The “Crossless” Gospel at the Crossroads

[John of Japan]

Well Lou, I went back and finished reading the book "Truth Wars." It was a fantastic read! I think I understand why you think that John's (and my) theology would be read as legalistic and putting conditions upon saving grace.... prior to receiving. If you read John's book with open eyes, you will see that he in no way is teaching that there are conditions for one to be born again. He is very monergistic. I think that unless you know John and have read his previous books, you could come away with the idea that he is legalistic and puts conditons on becoming regenerate. However, if you know John and have read his books, you know he is very monergistic. I think you know that, and are in fact deliberately trying to misrepresent him.... in order to sell your product. You are definately synergistic, but fail to defend synergism. Without the ability to defend your synergistic position, I suppose attacking monergism is the only aveneue you have left. Its quite sad actually.

Friend, you only hurt yourself by accusing Lou of dishonesty by saying he is "deliberately trying to misrepresent." For the sake of your own character, may I suggest it is best to assume someone's honesty until proven differently. Lou is an honest man and a good theologian. Surely it is better to disprove his position vis a vis MacArthur than to accuse Lou of dishonesty and of mercenary motives!

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Friend, you only hurt yourself by accusing Lou of dishonesty by saying he is "deliberately trying to misrepresent." For the sake of your own character, may I suggest it is best to assume someone's honesty until proven differently. Lou is an honest man and a good theologian. Surely it is better to disprove his position vis a vis MacArthur than to accuse Lou of dishonesty and of mercenary motives!

John:

That was very kind of you to share some remarks. IMO, they will one day think better of having spoken so.

My reputation and motives belong to and are known by God; and God knows the truth.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Perverse Things

To All:

This morning the Lord brought some Scripture to mind. IMO, these passages speak to what we have been witnessing in recent months from our interaction with the advocates of the "Crossless" gospel.

Please read, Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples


LM

 

[npetreley]

Friend, you only hurt yourself by accusing Lou of dishonesty by saying he is "deliberately trying to misrepresent." For the sake of your own character, may I suggest it is best to assume someone's honesty until proven differently. Lou is an honest man and a good theologian. Surely it is better to disprove his position vis a vis MacArthur than to accuse Lou of dishonesty and of mercenary motives!

Well, I don't think it's possible for you to be right on both counts. Either Lou is dishonest, or he's not a good theologian. We've quoted enough MacArthur to show that Lou's conclusions are unfounded. We've disproved his position a number of times. So, either he's too blind/ignorant/stubborn to admit the fault (and therefore a bad theologian), or he's intentionally misrepresenting MacArthur.

In addition, good theologians 1) talk about things other than what's wrong with other theologians and 2) converse about more topics than what plugs their book.

 

[webdog]

Nothing has been proven except the blindness and deliberate hardening of hearts to Macarthurs "other" gospel. As has been shown REPEATEDLY, nothing was taken out of context regarding Macarthur's own quotes from his own work. Trying to reason away what he is saying to continue holding him up on a pedestal is sickening.

 

[Martin]

Nothing has been proven except the blindness and deliberate hardening of hearts to Macarthurs "other" gospel. As has been shown REPEATEDLY, nothing was taken out of context regarding Macarthur's own quotes from his own work. Trying to reason away what he is saying to continue holding him up on a pedestal is sickening.

==MacArthur's position is really no different than that of the vast number of protestants throughout church history. If you read Spurgeon, Pink, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, or any number of others you should notice that. This is why I made the point that the position of Hodges and Wilkin is not only wrong but also aberrant. The non-Lordship view of men like Lou, Ryrie, Lightfoot, and others is more in line with the protestant position. However their position, as commendable as it might be, still has some very big weak spots. Many of the men I mentioned above would have noticed those weak spots. I think the problem with MacArthur is that he sometimes takes his defense too far. He over states his case and is therefore misunderstood by those who disagree with him. John MacArthur is firmly monergistic and any attempt to say he is not is simply wrong.

