Loveship Salvation

[ReformedBaptist]

The king of the non sequitur

I did reply to your thread...

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

If you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking very closely.

peace to youraying:

Thanks for that hard work btw. Much appreciated. :thumbs:

 

[canadyjd]

Thanks for that hard work btw. Much appreciated. :thumbs:

ditto to you, pre-supposition boy:smilewinkgrin:

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

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.

Web:

Thanks for the comment. For the most part all we have had from canadyjd & RB is dodging clear questions in regard to the crux of controversy. For them ignorance and/or denial of what LS is FOR salvation, faulty extra-biblical logic and misdirects have been the order of the day.

It was humorous and sad at the same time as both of them were so militant in their defense of MacArthur’s LS when both admitted they had never read any of his major works in the first place. Now, just days after getting one of his books, they are the experts on LS. It thought it was also quite telling that RB, without having gotten past the preface to MacArthur’s book had decided MacArthur was being misrepresented. That is a classic example of coming to a reading with your mind made up, no matter what the facts may turn out to be.

How many times did I and others provided exact quotes from MacArthur’s book, which they never read, and they cry “misrepresentation.” Even in the face of clear, incontrovertible proof of what MacArthur’s teaching they then resort to another LS mantra, “Well, that is just an overstatement.” Ironically, these “overstatements” appear in all of his major LS books, they are repeated and reinforced. They are not “overstatements” they are in fact what he believes and has been teaching for over 20 years.

I see the same pattern with them of going to the Scriptures with their presuppositions. They go to the Bible and seek to force it into conformity with their extra-biblical presuppositions. They go to the Bible, not ever having read MacArthur’s LS interpretation of the Gospel and tried to force into and extract from the Bible anything they could to defend MacArthur from the standpoint of ignorance of his LS position.

Because they have no answer for and no way to sanitize the works based teaching of LS, they MUST turn the discussion into a personal controversy where there is none. This is the mantra of LS sympathizers, it is customary and what we have come to expect of those who have been sadly deceived by the heresy of Lordship Salvation.


LM

 

[Rippon]

Straight From The Horse's Mouth

those who have been sadly deceived by the heresy of Lordship Salvation.


LM

The fresh off-the-presses statement from Lou.

Satisfied EDS?"The heresy of Lordship salvation."

Here Lou is referencing the sad dupes ( from his perspective)who follow LS teaching. If the poor followers fall for the "heresy" of LS,what about those who teach it?

This just adds to the stuff Lou repeats constantly.He says things such as,but not limited to :

LS is extreme,and out of balance with the biblical plan of salvation.

MacArthur is deeply into gross error.

LS is a man-centered message.

JM's message is theologically unbalanced.

JM has corrupted the gospel.

JM has departed from the faith.

JM's message has departed from the faith.

LS is a non-saving message.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

BB Readers:

Make no mistake about it, Antonio da Rosa is a heretic of the first order. He follows the strange and disturbing teachings of Zane Hodges implicitly. First and foremost in heresy is the Crossless/Deityless gospel.

These men in the Grace Evangelical Society insist the lost man can be saved apart from any knowledge, understanding and/or belief in who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation.

I encourage any one of you to ask Antonio if he believes a Mormon who clings to his belief that Jesus is the half-brother of Satan can be saved by believing the name Jesus for eternal life.

As you read da Rosa’s posting always keep in mind that he approaches any discussion of the Gospel from the extreme reductionist soteriology of the Crossless gospel.

You will continue to read Free Gracer (Antonio da Rosa) twisting 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.

Antonio wrote,

“At the moment that a JW or a Mormon is convinced that Jesus Christ has given to them unrevokable eternal life when they believed on Him for it, I would consider such a one saved, REGARDLESS of their varied misconcetions (sic) and beliefs about Jesus.” (caps his)

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.

Antonio teaches that the lost can be saved no matter what misconception he/she has about Jesus. He insists that in an evangelistic setting, any misconception, including outright rejection of the Lord's deity must be "put on the back-burner" and left there.

