Refresher on the "Crossless" Gospel
LM
Free Gracer
New Member
One must ask themself about Lou. What is his motivations?
Why would one wish to continually misrepresent a brother in Christ? He has already stipulated that he believes me to be born again. Now, why would he conciously bend and fabricate information in order that it might be of greater damage?
I have seen him operate such in his dealings with his other 'opponents'.
In all my dealings with Lou, I have never seen him present a reasonable exposition of pertinent texts which would lend to his claims and speak against mine. It is always hit and runs. On the contrary, on my blogs, I have taken the time to delineate the issues.
Here are just two of the many articles I have written which speak of a simple, childlike faith and trust int he Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, apart from the varied and myriad conditions imposed upon the Lost by those who scoff at the simplicity of grace.
Ate we Robbed of John 3:16?
http://free-grace.blogspot.com/2007/10/robbed-of-john-316-what-does-believing.html
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. Do you Believe this?
http://free-grace.blogspot.com/2007/10/whoever-believes-that-jesus-is-christ.html
Good day...
Why would one wish to continually misrepresent a brother in Christ? He has already stipulated that he believes me to be born again. Now, why would he conciously bend and fabricate information in order that it might be of greater damage?
I have seen him operate such in his dealings with his other 'opponents'.
In all my dealings with Lou, I have never seen him present a reasonable exposition of pertinent texts which would lend to his claims and speak against mine. It is always hit and runs. On the contrary, on my blogs, I have taken the time to delineate the issues.
Here are just two of the many articles I have written which speak of a simple, childlike faith and trust int he Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, apart from the varied and myriad conditions imposed upon the Lost by those who scoff at the simplicity of grace.
Ate we Robbed of John 3:16?
http://free-grace.blogspot.com/2007/10/robbed-of-john-316-what-does-believing.html
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. Do you Believe this?
http://free-grace.blogspot.com/2007/10/whoever-believes-that-jesus-is-christ.html
Good day...
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Free Gracer said:
There may be much water under this bridge..seems you and LM have discoursed. I am not inclinded to take what Lou writes very well at all. As for his motives it is not for me to judge, other than to believe the best of them. I think he really does love the Lord and really does care for the truth of the Gospel.
As for Zane Hodges and what you believe, I have visited your websites. I am by no means familiar with everything in this so-called "Free-grace" movement. Personally, I am not really a fan of movements. Had my share of them, ran with a few of them, they were usually wrong. Nor am I fan of novelty, which typically seems to be part and parcel with movements. Perhaps your movement is different.
The Gospel has not been lost for 2,000 years so that it needs to be re-found within the last 50-100 years. The Protestant Reformation recovered the Gospel in the middles ages, but it did not re-find it. There have always been faithful believers since beginning of the world.
Whatever your movement is and is about will be discovered one way or another. It will either be discovered as the faith once delivered to the saints or it will be discovered to be something different. If it is the true faith, then perhaps it is not really a movement at all...just another denomination.
In the whole LS/NLS controversy I saw as one of the central issues being the doctrine of true faith. I believe this is the central idea of the book of James. Faith without works is dead. If faith does not show itself as faith by works, then it is not true faith, or what we call saving faith. As the 1689 Confession puts it, "yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come."
Christ Himself is both the Author and Finisher of this faith which according to Scripture is called the faith of God's elect. Titus 1:1
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
You say the same sort of of thing about John MacArthur, and have been proven wrong on numerous occasions by simple comparisons of what you claim MacArthur says to what he actually says. I, for one, will not be surprised if the same thing is going on with FreeGracer.Lou Martuneac said:
For all you have written, you have never given an honest evaluation of what MacArthur believes and teaches. All you give are partial quotes and insults to anyone who disagrees.
As I stated before, you reap what you sow. Looks like it is harvest time for Lou Martuneac.
peace to you
raying:
This is an outright lie. Lordship Salvation is Lordship Salvation regardless who teaches or believes it. Heath Goodman's LS is identical to John Macarthurs. IF you start with false presuppositions you end up with false conclusions. It's ironic the John Macarthur fans haven't even touched my Heath Goodman thread.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
FTR, I wasn't talking about you. The reason I don't post in your threads is because you like to call people liars if they disagree with you.webdog said:
I have documented numerous occasions where Lou Martuneac has deliberately misquoted John MacArthur, claiming he believes and teaches things he clearly does not.
I have documented a partial quote which Lou Martuneac used to make it sound as if MacArthur viewed "works" as necessary for salvation, when the full quote demonstrated the opposite.
Lou Martuneac has yet to acknowledge that John MacArthur affirms salvation by Grace through faith continously in his writings.
To say that MacArthur believes and teaches pre-faith regeneration, and then turn around and say that MacArthur teaches you must earn your "new birth" by a faith that includes commitment to good works is intellectually dishonest at best.