At the end of the day, I think well meaning people misunderstand MacArthur's position. I know, because I once totally misunderstood MacArthur's position.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Friend, you only hurt yourself by accusing Lou of dishonesty by saying he is "deliberately trying to misrepresent." For the sake of your own character, may I suggest it is best to assume someone's honesty until proven differently. Lou is an honest man and a good theologian. Surely it is better to disprove his position vis a vis MacArthur than to accuse Lou of dishonesty and of mercenary motives!

He has been given enough information, direct quotes from JM. He has not dealt with those. I asked if he has in fact talked with John.... he said he has not. Why do you suppose that is? John is really not that hard to get in touch with. We had him attend one of our meetings.
If Lou is not deliberately trying to misrepresent, what would you call it? If you would rather say he is ignorant of what JM represents..... go ahead. I don't think it is that, nor do you....... because of your remark about him being such a great theologian.
Do you think his treatment of JM is becoming of a Godly person? Brothers need to be called out when they act this way. If I have acted inappropriately, then by all means I ask forgivness from you and Lou. I don't have a problem appologizing or asking forgivness........ I need it a lot. Thank you for pointing out my error brother..... sincerely. Lou, forgive me again. Try to contact John and see if you guys can get this straight, ok?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Nothing has been proven except the blindness and deliberate hardening of hearts to Macarthurs "other" gospel. As has been shown REPEATEDLY, nothing was taken out of context regarding Macarthur's own quotes from his own work. Trying to reason away what he is saying to continue holding him up on a pedestal is sickening.

So, you are saying that John is to be accursed?

 

[webdog]

So, you are saying that John is to be accursed?

Is salvation by grace through faith...or grace through faith and an upfront commitment of discipleship at all cost?

 

[John of Japan]

Well, I don't think it's possible for you to be right on both counts. Either Lou is dishonest, or he's not a good theologian. We've quoted enough MacArthur to show that Lou's conclusions are unfounded. We've disproved his position a number of times. So, either he's too blind/ignorant/stubborn to admit the fault (and therefore a bad theologian), or he's intentionally misrepresenting MacArthur.

In addition, good theologians 1) talk about things other than what's wrong with other theologians and 2) converse about more topics than what plugs their book.

I've not noticed any personal attacks on John MacA. by Lou. Can you point out any?

Dr. John is a public person with many views in print. It is perfectly allowable and legitimate to disagree with him publicly and on the Internet. Shall we regulate the Internet, or at least the BB so that no one is allowed to publicly disagree with John MacArthur?

Let me get a disagreement in with the man before the ban comes down: I disagree with his pastor/teacher teaching on the grounds that his use of the Greek Granville-Sharpe rule is mistaken since the G-S should only be used for the singular. Oh, boy, I did it now. I'm in trouble. :tonofbricks:

 

[EdSutton]

He has been given enough information, direct quotes from JM. He has not dealt with those. I asked if he has in fact talked with John.... he said he has not. Why do you suppose that is? John is really not that hard to get in touch with. We had him attend one of our meetings.
If Lou is not deliberately trying to misrepresent, what would you call it? If you would rather say he is ignorant of what JM represents..... go ahead. I don't think it is that, nor do you....... because of your remark about him being such a great theologian.
Do you think his treatment of JM is becoming of a Godly person? Brothers need to be called out when they act this way. If I have acted inappropriately, then by all means I ask forgivness from you and Lou. I don't have a problem appologizing or asking forgivness........ I need it a lot. Thank you for pointing out my error brother..... sincerely. Lou, forgive me again. Try to contact John and see if you guys can get this straight, ok?

FTR, John of Japan did not refer to Lou Martuneac as a "great theologian". He referred to Lou Martuneac as a "good" theologian.

There is a difference in degrees, here.

Ed

 

[npetreley]

I've not noticed any personal attacks on John MacA. by Lou. Can you point out any?

Dr. John is a public person with many views in print. It is perfectly allowable and legitimate to disagree with him publicly and on the Internet. Shall we regulate the Internet, or at least the BB so that no one is allowed to publicly disagree with John MacArthur?