“If I were talking to a Jew, he may very well ask me about the deity and humanity of Jesus. I would certainly entertain his questions and answer them to the best of my ability. But if such a one continued to express doubts or objections to this, I would say politely, ‘Let us for the time being put this issue on the back-burner. Can I show you from the Jewish Scriptures that the advent of Jesus Christ fulfills many prophecies?’

Objections and denials of things pertaining to Jesus can surely preclude one from faith in Him for eternal life. If this Jew can put aside for the moment the discussion of Christ’s deity, and Christ’s voluntary consent to die, and look in a considerate way at the prophecies concerning Christ’s advent in the Old Testament, His miracles, His teachings, His compassionate acts, His righteous and holy acts, and through consideration of these things, become persuaded that Jesus guarantees his eternal destiny through faith, why would anyone consider him unsaved?” (How I Might Do Evangelism With a Jewish Man, Sept. 2007)

The “Crossless” gospel is an egregious doctrinal aberration that must be exposed and 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.

When one wants to find the most extreme form of the so-called “Easy-Believism,” he needs to look no further than the Grace Evangelical Society’s Crossless/Deityless gospel. You will find da Rosa continue his trying to redirect attention away from their belief that the lost can be born again apart from knowing, understanding and/or believing who Jesus is (deity) and what He did to provide salvation. He will try to get your mind on a discussion of what he might tell the lost, but remember the controversy is over their view the lost do not have to believe any of it as far as Crossless teaching is concerned.

The Crossless gospel is as radical departure from its reductionist end of the theological pendulum swing as Lordship Salvation is from the addition end. Both are false interpretations of the Gospel.


LM

 

[webdog]

The fresh off-the-presses statement from Lou.

Satisfied EDS?"The heresy of Lordship salvation."

Here Lou is referencing the sad dupes ( from his perspective)who follow LS teaching. If the poor followers fall for the "heresy" of LS,what about those who teach it?

This just adds to the stuff Lou repeats constantly.He says things such as,but not limited to :

LS is extreme,and out of balance with the biblical plan of salvation.

MacArthur is deeply into gross error.

LS is a man-centered message.

JM's message is theologically unbalanced.

JM has corrupted the gospel.

JM has departed from the faith.

JM's message has departed from the faith.

LS is a non-saving message.

Rippon, I still don't see him calling John Macarthur a heretic as you stated he did. It seems like you have a problem with this. Are you ready to supply the quote, or apologize to LM?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

The Gospel has not been lost for 2,000 years so that it needs to be re-found within the last 50-100 years.

RB:

Found that one; didn't you? I was going to post here.

The shrinking cell of Zane Hodges followers actually believe that until Hodges came along with his "Crossless" gospel the NT church did not have a complete understanding of the Gospel.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Rachel's Final on da Rosa's ANTI-BIBLICAL Views

For readers’ sakes at BB who have little exposure to the absurd and preposterous polemics of Antonio da Rosa, Rachel agreed to post one more comment to Antonio ad Rosa. Here is Rachel’s reply to Antonio’s comment #37 on page 4 above.


As readers can see, Antonio has failed to actually interact with the points I have made, but merely repeats his unbiblical assertions. Antonio said, “All of this talk about ‘ontology’ is a red herring.”

Did everyone catch that? Antonio dismisses discussion of Jesus’ very NATURE (ontology) with a hand-wave and considers it a “red herring”! How can Jesus’ nature be irrelevant to discussions of saving faith? Antonio’s remark is beyond unbiblical, and is in fact anti-biblical.

His example about identifying Lou falls way short, as all of his analogies have. A person’s occupation or hometown is not part of that person’s nature.

Antonio is not ontologically different than Lou, even if he lives in a different state and has a different occupation. It’s true that someone could still receive a copy of the book no matter what they thought Lou did for a living. But that’s not comparing apples to apples.

