In Defense of What?

Tyler, why did you interject the Phelps reference at all? The blogger (Bixby) made no such reference that I can find, and your inference from the bolded quote at the first mention of Phelps has no basis other than your personal assumption. Knowing both fundamentalism and Bixby, I understood the reference to be one to those who self-identify and isolate from everyone not exactly like them (Lou, Cloud, Hyles and Schaap, etc.). Phelps could be lumped into that group but certainly not isolated from it.

[paynen] I really don’t care about the discussions on Lou or Phelps. I do think one should attack the problem not the person no matter how attached the two are. If the guy was a flaming ecumenical liberal we as Bible believing Christians need to be better then that. We are not called to love one another and consider the best of each other just when those we disagree with don’t. There is justification for dragging people through the dirt. Secondly, as a fundamentalist, what is being portrayed as the picture of all or even a majority of fundamentalists in that blog is hurtful, end of story! Other people being inappropriate in discussions in one area is never excuse for us to do the same. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Turn the other cheek.

Chip:

Here is the 9th paragraph from the blog:

Jesus said, “Woe are you if all men speak well of you,” thus implying that it’s a badge of honor to have some people upset at you. It’s a badge of honor for me to be disliked by certain fundamentalist “pontifiacs” because after years of wrangling with them I have come to the conclusion that they are dishonest, unfaithful, and ignorant of the truth. To argue with them risks giving them credibility that they do not deserve. They are of the same breed as Fred Phelps and should be ignored. I do not care what they do with my name. I do not care about my reputation as many do, particularly when they are the ones skewering it.

Not to get into hermeneutics, but my opinion is that your interpretation is the result of eisegesis!! I didn’t take it your way. I just don’t think it is an appropriate or fair comparison. If you have pictures of Lou at any funerals, please cough them up!

[TylerR]

This filing has the potential to do nothing but encourage attacks upon each other. Let us band together to do away with it, and have dialogue somewhere else where it may actually be profitable …

I agree with Tyler on this. It seems to me to be better to ignore some things than try to get in the gutter to fight them.

JPS

Gentlemen,

The best way to interact with one another is about ideas, and I acknowledge that I have failed to do this myself at times. Debate the ideas. I know Bob personally and Lou personally. Lou was a missionary in South Africa. He was supported by many sound churches, including ICBC in Allen Park. Lou became convinced that Lordship Salvation was wrong and that Baptist Calvinism was wrong and dangerous. Because of doctrinal differences, ICBC dropped Lou’s support once he returned to the states. Lou is currently a member of Marquette Manor Baptist Church, the church in which I was saved as a young boy.

Many years ago Lou called me and asked me to visit his lost and dying father in a local hospital. Even though Lou and I did not know each other at all, I fulfilled his request and gave his father the gospel. I can only hope and pray that Lou’s father truly received Christ. Years later I preached a strong pro-Lordship message at the FBFI national meeting held in my church and the same message at BJU Bible Conference. Lou wrote me and called me about the message. He concluded that I was in error and included my name in his first edition as one who promotes Lordship Salvation. I called Lou about the matter, debated Lou in several online venues, and we had very strong disagreements with each other. As a result of many communications, I think he understands my position better, and personally I think his book actually argues in some places for a pro-Lordship position, particularly the article in the appendix on the book of Romans by Fred Moritz. As Bauder, Doran, and Minnick have observed, it is easy to go to dangerous extremes on either side of that issue, though all fall on the pro-Lordship side of the equation. Because of Lou’s clear opposition to Lordship Salvation, particularly of the Grace Community variety, he has been particularly sensitive to anyone having anything to do with the CE men who generally espouse Lordship Salvation. At times Lou will mention Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder in a very negative context. I know Dave and Kevin quite well and we agree on most things. Doran and I are very good friends and I bristle inside when Lou brings up his name or DBTS in a negative fashion. I love DBTS and BJU very much. Nevertheless, I will email Lou and tell him where I disagree with him regarding those men and institutions or sometimes we will talk personally to one another about the matters. Whether we personally like or dislike a person, it is still better to interact with their ideas rather than simply personally attack them. And I agree that Lou needs to heed that advice as well.

On the other hand, Bob and I have been allies on the Lordship issue, but we have been at odds with each other over BJU. Bob has publicly challenged me by name on his blog to change certain things at BJU. Nevertheless, when I see Bob at FBC Rockford for the annual Baptist/Separatist conference held by Pastor Scott Willoquette, we converse with one another kindly and in a gentlemanly fashion. Bob and I disagree on music and secondary separation and probably a few other things. We are not preaching for each other anytime soon. Yet, I have found it best to interact with one another on the idea level rather than on a personal level. Bob is a bright guy and a good writer. I don’t think this particular article was his finest moment and it can lead to a feeding frenzy. In this case, I believe Tyler is showing wisdom by suggesting we either stick to the ideas or end the discussion.

