The apology: A test of integrity

[canadyjd]

We often get very heated in our discussions on the BB. When I am shown to be wrong or to have said something inappropriate, I swallow my pride and do my best to apologize immediately. I believe it is a matter of personal spiritual integrity to admit you are wrong and apologize when it is warranted.

I want to bring to your attention the following exchange and ask you if I am wrong to call for an apology from the other BB contributor.

Originally Posted by Lou Martuneac
I will address an important subject even though my original statement was deliberately misconstrued by placing carnal and Christian within quotation marks, The misconstrue appears this way, ...the phrase "carnal Christians"? My comments appear this way, "carnal" Christians.

Lou Martuneac rightly pointed out that I had misquoted his statement. He had used the phrase "carnal" Christians. I responded by asking about "carnal Christians".

When I saw what I had done, I immediately and sincerely apologized to Lou Martuneac. It was unintentional. I believe we should present others statements as accurately and truthfully as we can. Otherwise, we shouldn't be using "quotes".

I'll repost my public apology:

canadyjd said:
My apology to you, Lou Martuneac. I should have paid closer attention to what you had written. I assure you that I did not deliberately miscontrue what you had said.

The NASB uses the word "fleshly" instead of "carnal". It has been so many years since I have read out of the KJV, that I couldn't remember the exact passages where "carnal" was used. Romans, Gal., but I had forgotten I Cor. 3.

Again, it was not deliberate.

peace to you

With this exchange in mind, please notice what Lou Martuneac said on another thread (Are there Carnal Christians?). I want to reply to it here so as not to derail that thread with another discussion about John MacArthur.

Lou Martuneac said:
On the "carnal" Christian John MacArthur says,

The tragic result is that many people think it is fairly normal for Christians to live like unbelievers. . . . As I noted. . . . contemporary theologians have devised an entire category for this type of person--the “carnal Christian.”

While it may be commonplace for “Christians to live like unbelievers,” it certainly should not be “normal” for any Christian. The “carnal Christian” is not a category “devised” by “contemporary theologians.” It is a category of believers (“brethren”) identified in the Word of God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by the Apostle Paul.

Walter Chantry and John MacArthur must ignore the clear teaching of Scripture to arrive at the conclusion that the “carnal” Christian has been “devised,” invented, or fabricated only in recent times. (emphasis mine)

Lou Martuneac twice misconstrued John MacArthur's statements in the same way that I misconstrued his. The wording is exactly the same. There can be no doubt the error has occured. I will give Lou Martuneac the benefit of the doubt that it was not intentional.

There is no doubt in my mind that Lou Martuneac should offer an open, public apology to John MacArthur for, to use Lou Martuneac's own words, "misconstruing" his statements.

I am eager to see if Lou Martuneac will demonstrate, IMHO, the necessary personal integrity to issue a public apology to John MacArthur for the error.

peace to youraying:

 

[Jarthur001]

We often get very heated in our discussions on the BB. When I am shown to be wrong or to have said something inappropriate, I swallow my pride and do my best to apologize immediately. I believe it is a matter of personal spiritual integrity to admit you are wrong and apologize when it is warranted.

I want to bring to your attention the following exchange and ask you if I am wrong to call for an apology from the other BB contributor.


Lou Martuneac rightly pointed out that I had misquoted his statement. He had used the phrase "carnal" Christians. I responded by asking about "carnal Christians".

When I saw what I had done, I immediately and sincerely apologized to Lou Martuneac. It was unintentional. I believe we should present others statements as accurately and truthfully as we can. Otherwise, we shouldn't be using "quotes".

I'll repost my public apology:
With this exchange in mind, please notice what Lou Martuneac said on another thread (Are there Carnal Christians?). I want to reply to it here so as not to derail that thread with another discussion about John MacArthur.

Lou Martuneac twice misconstrued John MacArthur's statements in the same way that I misconstrued his. The wording is exactly the same. There can be no doubt the error has occured. I will give Lou Martuneac the benefit of the doubt that it was not intentional.

There is no doubt in my mind that Lou Martuneac should offer an open, public apology to John MacArthur for, to use Lou Martuneac's own words, "misconstruing" his statements.

I am eager to see if Lou Martuneac will demonstrate, IMHO, the necessary personal integrity to issue a public apology to John MacArthur for the error.

peace to youraying:

They are the very same words. But do not get your hopes up about Lou. This is just one of a few things where Lou is not consistent. This one of the reason I stopped listening to Lou, even though there are somethings I agree with Lou on. His misconstruing of MacArthur words is sad.

I guess I should give him a chance before calling him out. We shall see if he integrity.

 

[pinoybaptist]

In fairness to Dr. Martuneac, I have had a run-in (right word ?) with him in another discussion board, and when he is convinced he should apologize he does so. That run-in by the way was my fault initially.

 

[canadyjd]

In fairness to Dr. Martuneac, I have had a run-in (right word ?) with him in another discussion board, and when he is convinced he should apologize he does so. That run-in by the way was my fault initially.

That gives me hope that Lou Martuneac will have the integrity to make a public apology to John MacArthur.

Still waiting, though.

peace to youraying:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I also stopped listening to him as he seems to have a preoccupation with MacArthur for some reason.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I also stopped listening to him as he seems to have a preoccupation with MacArthur for some reason.

It might be what is called "gimmick", you know.
If he can get as many of those on this board upset and wondering about what he is saying about JMac, book sales might go up.
But, giving him the benefit of a doubt still.