Just because you disagree with his beliefs doesn't mean you can change his beliefs and then call it heresy.
peace to you
raying:
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
webdog said:
I replied to your thread. Should I call you liar now?
Lou Martuneac
New Member
Dear BB Readers:
I have contacted Rachel, who Antonio da Rosa referenced. What follows is primarily her, but our joint reply.
What we have from Free Gracer (Antonio da Rosa) is more twisting of his own words to make himself sound better. The point of course isn’t about which historical person anyone is referring to, but about believing certain things about that person.
In context Antonio clearly means to say that the Mormon Jesus (the same “historical” person, yet a completely different ontological person) can actually save someone - IOW that people can believe such ontological misconceptions as those promoted by the Mormons and still be born again. This is heresy, naturally, yet Antonio (as usual) tries to keep himself looking orthodox in order to sneak his view in. Sad!
BB readers may read Rachel’s interaction with Antonio while he was masquerading and posting as the Sock Puppet: fg me. Go to Evaluation & Response to “Crossless” Theology, Part 4.
We stress the importance of reading Rachel’s comments “in context,” so you can see that Antonio is playing the hypocrite in that he is taking my (Rachel’s) statement out of context while complaining that his statements are being taken out of context.
Rachel (& LM)
I have contacted Rachel, who Antonio da Rosa referenced. What follows is primarily her, but our joint reply.
What we have from Free Gracer (Antonio da Rosa) is more twisting of his own words to make himself sound better. The point of course isn’t about which historical person anyone is referring to, but about believing certain things about that person.
In context Antonio clearly means to say that the Mormon Jesus (the same “historical” person, yet a completely different ontological person) can actually save someone - IOW that people can believe such ontological misconceptions as those promoted by the Mormons and still be born again. This is heresy, naturally, yet Antonio (as usual) tries to keep himself looking orthodox in order to sneak his view in. Sad!
BB readers may read Rachel’s interaction with Antonio while he was masquerading and posting as the Sock Puppet: fg me. Go to Evaluation & Response to “Crossless” Theology, Part 4.
We stress the importance of reading Rachel’s comments “in context,” so you can see that Antonio is playing the hypocrite in that he is taking my (Rachel’s) statement out of context while complaining that his statements are being taken out of context.
Rachel (& LM)
Last edited by a moderator:
Lou Martuneac
New Member
To All:
Here is one of the extreme statements made by Antonio da Rosa that he posted at his own “REDEFINED” Free Grace Theology blog.
Antonio wrote,
Seeing how no one disputes that, it seems a pretty pointless statement to make... unless, of course, one has a different point to make, such as Antonio clearly has with the statement above.
The “Crossless” gospel is an egregious doctrinal aberration that must be exposed an biblically resisted. The statement above by Antonio demonstrates just how tragic the result can be for anyone who adopts the heretical teaching of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin on the Gospel.
LM
Here is one of the extreme statements made by Antonio da Rosa that he posted at his own “REDEFINED” Free Grace Theology blog.
Antonio wrote,
Question to BB Readers: When Antonio makes the statement, “the Mormon Jesus and the evangelical Jesus are one and the same,” is he merely trying to say that the Mormons refer to the same historical person that evangelicals do?
Seeing how no one disputes that, it seems a pretty pointless statement to make... unless, of course, one has a different point to make, such as Antonio clearly has with the statement above.
The “Crossless” gospel is an egregious doctrinal aberration that must be exposed an biblically resisted. The statement above by Antonio demonstrates just how tragic the result can be for anyone who adopts the heretical teaching of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin on the Gospel.
LM
Free Gracer
New Member
Lou,
Detract all you wish from the quotes of Rachel and yourself. All I have stated with my qupotation is exactly what Rache and yourself has stipulated, viz., the Mormons and the Evangelicals refer to the same New Testament Jesus. Yes, they have widely divergent conceptions of the Historical New Testament Jesus.
All of this talk about "ontology" is a red herring.
When a Mormon reads his King James New Testament and considers the promise of Jesus Christ in verses such as John 3:16; 5:24; 6:35-40, 47; 11:25-26, etc., and puts his trust in Jesus, who he is reading about, for eternal life, he has accomplished something, namely:
1) the right thing: faith
2) in the right person: Jesus of Nazareth
Thus faith alone (the right thing) in Jesus (the right person)
The illustrations could be multiplied. I don't know alot about Lou Martuneac. I have heard that he is a car salesman. That may be where he has picked up some of his bad communication habits. I don't know. He very well may not be a car salesman. Although I may have great misconceptions about him (I personally, because of his blatant and purposeful misrepresentations and falsehoods about my theology) do not think he walks very close with the Lord. The Lord judge between me and him. I may be totally wrong.