[Jim]

Lou’s blog is perfectly consistent with a segment of fundamentalism.

• Sword of the Lord was like that
• Dave Cloud is like that
• DA Waite often has been like that (but I like the guy)
• Etc.

It’s fighting at the margins of fundamentalism.

• Music is at the margins
• The who is associating with whom (platform sharing debates)

…

Interesting assessment (the bolded part). Is this not what Paul and other apostolic writers entreat us to do?

The opponents of the Gospel are myriad, but the primary ones can likely be lumped into idolatry (any form of false worship), immorality, and inhumanity (Acts 15). In I Cor. 6 and 10 Paul addresses two of these simply as “flee [immorality]…flee from idolatry…” and then gives some specifics. Concerning immorality he states in Eph. 5—“…let it not be once named among you….”—followed by a list of things that could only be classified as “margins” of immorality. Paul affirms that to flee idolatry the stand is taken at the margins—[concerning meat offered to idols] “…ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and the table of devils…”—a sentiment affirmed by John in his 2nd epistle—[referencing those who propagate a false gospel] “…he that biddeth him Gosdspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.” The OT clearly illustrates what happens to a chosen people and the cause of the truth when “margins” are infiltrated.

I find it interesting indeed that the criticism of these guys (none of whom I know or have read) are criticized because they choose their battle at the margins.

[Alex Guggenheim] Lou Martuneac believes in a certain form of Baptist Fundamentalism and within that a Gospel dogma which rightly opposes well-intended or arrogantly-insisted errant Gospel forms such as Lordship Salvation. Lou removes what he believes are inappropriate comments from his blog just like SI does and like Jay did when he was a moderator. In the end what you have are people who cannot and will not sustain an argument with Lou or wise enough to understand that some disagreements just have to stand if it produces rottenness in your soul to the point that you detest speaking this brother’s name. Lou is Lutheresque and a bunch of baby Popes just want him ostracized because they rarely can tolerate more than the echo of their ideas. His book obliterates the Lordship error.

Alex,

1. Normally I find you reasonable, but your thoughts here on Lou aren’t accurate. Lou has often simply removed comments that disagree and disprove his rantings. He labels such comments as inappropriate, presumably because they point out his errors.

2. His book was so poorly written that it is obvious he doesn’t understand Lordship salvation. He repeatedly says things on his rantings that are just untrue and exegetically indefensible.

3. Lordship salvation isn’t an interpretation of the gospel. It is the gospel. One cannot carve up who Jesus is and still believe in the Jesus of scripture. Jesus idols don’t save. Lou believes you can carve up the person of Jesus and it still be the gospel. The very fact that he had to go back and revise his book after interacting with one of TMS professors about the issue is proof he was off.

4. I don’t want Lou ostracized. I want him to keep posting on his blog. His posts provide current examples of a fundamentalism that only knows failure. I like him posting his antigospel messages. It reminds me of 1 Cor 11:19:

For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

5. I have been interacting with him off and on for awhile. I used to keep a word doc of all the times he wouldn’t post comments that disproved his points.

TylerR,

I don’t have any problem saying that Lou is a false teacher. He is very misguided at best. I don’t think he actually hates people. I think he is doing exactly what he believes he should.

James,

I am reasonably certain that you and I agree on the Lordship issue. To my knowledge Lou does not deny that repentant faith alone in necessary to receive the gospel. I think Lou’s book falls in the general category of Ryrie’s “So Great Salvation” or Pickering’s pamphlet on Lordship Salvation, both documents with which I strongly disagree. Lou opposes Zayne Hodges strongly and has vehemently excoriated his heresy as the Christless and Crossless gospel. On that issue Lou did good work. In my research on this issue, I have found that the greatest defect is understanding the true nature of repentance and faith. This is where the debate lies. Furthermore, as you have said, we can’t slice up the person of Christ in the gospel. I always present him as Lord and Savior. The non-Lordshp men tend to interpret Lord as primarily deity, not authority. However, in my understanding deity by necessity includes authority.

Mike, I am referring to how they divide up the person of Jesus. Somehow, they want Lord to mean God and not master. What exactly do they think God means? To argue that you can deny a fundamental truth to the person of Jesus at conversion is a reflection of bad theology.