Let me get a disagreement in with the man before the ban comes down: I disagree with his pastor/teacher teaching on the grounds that his use of the Greek Granville-Sharpe rule is mistaken since the G-S should only be used for the singular. Oh, boy, I did it now. I'm in trouble. :tonofbricks:

Huh? Who brought up the issue of personal attacks? Lou did, not me.

It's not a matter of personal attacks, and it's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of misrepresenting what MacArthur is teaching.

 

[John of Japan]

John:

That was very kind of you to share some remarks. IMO, they will one day think better of having spoken so.

My reputation and motives belong to and are known by God; and God knows the truth.

LM

If we all agreed with everyone on everything it would be a boring world and Baptist Board, wouldn't it? And of course I don't agree with you on everything--didn't agree with John R. Rice on everything, and that got me in trouble with him once! :smilewinkgrin: But I saw some nasty attacks here and felt led to jump in.

God bless.

GTod

 

[John of Japan]

Huh? Who brought up the issue of personal attacks? Lou did, not me.

It's not a matter of personal attacks, and it's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of misrepresenting what MacArthur is teaching.

Note your personal attacks on Lou:

The Gospel is supremely important. So talk about it.

In contrast, spending all your time whining about John MacArthur and wagging your finger at people who get it wrong gets old, and one suspects the only reason you're obsessed about it is because you have a book to sell. Who do you think you're enlightening here? Like I said, there are plenty of people who get the Gospel wrong. Joel Osteen, for example. Do you think it would do a lot of good to whine about him and other prosperity gospel preachers - and talk about virtually NOTHING else? Would you not get the least bit suspicious if I posted about those things AND NOTHING ELSE, and coincidentally had a book to sell about it?

Learn a new tune. You've worn out the crossless gospel, LS, and your crusade against Calvinism already.

"Spending all your time whining about John MacArthur...." My parents taught me that whining was a sin and a character flaw. Why not just attack Lou's position or his alleged misrepresentations instead of his character?

"One suspects the only reason you're obsessed about it is because you have a book to sell." This is vicious. Without any proof, because it is connected to motive, which only God knows and no human can prove one way or another, you plant the idea on the BB that Lou is a money grubber.

 

[John of Japan]

FTR, John of Japan did not refer to Lou Martuneac as a "great theologian". He referred to Lou Martuneac as a "good" theologian.

There is a difference in degrees, here.

Ed

Glad you made this point, Ed. This brings up the idea of rigorousness in scholarship and debate. (Are you paying attention, reformedbeliever?) If you do a scholarly paper (for example, in a reputable grad school or for a theological journal), you are required to source every thing. You are not allowed innuendo, hearsay, attacks on character (such as, "this guy just wanted to sell his book"), quotes from Internet sources (unless they are from online books or journals), etc.

I said Lou was a good theologian, and I meant so in the above rigorous sense. I did not say he was a great theologian. (I've not read enough of his stuff to say that.) So reformed believer (are you paying attention, rb?) subtly changed my view to make his own point by restating it without quoting it. That is wrong.

From what I've read, Lou sources his quotes, he doesn't attack character, he does his job. One may disagree with his conclusions about the crossless Gospel or Lordship salvation, but if one is being rigorously scholarly one will answer him in kind--not with innuendos and personal attacks, as Lou's opponents on this thread are doing.

 

[npetreley]

I've not noticed any personal attacks on John MacA. by Lou. Can you point out any?

Me: Huh? Who brought up the issue of personal attacks? Lou did, not me.

Note your personal attacks on Lou

Huh? As evidence of people claiming Lou has personally attacked MacArthur, you present what you claim are personal attacks against Lou?

One thing at a time, please. If anyone has said Lou is guilty of making personal attacks against John MacArthur, prove it. You can't. That's not at all what we've been saying. You bought into Lou's dodge. We've been saying Lou has been misrepresenting what John MacArthur believes and teaches - and that's exactly what Lou has done. His response was, "I haven't attacked MacArthur personally", which is true, but has nothing to do with the point.