Let’s say someone sends an email to Lou Martuneac the bookshelf, asking the bookshelf for a book. When asked to clarify, the person says, “you know, Lou, that bookshelf who has a blog at (correct blog address) and lives in (correct city)”. Clearly the person is referring to the same "historical" Lou that the rest of us are, but the fact is that Lou is NOT a bookshelf, and no bookshelf can send someone a book. The person may be thinking of the correct Lou, but the person’s “misconceptions” about Lou are of an ontological nature, therefore he really does not have the correct Lou and will never get a book.

“Crossless” advocates, such as Antonio, like to say that what matters is who Jesus is, not who you believe Jesus is. They say that Jesus is God whether someone believes him to be or not. Of course this is true, but the issue is that God has conditioned eternal life upon what we believe about Jesus.

Antonio said,

“When one trusts into the Jesus Christ of Nazareth from the New Testament (the KJV or otherwise) for eternal life he becomes regenerate.”

Notice that Antonio finds Jesus’ hometown more important to be believed for eternal life than the very nature of Jesus, his deity! This is preposterous. I guess in Antonio’s theology, believing that Jesus hailed from Galilee is a more serious error than believing that Jesus is a created being.

Finally, notice that Antonio claims yet again that we’ve taken his comment out of context, yet spends his entire post defending the very thing we say his comment means. The problem is that Antonio believes it possible for a person (such as a Mormon) to be born again even while being ignorant of or actively denying the deity of Jesus. Antonio’s statement that Lou referenced earlier summarizes such a view. If Antonio disagrees with this view, let him say so now. Otherwise, the claims of “taking out of context” are simply false.

As I make it a general policy to not interact with Antonio, this will be my last comment here. If anyone doubts the veracity of what I’ve said, they should simply follow the link to Lou’s blog where we discussed this with Antonio (when he masqueraded as "FG Me" in that particular thread*) and the links from there- Antonio’s own words bear these things out.


Rachel

*You can view Rachel’s reference to Antonio’s posting as the Sock Puppet: fg me in the thread under my article, Evaluation & Response, Part 4. You might begin with my comment on Feb. 13 @ 10:38am. From there you can scroll down and then back up the thread at your discretion.




My note: All of these absurd anti-biblical teachings that Antonio holds to were originated by Zane Hodges. The very worst forms of the so-called "Easy-Believism" is the Crossless gospel as developed by Zane Hodges that are perpetuated by Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society. Antonio da Rosa follows and aggressively promotes the egregious errors of the Hodges Crossless & Deityless gospel.

LM

 

[Rippon]

Lou, will you please pick up your toys and march out of here with Antonio to another play area?It's getting tiresome.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Crossless is ANTI-Biblical

Rip:

Do you have no problem with the following incontrovertible evidence from Rachel that Antonio, whose views are that of Zane Hodges's Crossless/Deityless gospel, assaults and undermines the Lord's Person and Nature?

As readers can see, Antonio has failed to actually interact with the points I have made, but merely repeats his unbiblical assertions. Antonio said, “All of this talk about ‘ontology’ is a red herring.”

Did everyone catch that? Antonio dismisses discussion of Jesus’ very NATURE (ontology) with a hand-wave and considers it a “red herring”! How can Jesus’ nature be irrelevant to discussions of saving faith? Antonio’s remark is beyond unbiblical, and is in fact anti-biblical.

LM

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The fresh off-the-presses statement from Lou.

Satisfied EDS?"The heresy of Lordship salvation."

Here Lou is referencing the sad dupes ( from his perspective)who follow LS teaching. If the poor followers fall for the "heresy" of LS,what about those who teach it?

This just adds to the stuff Lou repeats constantly.He says things such as,but not limited to :

LS is extreme,and out of balance with the biblical plan of salvation.

MacArthur is deeply into gross error.

LS is a man-centered message.

JM's message is theologically unbalanced.

JM has corrupted the gospel.

JM has departed from the faith.

JM's message has departed from the faith.

LS is a non-saving message.

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Acts 24:14