[James K]

[Alex Guggenheim] Lou Martuneac believes in a certain form of Baptist Fundamentalism and within that a Gospel dogma which rightly opposes well-intended or arrogantly-insisted errant Gospel forms such as Lordship Salvation. Lou removes what he believes are inappropriate comments from his blog just like SI does and like Jay did when he was a moderator. In the end what you have are people who cannot and will not sustain an argument with Lou or wise enough to understand that some disagreements just have to stand if it produces rottenness in your soul to the point that you detest speaking this brother’s name. Lou is Lutheresque and a bunch of baby Popes just want him ostracized because they rarely can tolerate more than the echo of their ideas. His book obliterates the Lordship error.

Alex,

1. Normally I find you reasonable, but your thoughts here on Lou aren’t accurate. Lou has often simply removed comments that disagree and disprove his rantings. He labels such comments as inappropriate, presumably because they point out his errors.

2. His book was so poorly written that it is obvious he doesn’t understand Lordship salvation. He repeatedly says things on his rantings that are just untrue and exegetically indefensible.

3. Lordship salvation isn’t an interpretation of the gospel. It is the gospel. One cannot carve up who Jesus is and still believe in the Jesus of scripture. Jesus idols don’t save. Lou believes you can carve up the person of Jesus and it still be the gospel. The very fact that he had to go back and revise his book after interacting with one of TMS professors about the issue is proof he was off.

4. I don’t want Lou ostracized. I want him to keep posting on his blog. His posts provide current examples of a fundamentalism that only knows failure. I like him posting his antigospel messages. It reminds me of 1 Cor 11:19:

For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

5. I have been interacting with him off and on for awhile. I used to keep a word doc of all the times he wouldn’t post comments that disproved his points.

1. That is your opinion and you haven’t even cited an example. Meaningless.

2. Again, non-sampling of your assertion. Meaningless.

3. Lordship salvation is an error and is based on errant interpretations of many texts and fundamentally misunderstands the gospel. Lou gets that right on which is the core of his thesis.

4. Well if Lou’s form of fundamentalism only knows failure then you have a large number of like-minded men before him who had rather significant ministry of which the label “failure” would be a failure in and of itself.

5. Maybe you can post that word doc here to get it all of your chest and show what Lou would not approve of, hence we can all know since this thread is exactly for discussing Lou’s blog and his practices.

I believe there are different conceptions of LS floating around out there. My personal exposure in ministry has consisted of this definition: Repent - Believe - Surrender.

I see this as un-Biblical, as is the easy-believism of “Believe only.” I see surrender as the necessary corollary to salvation - a fruit, not a precondition.

I am very interested, Mike, in whether my personal theology on repentance and faith constitutes LS from your perspective:

Regeneration. This is the instantaneous, supernatural impartation of spiritual life to the spiritually dead by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). Men were formerly dead in trespasses and sins under the dominion of Satan (Eph 2:1-3). They are now alive to Christ and under the dominion of God. This occurs simultaneously with conversion – the two cannot be separated in time by human minds.

Conversion. Conversion is a voluntary change in the mind of the sinner, in which he turns from sin and to Christ, and is comprised of repentance and faith. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same transaction. While the conversion of the sinner has a divine origin it is the sinner, not God, who believes in the finished work of Christ through the Word of God.

Repentance is a change of mind (1 Thess 1:9). This involves a turn away from sin (Heb 6:1; Rev 9:21) and towards God (Acts 20:21).

Saving faith is the knowledge of, assent to and unreserved trust in the accomplished redemption of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. This faith involves intellectual understanding (e.g. “Christ is the Son of God!”), emotional understanding (e.g. “Christ died for my sins!”) and voluntary action (“I will trust Christ as my Lord and Savior!”).

Genuinely interested in feedback.

[James K]

Mike, I am referring to how they divide up the person of Jesus. Somehow, they want Lord to mean God and not master. What exactly do they think God means? To argue that you can deny a fundamental truth to the person of Jesus at conversion is a reflection of bad theology.

While you claim Lou (or anyone else you have in mind) does not understand Lordship salvation, you obviously do not understand their argument or you would not make this assertion that God is taught as not being authoritative or master by those opposing Lordship salvation.

Lee,

I strongly disagree with your insinuation that the music styles are akin to what Paul was talking about with idolatry. What you see as idolatry, I see as a preference.

You are right Tyler. I missed the Phelps mention in my full read of the article. I went back and checked the part you hilighted in your first post mentioning Phelps and did not see it there either. Not eisegesis, but certainly lacking in enough careful reading. I still think the part you actually hilighted actually is intended the way I read it. Notice, I also included the possibility, but not the exclusivity, of Phelps, though Phelps is the only example mentioned by name (I think) other than Lou.