A forum for a community of people interested in discussing salvation in Jesus Christ by grace through faith
| Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 26 2009, 05:22 PM (496 Views) | |
| lightninboy | Jun 2 2009, 10:17 PM Post #11 |
|
Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:21 amby stephen Von wrote: stephen wrote:Hi Von, it's true that salvation isn't faith PLUS repentance, but what if repentance is integral TO faith? Is there a place in the Bible that says salvation is by repentance? I think there is a place that says salvation is by faith. Yes, as a matter-of-fact, please deal with the many examples Lou quoted earlier, which I'll spoon feed you again: Lou quoting Ron Shea wrote:Matthew 3:2 ; Matthew 3:8 ; 3:11 ; 9:13 , 11:20 ; 11:21 ; 21:19 ; 21:32 ; Mark 1:4 , 1:15 ; 2:17 ; 6:12 ; Luke 3:3 ; 3:8 ; 5:32 ; 10:13 ; 11:32 ; 13:3 , 5 ; 15:7 ; 16:30 ; 24:7 ; Acts 2:38 ; 3:19 ; 5:31 ; 11:18 ; 13:24 ; 17:30 ; 19:4 ; 20:21 ; 26:20 (2x); Romans 2:4 ; Hebrews 6:1 ; 2 Peter 3:9 . These passages are identified with no theological agenda other than the most likely meaning suggested (or demanded) by the context. For Hodges position to be sustainable, he must be able to demonstrate by the preponderance of the evidence that NONE of these passages are directed to the question of eternal salvation. (emphasis added) -- http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.co ... art-2.html Von wrote:The old-time Free Grace had the “change of mind” view of repentance. The new GES view of repentance is supposed to be better, and I thought it does seem more natural and true than the “change of mind” view which seems kind of compromised and forced. Contrarily, it is the GES, like Lordship, whose view is unnatural and forced. The verb Metanoeo and the noun Metanoia are the most frequent NT words for repent and repentance respectively. They each start with Meta which means after/beyond, and they share Noeo as the root of their second half which consistently refers to one's mind or thinking. Literally, the compound word meta+noeo means to "go beyond your way of thinking", or "advance your thinking". In practical terms, that simply means to change your mind. So, no Von -- it is GES and Lordship who have a very unnatural and forced view of repent/repentance. This is one reason why both GES and Lordship have erred to such extremes. Bad theology begets more bad theology. In this case, a common warped view of repentance causes Lordship to bind their view of it (a requirement to turn from sin) to saving faith and causes GES to entirely unbind it from saving faith. Otherwise, yes, you nailed it -- GES' view is different than Free Grace's founding views, which means GES' has left FG and become... something else. Time for GES and her advocates to simply admit that they left us and move on instead of trying to force an unnatural continuance. GES is like a bad girlfriend who breaks up with you then won't really go away. That Lou quote about the Israelites needing to do works under Judaism was for his new edition. Yes, but so is this which is much more of a direct response to the point at hand, his view of repentance. http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.co ... tance.html I suggest you allow Lou's clear answer on exactly the question you asked to clarify the unclear statement about the Jews. I haven't read the book so I can't comment further but it seems Kev is right, that you/Antonio are abusing Lou's words and forsaking his own clear answer on the matter to advance a twisted agenda against him for his role in exposing GES' many errors. IOW, until you deal with the more clear and direct statement Lou directed you to about his view on repentance you're beating a dead horse and proving that you are more interested in nit-picking than in what he actually believes. Show me how GES's view of repentance is wrong. I did earlier in this post. Do you believe in real dialogue or not? I do, but you aren't cooperating in good faith. And what is dialogue without soul-searching? If your side is right, how are you going to have a ministry better than G.E.S. without dialogue, soul-searching, work and cooperation? You are poisoning-the-well with falsehoods and strawmen... we have all those things, but we also maintain fidelity to God's Word of Truth as authoritative, something GES began to abandon some years ago as Wilkin/GES fell increasingly under Hodges' noble but misguided influence. Compare the Free Grace Alliance website to the GES website and see which has more content. Will the Free Grace Alliance ever have as much content as GES has now? I don’t think so. Our fidelity is to truth, not to whoever's site currently has the most content. Do you know anybody in Christianity who thinks Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are saved? Generally, no. Strictly speaking, however, one could currently be JW or Mormon and be saved. Say for example someone who receives and believes the gospel rightly at first but is then mislead by a spouse, friend, or bad teacher to become a member of one of these cults. If one believes in OSAS then, yes, one could currently "be" a JW or Mormon and still be saved. What other ministry offers as much useful Free Grace information as GES? Again, our fidelity is to truth, not to whoever's site currently has the most content. If you destroy GES and do not replace it, aren’t you being despicable? No, it's not despicable to expose and correct serious error. Our goal is to reveal and correct error, not to "destroy GES". I'd rather see them restored to their former views. GES is, however, doing a pretty good job of destroying itself by propagating a historically invalid, illogical, and hermeneutically twisted interpretation of scripture. Again, our fidelity is to truth, not to some past version of GES. GES made some great contributions in the beginning but, like a cancer, they have eaten away at even their own substance. No one is doing this TO GES, they are doing it to themselves. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:44 amby Lou Martuneac To All: Von’s Question: Do you believe in real dialogue or not? And what is dialogue without soul-searching? See Michele for a psycho-analysis of this issue. Von’s Question: If your side is right, how are you going to have a ministry better than G.E.S. without dialogue, soul-searching, work and cooperation? Von’s Question: Compare the Free Grace Alliance website to the GES website and see which has more content. Will the Free Grace Alliance ever have as much content as GES has now? Wow, now there is a question that will shake the pillars of Heaven. I’ll say this much for the doctrinal content of the GES website: There is no website on the planet that can compete with the volume of GES articles that assault the Person and Gospel of Jesus Christ through the reductionist heresy that Hodges introduced to the New Testament church. Von’s Question: Do you know anybody in Christianity who thinks Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are saved? Sure the habitual plagiarist, the Sock Puppet: fg me the (unrepentant) *Mr. Truth Detector- Antonio da Rosa believes they can be saved as they are. Da Rosa is very clear that if any Mormon or JW believes in a promise of eternal life from a man named Jesus whom he (the Mormon/JW) insists in NOT deity, the Jesus he believes is the half-brother of the Devil he is born again. See quotes below for proof of his Hodge’s inspired reductionist heresy. * http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.co ... ka-mr.html Von’s Question: What other ministry offers as much useful Free Grace information as GES? Useful? The GES does not speak for or represent Free Grace. They have corrupted the Gospel; they have given the LS camp many legitimate targets for doctrinal criticism. This is why I have worked tirelessly to inform believers across a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity that the GES is a shrinking cell of theological extremists that do NOT speak for or represent a biblical FG community. They got the message! The GES is going to flounder on the island of far left extremism that it (GES) marooned itself on. I will do what I can to make sure it never gets off that island to confuse and deceive any more unsuspecting believers. Von’s Question: If you destroy GES and do not replace it, aren’t you being despicable? Me? Destroy GES? What you need to understand that the GES has destroyed itself through a headlong slide into a false interpretation of the Gospel, i.e. the content of saving faith. GES and its Crossless gospel extremist are known all over the world as propagating the most extreme form of the so-called “Easy-Believism” ever introduced to the NT church. I would like nothing more than to see the poor unfortunates who have fallen into the heresy of Hodges be recovered and repent of it. In the meantime, I will be just as delighted to see GES fold and go out of existence. However, I’d like for the website to say up so that we always have an example of just how far one can drift from the Scriptures when they follow and man at the expense of twisting the Scriptures to float that man’s egregious errors. Despicable? I'll have to refer you to Michele again. Now, Von: I am through dialoging with you. If you ever come up with an original thought or question for this thread, I might, but highly doubt I will reply. LM Da Rosa quotes: “If someone asks me point blank, do I believe that one must believe that Jesus is God in order to go to heaven, I would say ‘NO!’” At the moment that a JW or a Mormon is convinced that Jesus Christ has given to them unrevokable [sic] 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.