 

[John of Japan]

Huh? As evidence of people claiming Lou has personally attacked MacArthur, you present what you claim are personal attacks against Lou?

Nice try at deflecting attention from yourself. I'm disappointed in you. I had some respect for you on the BB. But according to this "what you claim" statement, you've not attacked Lou at all. So in your view, it is not a personal attack to say a person is "whining" and then assuming they are only out to promote their own book (thus attacking the motives of their heart, something only God knows). Very sad.

One thing at a time, please. If anyone has said Lou is guilty of making personal attacks against John MacArthur, prove it. You can't. That's not at all what we've been saying. You bought into Lou's dodge. We've been saying Lou has been misrepresenting what John MacArthur believes and teaches - and that's exactly what Lou has done. His response was, "I haven't attacked MacArthur personally", which is true, but has nothing to do with the point.

I didn't say anyone said Lou is guilty of making personal attacks against John Mac. You assumed that from my question, not from any statement or accusation I made. I made no accusation, I simply asked a question, which set you off.

I came on this thread at this point to defend Lou from personal attacks. I have done that. You work out with him what you feel are misrepresentations of MacArthur's position. I'm not real interested in that.

 

[npetreley]

I didn't say anyone said Lou is guilty of making personal attacks against John Mac. You assumed that from my question, not from any statement or accusation I made. I made no accusation, I simply asked a question, which set you off.

I apologize. I thought you were simply backing up Lou's deflective statement, which was...

BTW, any objective reader will see that my notes and comments never approach a personal attack against the man.

We didn't say he was making personal attacks against MacArthur. We were saying he was misrepresenting MacArthur. Rather than deal with his misrepresentations, Lou defended himself against a charge nobody ever made.

 

[John of Japan]

He has been given enough information, direct quotes from JM. He has not dealt with those. I asked if he has in fact talked with John.... he said he has not. Why do you suppose that is? John is really not that hard to get in touch with. We had him attend one of our meetings.

Why would this be necessary? JM is a public person with much print. Why should someone who simply disagrees with his theology (without having a personal animus) have to contact JM personally about it? Lou does not even go to JM's church!

If Lou is not deliberately trying to misrepresent, what would you call it? If you would rather say he is ignorant of what JM represents..... go ahead. I don't think it is that, nor do you....... because of your remark about him being such a great theologian.

I didn't come on at this point in the thread to get involved in this debate. I don't have time for that today. I came on to defend Lou from what I felt were nasty attacks.

Now as I said elsewhere, you subtly change what I said from "good theologian" to "such a great theologian." This is not right. So in the same paragraph where you accuse Lou of misrepresenting someone you misrepresent me. See how easy it is for this to happen? I don't think you meant to misrepresent me nor did so out of a bitter spirit. So why assume Lou is deliberatly and dishonestly misrepresenting JM? That assumes you know Lou's heart and you don't.

Do you think his treatment of JM is becoming of a Godly person?

Brothers need to be called out when they act this way. If I have acted inappropriately, then by all means I ask forgivness from you and Lou. I don't have a problem appologizing or asking forgivness........ I need it a lot. Thank you for pointing out my error brother..... sincerely. Lou, forgive me again. Try to contact John and see if you guys can get this straight, ok?

Can you prove he deliberately misrepresented JM? If not, then why not assume Lou to be simply mistaken rather than dishonest? We do believe in "innocent until proven guilty," do we not? I certainly would not hint that Lou is an ungodly person simply for disagreeing with the theology of someone I admired. (And I've seen plenty of that kind of attacks, being in a family famous among fundamentalists.)

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I think the problem with MacArthur is that he sometimes takes his defense too far. He over states his case and is therefore misunderstood by those who disagree with him.

Martin:

JM is not over-stating anything. His polarizing statements run like a thread throughout his major LS apologetics.

If those remarks by JM are over stating his case, why has he never explained, edited or eliminated them?

They are not over-statements, and therefore, are not misunderstood.


LM