Despite all of the blank-spots and possible misconceptions I have about Lou, I can certainly identify Him and reference him by using unique delimiting criterion. For instance, I can refer to him as the Lou Martuneac who has written such and such a book and has a blog at such and such web-address. Thus I can positively ID him and reference him.
If Lou were offering, lets say, a free copy of his book with the condition that I must simply leave him a message with my mailing address at his blog, it certainly doesn't make a difference to the offer if I have misconceptions about Him. I have found the right Lou who is offering the book.
Listen clearly. Eternal life is received by trusting in a Person to provide it by grace through faith: faith alone in Christ alone. Lou Martuneac and Rachel have already stipulated what my quote (which they use out of context) really signifies. The Mormons and the Evangelicals refer to the same historical Person. They have stipulated this!
They would have Jesus be a liar. How? If we have stipulated that the Mormons refer to the same Jesus as the Evangelicals out of their King James Version Bibles, and if that same Historical Jesus states that anyone who entrusts his eternal destiny into His hands has everlasting life (jn 3:16; 6:47, etc) who are we to say that he doesn't have everlasting life? to state such is to call Jesus a liar.
It is the right thing: faith
in the right Person: Jesus Christ of Nazareth
When one trusts into the Jesus Christ of Nazareth from the New Testament (the KJV or otherwise) for eternal life he becomes regenerate. He gets the Spirit of Christ, indwelling in him!
In time, with prayer, study of the word of God, fellowship, and proper teaching, the infant Christian will grow in knowledge and grace.
I don't know how much you knew when you got saved, or how much you have done evangelism with children (which I have done plenty), but when you introduce children to the Son of God, Jesus Christ, how much really do they understand about His ontology, and the theology behind his atonement? Gee whiz! in the first 5 centuries of the church the doctrine of substitutionary atonement was virtually unheard of! They took the governmental and ransom to Satan views.
My daughter can't expound how Jesus can be a man and God at the same time, and doesn't understand substitutionary atonement. Bu she does understand that Jesus was sent by God and that Jesus was authorized by God to give eternal life to all who simply trust in Him for it. She knows that Jesus can't break a promise and trusts in Jesus for that which he offers: eternal life by faith in Him.
Again, as a bottom line, if one has determined that one refers to the bona-fide historical Person of Jesus Christ, and then trusts that Historical, real, bona-fide Jesus, believing in Him, for the irrevocable eternal life he offers, and yet states that this person is not saved because of blind-spots and misconceptions about the real Jesus who he has placed his faith in, is to call Jesus a liar.
Jesus said "believe in Me, for I am the Life, and all who believe in me have everlasting life". For someone to trust in Jesus for what He alone can offer and not receive the promise, is to call Jesus a liar.
It is no small thing that Lou and his friend Rachel have stipulated that the Mormons refer to the same historical Jesus as do the Evangelicals.
Why?
Because it is precisely this Jesus that guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it.
If a Mormon can, through evangelism and the conviction of the Holy Spirit, come to the realization that eternal life does not come through works (as is heavily taught in the LDS) and place all of his trust and certainty into the Jesus he reads about in his King James New Testament, why wouldn't he be born again (though obviously an infant in Christ)?
The only way one can deny this person salvation is to dismiss faith alone in Christ alone.
Faith (the right thing)
in
Jesus (the right Person)
for
Eternal life, and/or certain justification, and/or eternal forgiveness of sins, and/or eternal salvation (the right purpose)
Antonio da Rosa
Detract all you wish from the quotes of Rachel and yourself. All I have stated with my qupotation is exactly what Rache and yourself has stipulated, viz., the Mormons and the Evangelicals refer to the same New Testament Jesus. Yes, they have widely divergent conceptions of the Historical New Testament Jesus.
All of this talk about "ontology" is a red herring.
When a Mormon reads his King James New Testament and considers the promise of Jesus Christ in verses such as John 3:16; 5:24; 6:35-40, 47; 11:25-26, etc., and puts his trust in Jesus, who he is reading about, for eternal life, he has accomplished something, namely:
1) the right thing: faith
2) in the right person: Jesus of Nazareth
Thus faith alone (the right thing) in Jesus (the right person)
The illustrations could be multiplied. I don't know alot about Lou Martuneac. I have heard that he is a car salesman. That may be where he has picked up some of his bad communication habits. I don't know. He very well may not be a car salesman. Although I may have great misconceptions about him (I personally, because of his blatant and purposeful misrepresentations and falsehoods about my theology) do not think he walks very close with the Lord. The Lord judge between me and him. I may be totally wrong.
Despite all of the blank-spots and possible misconceptions I have about Lou, I can certainly identify Him and reference him by using unique delimiting criterion. For instance, I can refer to him as the Lou Martuneac who has written such and such a book and has a blog at such and such web-address. Thus I can positively ID him and reference him.