[/i]” “I would never say you don’t have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This has the import of the gospel proposition which makes it salvific! <b>If someone asks me point blank, do I believe that one must believe that Jesus is God in order to go to heaven, I would say ‘NO!’” “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. <b>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</b>… why would anyone consider him unsaved?” “The Mormon Jesus and Evangelical Jesus are One and the Same.” See- http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.co ... e-one.html “The legitimate offer of a free gift comes with no other requirement but to simply receive it. This is essentially what free grace is! The conditions placed upon the lost by well-meaning, but erroneous, traditional Free Grace people are unnecessary caveats, provisos, and codicils in the saving transaction. The requirement of these things may indeed frustrate God’s grace, and preclude people from eternal salvation (not to mention assurance!).” See- Believing the Gospel: “May Indeed Frustrate God’s Grace?” http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.co ... trate.html And most recently this from Fred Lybrand’s blog (4/23 @ 1:54PM Antonio reaffirmed his belief that, “…that one could deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny.” Antonio da Rosa gives ample evidence that he is a heretic of the first order through his Zane Hodges inspired reductionist assault on the content of saving faith, on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:07 amby kevin I believe both of you gentlemen have answered "in detail" the concerns that Von has written. Without agenda or affiliation, it is still impossible to say you have not both been complete and exacting in your responses. Kev -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:41 amby Rose yes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:20 amby Another Voice I agree with Rose. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:35 amby stephen Well, at least your comments are on topic. Care to provide any substance to back up those statements? At least I think the two of you are coherent. I take Rose's 'yes' to mean she affiirms both questions, is that correct. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:12 pmby Another Voice First, I did ask Von if one could only be one or the other. By my answer, I am refering to the abbreviated question, "Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethern?" - not Von's first posted full questions: 1) Is Lou Martuneac Free Grace or is he Lordship Salvation? 2) Is Lou Martuneac a hero saving Free Grace or is he Satan's accuser of the brethren? Second, if one were to answer Q#1 as LS, as Von has done, you kinda limit your possible answer in Q#2. I think Lou's theology, is certainly in line with Free Grace theology. I think this is evidenced by what he extoles as well as the support he recieves from many past and present acknowledged Free Grace leaders. They do appear to agree, in general and specifically, with Lou's theology. In watching Lou for the past several years, and attempting to communicate with him, I am also of the opinion that he is an accuser. I certainly would not say he's "Satan's accuser" though. He never takes a break - just moves on from one accused to the next. I could agree that there is a place for exhorting the word of God to those that do not know/obey, and Lou has a talent for doing just that. But then it becomes something more for him. He goes beyond a calling to exhort and moves on to condemnation, worldly tattling and ugly sarcasm. He frequently crosses a line with individuals, and appears to feel justified in this behavior because his calling is true. He has continued to condemn me in this way, regardless of my repentance - in the same way Jonah was bitter for the repentance of the Ninevites. If I agree with him and play nice, he forgets all I've ever done, but one instance of questioning or disagreement, Lou recounts my wrongdoings. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:08 pmby stephen @Rose: Thanks for the simple yes/no answer. Apparently this is one of those "yes/no" questions you're okay with? (that's not a jab, I just thought it was funny given the long thread about disliking yes/no questions at your blog a while back) Whatever else we've disagreed on, I want you to know I'm glad you've chosen to participate here. I realize you do so freely and don't want to discourage you. If I understand your answer above then you believe Lou is FG but also an accuser. What does that mean to you anyway, to be an "accuser"? What, in your view, has Lou done wrong in this regard? May I also ask what you hope to accomplish by interacting here on this matter? I ask that in all seriousness and I do not mean to convey a hidden jab or any presumption of negativity upon your motives at all, I'd honestly just like to know what you're seeking here because maybe I can help, maybe I can't. Do you want revenge for an alleged wrong? Confession? A chance to vent? To see Lou "change"? @Missy: First, I appreciate your clarification on which "two questions" you were answering. I hadn't realized it could be taken two ways but you're exactly right and I'm glad you cleared it up. The abbreviated questions in the topic title are what I had in mind and are what I surmise Rose answered as well since, as you indicated, a simple "yes" doesn't really fit the full questions. Also, thanks for fleshing out your thoughts. I really appreciate you Missy and think you bring some helpful insights and objectivity. While I may disagree with some of your specific conclusions I can't and won't dismiss what you've said entirely either. I know Lou has rubbed some people the wrong way and in so doing has probably turned some against him that may have otherwise come largely to see things his way had he not been so gruff with them. That's speculation but I can at least see how that may have been the case a time or two -- that Lou's blunt force methods may have made opponents out of those that need not have been. On the other hand -- and this is more to everyone now than Missy specifically -- Lou's been through a lot and I think all the dishonestly shown to him by GES' top advocates over the years has understandably weighed on him. The kangaroo court at JP's certainly didn't help either. It's my opinion that GES advocates have made Lou into an enemy of their own creation by treating him and others so poorly in the early debate. Rachel and I experienced some, but not all, of this in our own early involvement -- persistent evasion and dishonesty from one's opponents tends to make one cynical toward them. Rachel and I had been engaging outright atheists for a year or more when we got involved in the GES debate; we found those atheists to be more honorable in debate than GES' main advocates proved to be at the time. It's still surreal to think back on those early days and find that so many high-level GES advocates would be so consistently disingenuous and evasive of even the simplest of direct questions. We'd ask simple straight forward questions of people like Bob Wilkin and Jeremy Myers and get piles of redefinitions and evasive drivel in return. Kev mentioned elsewhere that it took him something like two years to finally get a straight meaningful answer from Antonio on something that need not have been anywhere near that difficult for Antonio to answer. I have to go for now but I'd like to say more and will do so a bit later depending on where this all goes. Suffice to say that I truly am glad that you, both of you, are participating here. Unlike at JP's however, Lou is free to respond here and that's the only way this can be fair. I expect there will be some venting on all sides but I also hope we can make some progress toward interacting with renewed integrity and trust in the process. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:54 pmby Another Voice Stephen, Thank you, for acknowledging the sincerity of my open statement. Believe me when I say I understand Lou's position and the defensiveness he feels, but my empathy for his reaction does not make it right. If what you believe is true, Lou has let interactions with a very small number of individuals dictate very harsh treatment for a much larger group - which includes those he proports to be protecting from the very clutches of theology he abhors. In the same way, I have allowed my interactions with Lou to define how I would interact with those supportive of him. I am fortunate that God clearly showed me the folly of this. I have succumbed to the sarcasm and anger he draws out in me several times, always walking away disgusted with myself. I have apologized and continue even now to ask for forgiveness for the favoritism I showed to those who better understood me, or at least cared to, and the demonization of those who did not. I know that I was an accuser, still am, apparently. But I am heartbroken in doing so, definitely not joyful. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:12 pmby lightninboy No matter how you feel about GES now you can't deny that it has been used by God and has great potential. Since the Free Grace Alliance apparently likes nothing better than the thought of all traces of GES removed from the face of the earth and yet does nothing to replace it, isn't it obvious that the Free Grace Alliance is doing the devil's work? The devil cannot create anything new: he can only pervert God's creation. Jesus warns us about Satan.... "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." (John 10:10-11) |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
 |
 
|
| lightninboy | Jun 2 2009, 10:19 PM Post #12 |
|
Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:58 pmby Rose Stephen, I tried to remove my one word comment, but the reactions from you and Missy came in before I figured out how. It realize that it isn't a good idea for me to participate in any discussion about a person in a public blog like this, no matter what mitigating circumstances might be present with any one particular individual. Please excuse me. Thank you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:59 pmby lightninboy Stephen, I am standing by what I said about Zane’s idea of repentance being better than the “change of mind” view of repentance and don’t want to change before studying repentance. Lou is a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist? Are most of Lou’s cohorts Mid-Acts Dispensationalists? I noticed you did better at dialogue on the other thread. I believe in real dialogue or I wouldn’t be here. I am not a big user of the term “strawmen” so that don’t impress me much. Tell me about any falsehoods I have been poisoning with. lightninboy wrote:Do you know anybody in Christianity who thinks Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are saved? stephen wrote:Generally, no. Strictly speaking, however, one could currently be JW or Mormon and be saved. Say for example someone who receives and believes the gospel rightly at first but is then mislead by a spouse, friend, or bad teacher to become a member of one of these cults. If one believes in OSAS then, yes, one could currently "be" a JW or Mormon and still be saved. Well, that’s what I have been saying, and obviously Antonio and Bob and Zane do too. Jeremy may differ. The JW/Mormon issue is a case of Lou picking a fight out of basically nothing, and when you think about it, you ought to agree with me. GES links mentioning JWs and Mormons: http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1989/89aug2.html http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1990/90aug3.html http://www.faithalone.org/news/y2006/wilkin2.html http://www.faithalone.org/news/y2003/hawley.html http://www.faithalone.org/news/y2008/we%20believe%20Jesus%20is%20Lord.htm http://www.faithalone.org/news/y2009/Evangelicals.htm Lou, Lou, did the Israelites have to do works under Judaism to get everlasting life? Lou, is your view of repentance merely "change of mind"? Show me how GES's view of repentance is wrong. Lou, do you consider yourself Free Grace or not? |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jun 4 2009, 09:19 PM Post #13 |
|
Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:42 pmby stephen Rose wrote:Stephen, I tried to remove my one word comment, but the reactions from you and Missy came in before I figured out how. It realize that it isn't a good idea for me to participate in any discussion about a person in a public blog like this, no matter what mitigating circumstances might be present with any one particular individual. Please excuse me. Thank you. No problem at all Rose, you're free to participate as much or as little as you like. Take care, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:37 amby Lou Martuneac Rose wrote:yes Have I not given you numerous opportunities to break it off? Yet you kept violating the agreement. Just couldn't control yourself, just had to do it again; didn't you Rose? Be seeing you at your blog shortly. LM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:41 amby Another Voice Lou Martuneac wrote: Rose wrote:yes Have I not given you numerous opportunities to break it off? Yet you kept violating the agreement. Just couldn't control yourself, just had to do it again; didn't you Rose? Be seeing you at your blog shortly. LM Lou, you consistently prove me true. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:21 amby stephen Lou Martuneac wrote: Rose wrote:yes Have I not given you numerous opportunities to break it off? Yet you kept violating the agreement. Just couldn't control yourself, just had to do it again; didn't you Rose? Be seeing you at your blog shortly. LM Lou, does Rose posting here violate some mutual agreement between the two of you? I'd ask you to note that she did also say she wanted to delete the post but couldn't figure out how. If she still can't figure it out I'll be glad to delete it for her if that would help. I'm not defending Rose, I just don't think you're doing your own ministry any favors by taking her comment here as cause to resume posts at her blog. As a friend I'm simply imploring you to reconsider, thanks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:57 amby Rose I am now the proud owner of 22 of Lou Martuneac's comments on my blog. And all because I said "yes." Does anyone here even know what I was saying "yes" to? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:59 amby Rose make that 30 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:01 amby stephen "know?" No. I believe I've only stated that I think you are referring to the post topic title, "Free Grace or accuser of the brethren?" If you're referring to something else then by all means please explain, thanks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:56 amby Another Voice Rose, I am sorry for the trouble. I was waiting for Von to respond to my former question, and fully intended to say what I did long before you posted. So, in my haste, I ASSUMED you meant it the way I would. However, you could have been agreeing with Kevin's prior comment - or another comment made in the thread? |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jun 4 2009, 09:21 PM Post #14 |
|
Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:01 amby Rose I really don't want to say now with the hulabaloo swirling, and given that I changed my mind as soon as I posted it. ...but the point is that "yes" is inoccuous enough to be excluded from the presumption of 'pot-shot.' and don't be sorry, Missy - you're a great sister! I agree with Stephen. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:05 amby Lou Martuneac Yes Rose, please explain. The question you answered "YES" to is Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? That means "yes" to both and please do not worsen your personal testimony with another attempt to lie your way out of the obvious. And while you try to be truthful how about admitting you defaced my copyrighted book cover for JP to use at his defunct blog to attack me. You happily joined in and he outted you. Then a few months ago you publicly lied to me about it at UoG, but quickly deleted that comment when I busted you for it. How about you admit it and repent right here in front of the others here that know you did it. Or are you going to parrot da Rosa’s pattern of lies and evasion? Finally, you keep taking your complaints to the wrong people and places. Your business is with me because of your frequent offenses against me. For Stephen: Last year I promised Rose that if she took any more cheap shots at me in any blog I would be back at her blog to hold her accountable. That was months ago and she did it a while back at her blog and I kept my promise. I stopped quite a while ago. Now she comes here and just could not resist; could you Rose? Rose knows what she has to do. I posted it at her blog. Admit to and apologize for the attack on me through your book cover stunt and promise to NEVER take another cheap shot at me again. Do that and my business is through with her. Or Rose- do you want to try what da Rosa did, but finally made a wise choice to promise to stay away from blog. Regrets to Stephen for the heavy handed dealing with Rose, but she has earned it, over and over again. She is NOT nice or reasonable. She is duplicitous in here interactions and I have been at ZERO tolerance too long to sugar coat anything more with her and her GES pals. Rose: You are going to admit to and apologize for your defacing my book cover and promise to never again cheap shot me in the blogs or you will never see the end of me at your blog. And since you are a partner at UoG I may have to duplicate everything there as well. LM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:08 amby Another Voice Yes Rose, please explain. The question you answered "YES" to is Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? That means "yes" to both and please do not worsen your personal testimony with another attempt to lie your way out of the obvious. And while you try to be truthful how about admitting you defaced my copyrighted book cover for JP to use at his defunct blog to attack me. You happily joined in and he outted you. Then a few months ago you publicly lied to me about it at UoG, but quickly deleted that comment when I busted you for it. How about you admit it and repent right here in front of the others here that know you did it. Or are you going to parrot da Rosa’s pattern of lies and evasion? Finally, you keep taking your complaints to the wrong people and places. Your business is with me because of your frequent offenses against me. For Stephen: Last year I promised Rose that if she took any more cheap shots at me in any blog I would be back at her blog to hold her accountable. That was months ago and she did it a while back at her blog and I kept my promise. I stopped quite a while ago. Now she comes here and just could not resist; could you Rose? Rose knows what she has to do. I posted it at her blog. Admit to and apologize for the attack on me through your book cover stunt and promise to NEVER take another cheap shot at me again. Do that and my business is through with her. Or Rose- do you want to try what da Rosa did, but finally made a wise choice to promise to stay away from blog. Regrets to Stephen for the heavy handed dealing with Rose, but she has earned it, over and over again. She is NOT nice or reasonable. She is duplicitous in here interactions and I have been at ZERO tolerance too long to sugar coat anything more with her and her GES pals. Rose: You are going to admit to and apologize for your defacing my book cover and promise to never again cheap shot me in the blogs or you will never see the end of me at your blog. And since you are a partner at UoG I may have to duplicate everything there as well. LM Lou, she can't. You've banned her from free speech. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:23 amby Lou Martuneac Stephen: Last year I finally came to realize that the only way to keep these GES people under control is with blunt force trauma. It worked with da Rosa and it going to be the way Rose gets put under control. As you know I tried for two years to be reasonable and all I got was personal attacks, character assassination and more. And Rose happily joined in and/or supported it. While at the same time running interference for da Rosa and his gross lapses in ethical behavior, which she still does to this day. I’ve had enough of them and their behavior. While I keep their reductionist heresy pinned down I am going to keep their unethical, carnal behavior on display and pinned down. Lou -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:31 amby Rose Stephen, Is that supposed to be an explanation of what an "agreement" is? Lou Martuneac wrote:another attempt to lie your way out of the obvious It is not a lie just because I don't want to explain something. Lou Martuneac wrote:you publicly lied to me about it at UoG I have never lied about any of the things that you "accuse" me of. (Stephen, look: my comments are on-topic) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:33 amby Another Voice Lou Martuneac wrote:Stephen: Last year I finally came to realize that the only way to keep these GES people under control is with blunt force trauma. It worked with da Rosa and it going to be the way Rose gets put under control. As you know I tried for two years to be reasonable and all I got was personal attacks, character assassination and more. And Rose happily joined in and/or supported it. While at the same time running interference for da Rosa and his gross lapses in ethical behavior, which she still does to this day. I’ve had enough of them and their behavior. While I keep their reductionist heresy pinned down I am going to keep their unethical, carnal behavior on display and pinned down. Lou Lou, "The way Rose gets put under control" is "blunt force trauma"??? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:41 amby Casey Lou, you have admitted to the heavy-handed treatment of one of Christ’ own. Stop. I do not wish to battle you or anyone else nor do I wish to air dirty laundry but if personal character continues to be an issue between you and others then I will insist that we include a discussion of all things Puga. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:23 pmby kevin Can a Christian be liberal in his or her dealings with the Gospel and those who pervert it? Galatians 2:1-5 1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. Go cry to your mommy if your blaspheme and heresy gets exposed and called what it is and you're upset about it. I've been witness to how these kind, graceful, loving, and reasonable people act when they are backed by their few fierce supporters. They love to attack Lou saying that he shouldn't act the way he does, but they turn a blind eye to the absolute base behaviour of their chosen leaders. Ask Lou to stop marking those who are anti the Gospel of Christ? Good luck with that. And good luck explaining that at the Judgement Seat of Christ, if in deed that is the Judgement you will make it to. Periodically you'd think these people think none of us have memories for how they act so abused by the man they violently attack at every turn. Who are the people these who behave so absurdly prey on? Those like Von, who has been convinced of many things but obviously has never read anything of what is used as proof to convince him. He asks Stephen questions to find out if Stephen is the one who's easily drawn into a "witch hunt" when he himself is posting a thread attacking a Brother in Christ using information he's never read himself! He's spewing attacks about supposed sin the man is neither a witness to the act or of the evidence. Such is the fruit of the GES. Call Lou an accuser of the Brethren? With what evidence do you bring this charge? Do you parrot other men's remarks? Do you make things up? Are you sure those who vehemently oppose the Gospel of Jesus Christ are even Christians? Paul made no bones about standing up to Peter and calling him out, though Paul KNEW Peter was a Christian and an Apostle. I make no bones about calling the GES out for what it is - a tool being used to destroy Christian lives, and to inoculate damned souls from hearing the truth. Lulling the damned to sleep while the Christian Evangelist is mocked and made out to be a legalist. I could wish that those who trouble Christians and the Lost would even cut themselves off! Kev -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:35 pmby Another Voice Kevin, I am "marked" by Lou because I won't leave my church. I am not GES. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:50 pmby Casey Kevin, At some point you’re going to have to decide whether you consider those in the GES brethren or heretics and respond according to the scripture. If you find that those in the GES are heretics then you are bound by the scripture to avoid them. If you find they are brethren then treat them as such but please make up your mind and respond accordingly. |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jun 4 2009, 09:22 PM Post #15 |
|
Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:56 pmby stephen Lou wrote:Last year I promised Rose that if she took any more cheap shots at me in any blog I would be back at her blog to hold her accountable. Fair enough, but that's different than saying she violated an agreement. I don't personally see her answer here as a cheap-shot, though I think she should explain herself, especially if her "yes" wasn't meant to address the topic title as would seem most natural. I cannot in good conscience however assume she has to lie to do so, I'll just have to wait to see what her answer is, if any. I do think it odd that she hasn't clarified what she meant yet, but odd behavior is not guilt. Rose, is there any reason not to explain what you meant? Silence on the matter only feeds the drama doesn't it? I'll ask you to consider giving your explanation and I'll reiterate that I will not presume you are lying to do so. At the moment I'd side with Lou, even Missy if I understood her right, in that the most obvious meaning is that you were indeed answering the topic title. Is an explanation really too much to ask? Don't you want to be clear about what you meant? Please, It doesn't need to be this way, we'll never get anywhere if we continually second-guess each other and deprive each other of explanations, such evasion only fuels the distrust. Lou. As to your book, it's no secret Rose was involved. I do think she owes you an apology / explanation of her role in that too, whatever it was exactly. Of course I think everyone involved in that whole series owes you an apology -- regardless of what you've allegedly done it came across as unadulterated revenge, a knife in your back to twist someone who had once been your ally against you. An event which, to your credit, you actually predicted more than a year in advance was likely coming, you just didn't know when. That said, "blunt force trauma" may be effective in silencing your foes but it's not an effective way to reach out to others. It's up to you to determine if you think it's worth it -- I completely agree with you about their theological errors and abundance of documented ethical lapses, I have and will continue to support you theologically but I don't believe that "blunt force trauma" is a very effective ministry tool and I WANT to minister with you. You have so much more than blunt force trauma to offer -- I've seen much of it because I've known your heart on the private side that others have not been privileged to see. As to Rose's own behavior, she has indeed done some things I consider pretty shady -- an example that jumps to mind is when you quoted something Antonio had written some time ago, at UoG I think, then Rose edited the article and claimed you had misrepresented/misquoted what had been said there, and then she tried to pass it off as "funny" when the fact of her edit to artificially discredit you was revealed. Do you remember the specific incident I'm referring to? I'll look it up in more detail if you'd like, but I remember the generalities very well because it was a pivotal incident in regard to my perception of Rose. Yes, it's hard to trust someone when they will clearly do that to protect themselves or a friend rather than simply admit the truth and account for it. IMHO you are well-founded in this regard. That said, I also think you and I can rise above allowing such lapses in judgment to take center stage from GES' theological errors and ministry to those who are turned off by blunt force trauma. I'm not asking you to go soft on them, I'm just asking you to consider whether blunt force trauma techniques are helping your overall ministry. Maybe you think it is, I just don't think so and as someone who genuinely cares for you I should have said so a while ago. I've failed you in that regard Lou, at least in my own conscience, because you've trusted me for honest council at times and, while I've usually given it, there have been times when I've withheld dissenting thoughts for fear of jeopardizing our relationship. The fault is mine in this regard and I ask you to forgive me for failing your trust. I ask you then as a friend to simply reconsider the role and impact of blunt force trauma on your ministry as a whole. I'm with you in nearly every other conceivable way, I just think blunt force trauma is giving your naysayers exactly what they want and need to distract the discussion from real issues such that threads like this are even sustainable. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 2:50 pmby Rose Stephen, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I would like to have this example of me editing something of Antonio's to discredit Lou. Please. As to my answer "yes" - I meant "yes" to the post's question but what difference does it make? Does the word "yes" require I be served up with 30 comments reminding me of the bitterness Lou holds against me on my personal blog? This is me breaking some agreement that I know nothing about? "Yes"? One word? And I would like to know what dishonest thing you think I did to "discredit" Lou. I never quoted Antonio' articles in an edited fashion - what are yout talking about? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:00 pmby stephen Hi Rose, Thanks for a simple explanation of your "yes" answer, I agree with you that it did not justify Lou flooding your blog with comments, I don't see you as violating any "agreement". Stephen, I would like to have this example of me editing something of Antonio's to discredit Lou. Yes, of course. I finally found it. I’ve Been Promoted: New Adjunct Contributor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:06 pmby Rose Dear Stephen, I have pledged not to click on links to that blog. Would you be able to tell me what it is? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:10 pmby stephen No problem, here is Lou's comment which describes the incident which I'm referring to. Dear Guests: If you go to Unashamed of Grace you will find the article has been revised. It originally read, “I will post every one he sends me from this day forward.” But now it says, “I reserve the right to post every one he sends me from this day forward.” Of course, Antonio was trying to evade posting any more of my e-mails, especially the heart felt attempt to recover him from his Sock Puppet- fg me routine at my blog. But the story does not end there. Early today I received an e-mail from Rose (Rose's Reasonings), suggesting I misunderstood Antonio and that he had written, “reserves the right” instead of his promise to, “post every one” I send him. I looked at Unashamed and saw the, “reserve the right,” and wondered if I was mistaken. My experience with GES men has taught me to copy and save their articles, because they have a pattern of deleting and/or revising articles and comments. I happen to have the original article Antonio wrote, and it had the original language as I noted in my article. I suggest to Rose she was likely mistaken about the statement and should ask Antonio if he had revised it. Rose wrote back and informed me that she went into Antonio’s article and revised it herself. She made the decision to change his article. That was disappointing, but not unexpected to hear. He meant what he said, and Rose revised, or more like tampered with what he wrote. Rose was essentially posing as Antonio revising his own article. Then she wrote to me as if I needed to see that Antonio had revised it. She said that she changed it because she thinks that was the intent of Antonio’s statement. Rose has not only come to accept the false doctrine of Antonio da Rosa, but now is showing a tendency to behave like him. She tried to protect him and run interference for him in spite of his recklessness and poor behavior choices. This goes beyond accepting the egregious doctrinal errors of Antonio, and it is disturbing. It is becoming increasingly difficult to have level of trust with any advocate of the Crossless gospel. Now, Rose has compromised her testimony with an action that is similar to the kind Antonio lost his personal testimony over. LM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:31 pmby Another Voice Stephen, What you've just posted proves my point about Lou being an accuser. This particular post you reference was of a personal nature and had no bearing on the Gospel, nor any Biblical issue. I remember it as the article that made me begin to ignore Lou's message, as well as you others, because of it's condescending and sarcastic tone. Kevin has valiantly defended Lou's behavior because he is acting on behalf of the Gospel. How is this example, or most of Lou's personal attacks, in any way acting on behalf of the Gospel? This is a perfect example of accusing the brethren. Lou himself has acknowledged Rose as a sister in Christ. He's simply tattling like an infant. If Lou's arguments have been caustic with regards to Biblical error, I have thanked him for the information both publically and privately. Ask him. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:36 pmby Rose Stephen, I am glad to have the chance to talk to you about that. I remember that very well and was quite taken aback with how the thing ended up that day. Of course, I wasn't welcome to explain it to anyone on Lou's blog. May I explain to you here how I remember that incident? I saw the article that Antonio posted that day. Apparently Lou was sending him many unwanted emails. He had asked Lou to stop with no success. He posted the article as a "threat" of sorts to say: if you send me one more email, I will publish it here for all to see. (Maybe the emails had been of a nature that Antonio figured this was a "threat" that would work.) Then Lou posts his article saying that this was a promise to publish anything Lou would like on our blog. He titled his article "I've been promoted to NEW ADJUNCT CONTRIBUTOR" at the UoG blog. Obviously, it was meant o be funny or poke fun. He ended his article with "what fun" or something like that. Lou thought it was funny. He was twisting Antonio's intent (obviously Antonio did not mean to make LM a member of the blog) and making irony out of it. I got it. I took it as humorous. I also decided to tweak Antonio's words to more clearly express his intent, after having asked him about it. I thought *that* was also funny. Is this dishonest? I am a member of the blog! We all have an agreement there like this. We think nothing of fixing a typo or a mistake or anyhting like that. It is a group blog, not a forum. I am sorry you thought it was dishonest, it wasn't meant to be. I could have very easily told Lou that it was Antonio that changed it when he emailed me and asked me, but I honestly told him that it was me. I also told him that I thought it was all meant to be a joke. Thanks for allwoing me the chance to explain. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:43 pmby stephen Hi Missy,it's relevant in that incidents like this contributed to the breakdown of trust which in turn made the real issues all the more difficult. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:53 pmby Another Voice Thanks, Stephen, but I did not say it was irrelevent. I keep saying that reactions like this might be understandable, but it still does NOT make them right. They are not defendable, as Kevin tried to point out, in a scriptural manner. We make it a further error to call defending our own hurts - justifiable or not - as defending the Gospel. I feel it's demeaning to the Cross to do so. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:34 pmby kevin Casey wrote:Kevin, At some point you’re going to have to decide whether you consider those in the GES brethren or heretics and respond according to the scripture. If you find that those in the GES are heretics then you are bound by the scripture to avoid them. If you find they are brethren then treat them as such but please make up your mind and respond accordingly. Casey I believe I have ordered my conduct according to Scripture in this regard without fault. I have from the very beginning of my involvement in this discussion (three or so years now) been clear that those who preach a false gospel as though it were The Gospel are at best disorderly Brethren. I have not been double minded at all. Those who preach heresy are heretics... can I be more clear? Do you see me fellowshipping with these people? Kev |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jun 4 2009, 09:23 PM Post #16 |
|
Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:52 pmby kevin The incident being described by Stephen and Lou is that of the occasion where it is believed that Rose edited the cover of Lou's book and JP posted it at his blog as part of a long running hateful attack on Lou. There was evidence of admission to the act by Rose at the time that I was witness to. Thus is more fruit of the GES. See what JP's re-fostered relationship with Antonio brought him and the community - strife and division. Once again, the GES Gospel supporters love to make Lou out to be the bad guy but again and again when all the chips are down it's clear that Lou is only reacting to the base driven behavior of those have attacked him. It is VERY easy to make the person who punches someone look unreasonable, hateful, and more... that is until you see that the person who got punched was attacking the man's family or some other thing. Selective and creative reporting can make the victim look like the aggressor very easily. I will say that Lou is very blunt and doesn't protect himself from the unrighteous selective reporting - but why should he bother to try? If they don't quote what he's actually said might they make stuff up about him like they have about other men? People ate up JP's long articles... though they were selective in the worst way... though they were nothing short of merciless libel... though they sought no reconciliation only destruction of the man. Oh how we saw the true colors of many who posted in those threads. But the real tragedy of those groundless attacks on Lou is that Brother JP has been desperately injured through his participation in what he was spurred on to. He like Jeremy Meyers was the friend of those who found him profitable for their purpose but is now cast aside like yesterday's newspaper. He's done all the damage he could be used for... Cry for mercy and forgiveness you who destroy your Brother's ministry! Call on the Lord God on your Brother's behalf and your own! Continue on pretending and attacking Lou at your own risk. Do you want to "help" Lou become a better Christian? There's a plank that needs to be moved first.. start choping. Kev -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:05 pmby Another Voice Kevin, are you even reading what I write? Please let me know, maybe you're just skimming. Lou ignores me, I expect that. I am not affiliated with anyone these interactions have occured with, you are both aware that I am not FG, let alone GES. Furthermore, I have never pulled any shenanigans on any of you. None of the excuses apply. kevin wrote:It is VERY easy to make the person who punches someone look unreasonable, hateful, and more... that is until you see that the person who got punched was attacking the man's family or some other thing. Selective and creative reporting can make the victim look like the aggressor very easily. IT IS STILL NOT RIGHT. There's plenty of Biblical evidence to back my statement up. It's milk - do I need to provide it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:19 pmby kevin Another Voice wrote:Kevin, are you even reading what I write? Please let me know, maybe you're just skimming. Lou ignores me, I expect that. I am not affiliated with anyone these interactions have occured with, you are both aware that I am not FG, let alone GES. Furthermore, I have never pulled any shenanigans on any of you. None of the excuses apply. kevin wrote:It is VERY easy to make the person who punches someone look unreasonable, hateful, and more... that is until you see that the person who got punched was attacking the man's family or some other thing. Selective and creative reporting can make the victim look like the aggressor very easily. IT IS STILL NOT RIGHT. There's plenty of Biblical evidence to back my statement up. It's milk - do I need to provide it? Missy I wasn't addressing you with this. More Casey, Von and Rose, along with those lurking. They attack Lou at every turn and make him out to be the bad guy as though that is some kind of defense for the GES. It's absurd. Even if everything they say about Lou were to be correct - which it is far from - they would be no farther ahead in their argument to support their heresy. Where I have found my Brother in error I have gone to him privately and have found him to be orderly in his reception. I will not disclose further both for the sake of his privacy, and because of the misquoting that would be sure to occur. I will not give opportunity for division where there is none required. Kev -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:46 pmby Casey Kevin, Have you tried to avoid these persons? I offer these verses for your consideration. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17 KJV) But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do engender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, (2 Timothy 2:23-24 KJV) This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. (Titus 3:8-9 KJV) Is the strife here not evident? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:55 pmby Casey Kevin, For the record my advice to Missy has been to do likewise and avoid Lou. I don’t know Von but I have ignored his comments which I feel are, at the very least, out of place. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:17 pmby Another Voice Kevin, I am truly sorry that Lou feels like and is attacked in this way. I'm also sorry that you won't address my concerns and that instead you lump together a "them" to fight against when I'm right here telling you how I've been treated and would desparately appreciate an acknowledgment of my individuality. To repeat what you've said to me with a slight change: Lou attacks Rose at every turn and makes her out to be the bad guy as though that is some kind of defense for the Gospel. It's absurd. Even if everything Lou says about Rose were to be correct - which it is far from - he would be no farther ahead in his argument against her heresy. What is Rose's heresy? Changing a blog post, open dialogue with people who disagree with her or Lou? There's no defense - no heresy. She's never joined GES and has had multiple open disagreements with some of their theology. She's his sister in Christ and he badgers and threatens her at a whim. Did you read what he said to/about her? Have I not given you numerous opportunities to break it off? Yet you kept violating the agreement. Just couldn't control yourself, just had to do it again; didn't you Rose? Be seeing you at your blog shortly. Last year I finally came to realize that the only way to keep these GES people under control is with blunt force trauma. It worked with da Rosa and it going to be the way Rose gets put under control. Read it. "...going to be the way Rose gets put under control." Then read it again, considering that Lou is talking about your wife, your daughter, your sister. Both statements are rather menacing if not outright threatening (agreement? he threatened, no agreement was made). With any given situation or wrongdoing on their part, is it acceptable to speak of them or to you about them in this way? Witnessing his oft expressed sarcasm, similar to the article Stephen linked to and pasted a little earlier, I can only imagine how smug he must feel when he bullies a retreat in this way. Do you express concern to him then? There is no heresy, no defense of any gospel related to these threats - just simple hubris. I've said my part. I hope you understand my point. Any further would be for my own satisfaction. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:21 pmby Another Voice KC, I'm sorry, you did advise me well. I am having a great difficulty with injustice. I'm praying for peace. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:53 pmby stephen Missy, thanks for your earlier comments. I welcome your critical thoughts. Thanks, Stephen, but I did not say it was irrelevent. I keep saying that reactions like this might be understandable, but it still does NOT make them right. You are quite right and I will attempt to carefully consider how I tread moving forward. Thanks, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:05 pmby stephen Rose. I haven't fully factored your explanation of what happened regarding the edited post but you have my word that I will take what you've said into consideration, thank you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:39 pmby stephen Missy, I reread my earlier comment and this is what I said on the matter. I've underlined and bolded what were my intended key points and I'll ask you to reconsider them. I don't want to be a burden or stumbling block to you Missy so I appreciate your honest and forthright critique. You said of youself, "I have never pulled any shenanigans on any of you." Agreed, and this is why I trust you even when your criticism is of me. I don't believe I've pulled any shenanigans on you either and I don't intend to start now. Yes, it's hard to trust someone when they will clearly do that to protect themselves or a friend rather than simply admit the truth and account for it. IMHO you are well-founded in this regard. That said, I also think you and I can rise above allowing such lapses in judgment to take center stage from GES' theological errors and ministry... (emphasis added) In relation to your comment then, I think it's clear that I wasn't connecting the perceived lapse as having to do with "defending the gospel", only that it is an example of why the distrust exists and why I think that distrust has a basis in some reality, even if that reality is based on a misunderstanding as Rose suggests is the case. The trust issue is all I was addressing and I think I was pretty specific about that. Otherwise, I haven't even thought of this event for a very long time, that's why I didn't even know where to find it at first. I hope that testifies that this isn't some loaded accusation I'm just carrying around in my holster, ready to draw it against Rose whenever we cross paths -- it's just something I happened to remember today while writing the post where I first mentioned it. Even Lou's own words near the end of his comment quoted above did not connect the incident to a defense of the gospel, he clearly stated only that the event fueled his distrust of Rose, which it did. Lou wrote:It is becoming increasingly difficult to have level of trust with any advocate of the Crossless gospel. In light of this then, where have any of us referenced this or any other perceived ethical lapse, as having anything to do with "defending the gospel"? Where have we connected ethical lapses with our arguments against GES' positions specifically? I'm fairly certain I haven't because that would be a blatant logical fallacy and I'll quickly apologize if I have done so with this or any other "hurt". I don't think Lou or Kev have done so either. If any of us have we were wrong to do so but I don't see that in Lou's comment, only documentation of why the breach in trust exists. If in fact he hasn't used this as a "defense of the gospel" as you suggest, then it would seem there's no problem here if his documenting of the event is understood for what it is. It's not wrong to hold people accountable, accountability does not make one an accuser. I realize this truth cuts both ways and I'm happy to be held accountable for my words and actions too, I need it as much as anyone so, please please believe me, I'm not gettin' all high and mighty here. I've certainly mis-stepped a time or twenty in this dance and I'll need and value the "truth in love" from those around me if/when it happens again. Again, the only reason I mentioned it is because it acknowledges Lou's perception, much as I think you seek acknowledgment from Kev of your own perceptions. Even so, the context of my mentioning this incident at all wasn't to encourage lingering on such things but was instead immediately followed by a personal and genuine plea to move beyond drawing so much attention to such things because I don't think doing so is helping his ministry. Although I was more wordy about it ( ) it seems I'm actually encouraging something very similar to what you are saying... that giving so much attention to perceived character issues and injustices has nothing to do with and should not be allowed to detract from the theological issues. As I have mulled this over I believe you and I are actually very close to being on the same page in this regard. Let me know your thoughts, good night. |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jun 4 2009, 09:25 PM Post #17 |
|
Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:25 amby Michele Hi Stephen, I like you attitude in this thread, it is appreciated by me. You said the distrust exists and why I think that distrust has a basis in some reality, even if that reality is based on a misunderstanding as Rose suggests is the case. The trust issue is all I was addressing and I think I was pretty specific about that. Agreed, this could all just be only about trust and misunderstandings. And I've been around for less than half the history on who did what to whom and when, so my awareness isn't as good, though possibly still as fair, I don't know? as yours and Rachel's. Regardless. It is apparent in the time I have been here that there are a number of individuals who want reconciliation, and have been seeking it from this person. I appreciate your heart for reconciliation and peacemaking, Stephen and I know it is hard work, but reconciliation takes two parties. And I think, if you asked, you would discover that reconciliation or fixing the trust issue would be easy if we're only dealing with the misunderstandings, and sins. And still, we could just get everyone together at once and say, confess your sins to one another and be done with the past. But the hitch in the giddyup is this: we're talking doctrine and belief system for some brothers here. The refusal to reconcile is systematized for some brothers, the ones who demand that everyone, GES or no, who does not first believe with their theology may not seek or obtain reconciliation on sins or misunderstandings until they have converted, first. Is this not a done deal. Please, don't evaluate whether I'm right or wrong, I care less than you I imagine if I am right or wrong, what I care most about, if you know me, is reconciliation, so, please I'd like to ask if you would go check the sources yourself and see: can they have a discussion over the misunderstandings? Also, can they reconcile over their own sins, and receive the confessions of others over their sins, meanwhile without resolving the theology as well? Just like a few others, I have been probing for answers for why there needs to be a problem, and, I would quit the probing if the problem finally came to an end. Let's talk turkey, as Rose says. Let's see if anyone is really up for the challenge, and who is not, and if we are wasting our time and our reputations and our joy by talking any further about it. And you said Where have we connected ethical lapses with our arguments against GES' positions specifically? I think it's implied from Lightning Boy's comment that he is thinking only of the theology when he asks the question about being an accuser of the brethren. I am not sure at all if he is aware or else interested in discussing the ethical issues which have also been brought up? But I think you are right, there should be a separation between ethics and theology. You don't wanna mess with ethics. You just don't. Don't even bring it up, because then you're dancing with the devil with the formula for righteousness (in union with Christ (and His righteousness) through faith). Now any individual people, dealing with specific sins is fine for the sake of accountability, I agree Stephen, but this brings us back to the point that some are interested in resolving it and some are thinking there is good in letting it remain unresolved and festering. Stephen, you're going to have a fight on your hands if you think you can convince someone who has built into their beliefs a justification, in avoiding reconciliation. I'd be interested if we hear from those brothers first to see what the chances are. As for connecting ethics around in unfair ways.... I think you know. One person can be labeled with the same sinfulness of another separate person. So, it has been linked without reasoning from person to person. But then the person is applied (linked) to a whole organization. And, the whole organization has been applied to a whole theology. And the whole theology has been applied to the bulk of evangelicalism. And the bulk of evangelicalism has been applied to the workings of being against the Spirit, for the devil, and in some cases the spirit of the antichrist who is to come. Then, of course it has been done numerous times to skip all those steps in between, in Rose's case going straight from the individual to the problem of the bulk of evangelicalism... which, by the way, is only problematic according to the belief system of a very small range of believing sisters and brothers; it's probably worth disputing. Did I leave out the aspect of linking that you were pondering over? Thanks for letting me comment, Von, Stephen.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:57 amby kevin Casey wrote:Kevin, Have you tried to avoid these persons? I offer these verses for your consideration. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17 KJV) But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do engender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, (2 Timothy 2:23-24 KJV) This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. (Titus 3:8-9 KJV) Is the strife here not evident? So should I leave every venue they come into? I think not. I do not fellowship in their havens, and I correct as I'm able and always always with the view of restoring or reaching. Anyway.. not going to re-play the last three years for this purpose either... the history is well known. Kev -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:22 amby kevin Another Voice wrote:Kevin, I am truly sorry that Lou feels like and is attacked in this way. feels like he's been and being attacked? "Feels like" come on... I'm also sorry that you won't address my concerns and that instead you lump together a "them" to fight against when I'm right here telling you how I've been treated and would desparately appreciate an acknowledgment of my individuality. I am sorry I didn't know you were looking for a response from me with regard to any of this. I try not to answer for my Brother. The only reason why I answer the others is because their use of attack on him is absurdly used to give the GES credit... since my purpose in speaking with them is only to draw them out of disorder I need to answer them in their folly, with out answering them in their folly if you know what I mean. To repeat what you've said to me with a slight change: Lou attacks Rose at every turn and makes her out to be the bad guy as though that is some kind of defense for the Gospel. It's absurd. Even if everything Lou says about Rose were to be correct - which it is far from - he would be no farther ahead in his argument against her heresy. Lou doesn't attack Rose at every turn - he reacts to her every attack on him. I have yet to find a single thing that Lou says about Rose that isn't true - both positive and negative. He isn't saying things about her to make her heresy apparent. I assume he is showing how she really is when she puts on the "reasonable" cloak for her public outings. What is Rose's heresy? She supports the preaching of a false Gospel that cuts at the Lord and His testimony right in the heart. She harbours and protects this heresy's main architects and proponents by unrighteous means. She has turned away from her First Love to another. She's his sister in Christ and he badgers and threatens her at a whim. Or restated "He's her Brother in Christ and she badgers and threatens him at a whim." Not only that but she draws others that do so into her fellowship. Did you read what he said to/about her? Did you see what she did to the cover of his book for the evil work that was done against him? How many thousands of people were introduced to Lou and his ministry through that terrible means? My council to my Brother was to bring this to the courts, as what the council of the lawyers. In submission Brother Lou spared Sister Rose and her cohorts misery. But you'll never read that on one of their Blogs "We did a terrible illegal thing. We viciously attacked a Brother in Christ. We are thankful to the Lord, and for our Brother's mercy that he has decided not to prosecute our crimes in court. We repent of our terrible intentions." Nope never anything like that but you will read "Lou called me names again! He's such a bad guy!!!" There is no heresy, no defense of any gospel related to these threats - just simple hubris. Maybe I should go get a bunch of quotes from her for you?????? get over the hurt little one act... these people dish it out like it's landfill. I've said my part. I hope you understand my point. Any further would be for my own satisfaction. I don't like speaking for other people any more than you do. I don't think there is any further profit in us doing so. Unfortunately you have become aligned with these people - either in reality or in perception. I speak to you here clearly and honestly (I hope you will agree) because I hope to win you. There are others here who I have been forced to leave outside of fellowship until they get sick of suffering out there alone. If they return there will be a warm cloak for them. But I will not encourgage them in their struggle to hurt others and see souls lost. Hope this wasn't over the top, it is not my intention to "attack" anyone but I needed to be clear. What a terrible subject, truly terrible. I wish everyone involved would suck back and really consider if they are being Christ-like. I make no threat to anyone I've referenced. I have sought after these individuals long and hard to restore them. To be clear I do not need a person to publically humiliate themselves for them to be restored to fellowship with me - I need them to be in fellowship with Christ. My pride can be hurt all it likes... if a Brother or a Sister comes into right fellowship with the Lord Jesus they are welcome in my home. Kev -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:36 amby Rose kevin wrote:Lou doesn't attack Rose at every turn - he reacts to her every attack on him. Kevin, I read your comment just now and I wonder at your perception of these things. Can I ask you about just this particular two day excursion? Is my saying "yes" an "attack"? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:13 amby Lou Martuneac Get over it Rose. Still trying to evade what you have been up to for these past two years. Another redirect, so predictable! Stop the facade of innocence. Stop the whining martyr complex. Stephen and Kev pegged the long history of scurrilous personal attacks that you have been a party to. Either by direct participation or running interference for the perpetrators you are totally culpable. And you still refuse to fess up’ over your defacing my book cover. You can be thankful that I obeyed the Scriptures and halted the civil action against you. It would have been bad for you to be served by a sheriff’s deputy for process of copyright infringement; wouldn’t it have? LM Kevin, thanks for that last one. I appreciate you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:23 amby Lou Martuneac To All: My primary goal has been and will remain to make sure the heresy of the Crossless gospel never again ruins another unsuspecting believer. I’ll do all I can to make sure GES never has a chance to break out of its isolation as a cell of theological extremists. And that includes making sure Rose never has chance to lead someone to the reductionist heretics in the GES to be deceived by them. LM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:48 pmby kevin Rose wrote: kevin wrote:Lou doesn't attack Rose at every turn - he reacts to her every attack on him. Kevin, I read your comment just now and I wonder at your perception of these things. Can I ask you about just this particular two day excursion? Is my saying "yes" an "attack"? Rose I haven't been reading your blog or other writing for some time so I don't know what backdrop your answer "yes" is cast apon. I can not speak for how it was received by Lou. However, consider this. How many times have I been ransacked at the various blogs you frequent, and even your own, when I've questioned the integrity of one who couldn't answer the simpliest of questions a Christian ought to be able to answer. Just asking for him to answer a simple question was portrayed as abusing him. I believe you even went so far as to open a thread at your blog about the abusiveness of "yes/no" questions. Imagine your reaction if I had dropped by and said "Hi Rose (if I remembered to do so), <name of individual> is an accuser of the Brethren" (and if that were incontext of the thread to mean "Satan's accuser of the Brethren" would you consider that to be an attack on that person? Be honest you know that you would. I don't think answering "yes" has to be an attack but I believe in context of our overall discussion (the group of us) for the last number of years that it's reasonable to consider that Lou would see such as an attack. It surely wouldn't seem reasonable unless the back story was known. However, Lou has been very hurt by the back story - no matter if the jonny come lately people know that or not. So I guess the short answer, in context of this posts, is: Yes that does seem like an attack. Maybe after restoration and healing it wouldn't be, but right now I have to say yes it is. Kev |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jun 4 2009, 09:54 PM Post #18 |
|
Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:39 pmby lightninboy GES promoting “change of mind” repentance: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1988ii/wilkin.html http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1989i/Wilkin.html http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1991i/wilkin.html http://faithalone.org/news/y1988/88june4.html http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1989ii/Wilkin.html GES beginning to promote “turn from one's sins” repentance in 1998. http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1998i/Wilkin.html http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1998/98may2.html http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1998/98july1.html |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jun 5 2009, 09:28 PM Post #19 |
|
Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:00 amby Lou Martuneac Casey wrote:Lou, you have admitted to the heavy-handed treatment of one of Christ’ own. Stop. I do not wish to battle you or anyone else nor do I wish to air dirty laundry but if personal character continues to be an issue between you and others then I will insist that we include a discussion of all things Puga. Casey: I took a day to decide how to respond to you referencing “Puga” and the threatening nature of your comment. If you want to post any of the public details about his criminal behavior, go right ahead. I’m not sure how our host will take to that in his forum. I will, however, give you fair warning about what will happen to you if you even slightly try to incriminate or implicate me in any way with his criminal behavior or suggest I had any knowledge of it prior to his being charged. I promise to file suit against you immediately. I will have you served for process of criminal libel, defamation and any other appropriate charges that can be pressed against you. Even before that I will immediately phone my local state’s attorney general office and the prosecutor to inform them of your blog comments in regard to that investigation and case. I will ask my personal counsel to petition the court for criminal and civil charges to be brought against you and seek the maximum damages possible. If you want to have at it, by all means, indulge yourself. LM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:20 amby Michele Well I don't know about anyone else but I'm bored. The number one enemy of FGT is the one hardly anyone is talking about; and that problem is moral legalism. Moral legalism is a bigger deal to Paul, within the church, than any other one topic, in my understanding. As far as the promise-only gospel is concerned, even if there is error in the doctrine of it, even if, the fact remains that the scriptures themselves that they use are part of the gospel that saves the lost, and in spite of their supposed error, scripture does still save them. To say otherwise is to declare defunct the salvation proclamations of the Savior Himself, and I don't know who has the guts to do that sort of thing, theologically speaking. So doctrine on the gospel is not the source of trouble here, really and ultimately. What we are finding ourselves truly and mysteriously engaged in warfare on, is God's righteousness for his children which in every way is by faith, alone. Some of the opponents to the GES have used their arrangement on the gospel as a false mission to separate and suffer according to a pharisaical delusion. IMHO. Michele |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| lightninboy | Jun 5 2009, 09:30 PM Post #20 |
|
Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:29 amby Rose Michele, I am bored too. You have a great way of cutting through to the quick. I get your statement, comprehend it, agree with your assessment and admire you for being able to zero in on the problem so well. It is a pleasure to know you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:59 amby Michele Thanks for encouraging me. I need it, and by the way of course you're doing just fine yourself. I admire you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:04 pmby stephen Bored isn't quite the word I'd use but I am certainly tired of talking about Lou -- I don't see how threads like this have any bearing on any of the meatier issues that I think most of us would rather discuss. Personal conflicts with those on any "side" of the debate shouldn't be allowed to distract. This whole topic is, in my opinion, a distraction. It's a shame that threads like this get the most attention. Has anyone's theology or relationship to Christ grown from this thread? I doubt it. Michele, what exactly do you mean by "morale legalism"? Would you mind starting a new topic for that though? I don't know that it fits here unless you want to restrict the scope of that discussion to Lou and I don't see any reason to do that. To keep things on track in such a discussion I suggest participants agree to no talk of previous wrongs in that thread. I'm not suggesting we all be plasticly nicey-nice, I am only suggesting what I have suggested before and elsewhere -- that we "move on". Threads like this only keep us stuck in the past, and I don't want to be there. I've seen the past and it's been brutal and ugly at times from all sides. I put forth to everyone now what I essentially said earlier to just Lou -- that putting aside injustices is hard to do, but for the sake of our individual ministries I think we need to do just that and not allow the injustices to take center stage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:11 pmby kevin Hello Michelle, Michele wrote:Well I don't know about anyone else but I'm bored. Thanks for sharing. The number one enemy of FGT is the one hardly anyone is talking about; and that problem is moral legalism. Moral legalism is a bigger deal to Paul, within the church, than any other one topic, in my understanding. No. Paul's number one issue was infidelity to the Gospel, in either direction. As far as the promise-only gospel is concerned, even if there is error in the doctrine of it, even if, the fact remains that the scriptures themselves that they use are part of the gospel that saves the lost, and in spite of their supposed error, scripture does still save them. To say otherwise is to declare defunct the salvation proclamations of the Savior Himself, and I don't know who has the guts to do that sort of thing, theologically speaking. So does John 11:35 save? "To say otherwise is to declare defunct the salvation...... " How about Ezekiel 25:11?... I mean I know it's not in the exalted book of John but it is Scripture... isn't it?? The conclusion you make here is delusional. So doctrine on the gospel is not the source of trouble here, really and ultimately. What we are finding ourselves truly and mysteriously engaged in warfare on, is God's righteousness for his children which in every way is by faith, alone. You're right the doctrine of the Gospel is not the source of the trouble at all. The source of the trouble is exactly as it ever has been; "Hath God indeed said?" Some of the opponents to the GES have used their arrangement on the gospel as a false mission to separate and suffer according to a pharisaical delusion. IMHO. You're fully entitled to your opinion. I wonder what the Lord will say about it when the Day comes. Kev -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:37 pmby stephen Kev made some great points. Gal 1:6 doesn't accurse the one who practices morale legalism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Lou: Free Grace or accuser of the brethren? Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:40 pmby Michele The correct answer would have been, "Let me spend some time before the Lord examining my self and associations, for the LORD certainly cares for free grace, for me, and for the way in which I conduct myself on behalf of His gospel." |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Theology Talk forum · Next Topic » |
8:41 AM May 18