If Lou were offering, lets say, a free copy of his book with the condition that I must simply leave him a message with my mailing address at his blog, it certainly doesn't make a difference to the offer if I have misconceptions about Him. I have found the right Lou who is offering the book.
Listen clearly. Eternal life is received by trusting in a Person to provide it by grace through faith: faith alone in Christ alone. Lou Martuneac and Rachel have already stipulated what my quote (which they use out of context) really signifies. The Mormons and the Evangelicals refer to the same historical Person. They have stipulated this!
They would have Jesus be a liar. How? If we have stipulated that the Mormons refer to the same Jesus as the Evangelicals out of their King James Version Bibles, and if that same Historical Jesus states that anyone who entrusts his eternal destiny into His hands has everlasting life (jn 3:16; 6:47, etc) who are we to say that he doesn't have everlasting life? to state such is to call Jesus a liar.
It is the right thing: faith
in the right Person: Jesus Christ of Nazareth
When one trusts into the Jesus Christ of Nazareth from the New Testament (the KJV or otherwise) for eternal life he becomes regenerate. He gets the Spirit of Christ, indwelling in him!
In time, with prayer, study of the word of God, fellowship, and proper teaching, the infant Christian will grow in knowledge and grace.
I don't know how much you knew when you got saved, or how much you have done evangelism with children (which I have done plenty), but when you introduce children to the Son of God, Jesus Christ, how much really do they understand about His ontology, and the theology behind his atonement? Gee whiz! in the first 5 centuries of the church the doctrine of substitutionary atonement was virtually unheard of! They took the governmental and ransom to Satan views.
My daughter can't expound how Jesus can be a man and God at the same time, and doesn't understand substitutionary atonement. Bu she does understand that Jesus was sent by God and that Jesus was authorized by God to give eternal life to all who simply trust in Him for it. She knows that Jesus can't break a promise and trusts in Jesus for that which he offers: eternal life by faith in Him.
Again, as a bottom line, if one has determined that one refers to the bona-fide historical Person of Jesus Christ, and then trusts that Historical, real, bona-fide Jesus, believing in Him, for the irrevocable eternal life he offers, and yet states that this person is not saved because of blind-spots and misconceptions about the real Jesus who he has placed his faith in, is to call Jesus a liar.
Jesus said "believe in Me, for I am the Life, and all who believe in me have everlasting life". For someone to trust in Jesus for what He alone can offer and not receive the promise, is to call Jesus a liar.
It is no small thing that Lou and his friend Rachel have stipulated that the Mormons refer to the same historical Jesus as do the Evangelicals.
Why?
Because it is precisely this Jesus that guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it.
If a Mormon can, through evangelism and the conviction of the Holy Spirit, come to the realization that eternal life does not come through works (as is heavily taught in the LDS) and place all of his trust and certainty into the Jesus he reads about in his King James New Testament, why wouldn't he be born again (though obviously an infant in Christ)?
The only way one can deny this person salvation is to dismiss faith alone in Christ alone.
Faith (the right thing)
in
Jesus (the right Person)
for
Eternal life, and/or certain justification, and/or eternal forgiveness of sins, and/or eternal salvation (the right purpose)
Antonio da Rosa
Just because you don't believe LM has given an honest evaluation of JM's Lordship Salvation doesn't make it so. While you state you have provided "numerous" documented cases of this, I don't see it.canadyjd said:FTR, I wasn't talking about you. The reason I don't post in your threads is because you like to call people liars if they disagree with you.
I have documented numerous occasions where Lou Martuneac has deliberately misquoted John MacArthur, claiming he believes and teaches things he clearly does not.
I have documented a partial quote which Lou Martuneac used to make it sound as if MacArthur viewed "works" as necessary for salvation, when the full quote demonstrated the opposite.
Lou Martuneac has yet to acknowledge that John MacArthur affirms salvation by Grace through faith continously in his writings.
To say that MacArthur believes and teaches pre-faith regeneration, and then turn around and say that MacArthur teaches you must earn your "new birth" by a faith that includes commitment to good works is intellectually dishonest at best.
Just because you disagree with his beliefs doesn't mean you can change his beliefs and then call it heresy.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
For the last 8-10 months, I have engaged Lou Martuneac on this issue. I have answered his questions directly, he has ignored mine. I have compared what MacArthur believes and teaches to what Lou Martuneac claims he believes and teaches, giving numerous quotes from MacArthur's website and his book. I have posted passages of scripture, attempting to engage Lou Martuneac in discussion. I received insults and condescending dismissal of my efforts as "extra-biblical presuppositions", as if Lou Martuneac gets to decide what is biblical or not. I started a series of threads on MacArthur's distinctives of Lordship Salvation, demonstrating what he believes and how that differs from what Lou Martuneac claims he believes.webdog said:
If you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking very closely.
peace to you
raying: