It's interesting to note that Lou Martuneac is a member of the Free Grace Alliance (FGA). As such he must abide by the FGA Covenant, which states:
"In agreement with these affirmations, we covenant to work together graciously and enthusiastically to advance this Gospel of Grace, and to communicate with a positive and gracious tone toward all others, both inside and outside the Free Grace Alliance."
It seems that Lou wants the recognition this association affords without the responsibility to abide by it's covenant. Tim Nichols has stated: "Nothing is quite as ugly as an ungracious man preaching a gracious message." This is a glaring problem that needs to be addressed and corrected (Prov. 27:6; Gal. 6:1). And so with a spirit of gentleness let us go on to address the many issues of public concern regarding the ungracious behavior of Lou Martuneac:
A. LOSS OF TESTIMONY
In response to Pastor Gordon Cloud's blog post titled "A Call for Civility," Lou Martuneac confidently declared: "Gordon: I do appreciate this article. Those of us who have stood in defense of the Gospel against the reductionist assault on it by Hodges, Wilkin and GES have handled the matter scripturally and without losing our testimonies."
Gordon responded to Lou by saying: "Lou, thanks for stopping by. I must say that I am somewhat confused by your comments. In one you say that you appreciate the article that I have written, describing your own efforts as being scriptural, and then in the next, you perpetuate the very tactics that this article is rebuking."
Gordon would go on to emphasize: "You are continuing the tactics that this article addresses."
Gordon said to Lou: "I do not say that you are guilty of all of the tactics that I mentioned in my article. You asked me for specific instances, however, of personal attacks. Here are a few: in a recent discussion on Rose's blog, she told you politely, several times, that she did not want to continue the discussion at that time. You repeatedly persisted in badgering her, telling her she needed to get a 'thicker skin'. If you were following biblical principles of speech seasoned with grace, why would she need a thicker skin? The continued gag of referring to Antonio as 'Sock Puppet' is nothing more than name-calling, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. It is beneath someone of your abilities. Brother, in all sincerity, it is not your act of exposing error or proclaiming truth that I view as personal attacks, but the methods your employ to do so. I have seen your name on several forums and blogs in this discussion. On nearly every one of them, there is a trail of carnage to be found. You have been requested not to comment on a number of blogs that I know to be open for Christian debate. Over and over I have seen people tell you that your presentation is abrasive and offensive. Does this not say something to you?"
J. T. Borah said: "This man is really a sad representative of Christ."
Bob Topartzer said: "It would be good if you stopped referring to yourself as a Fundamentalist on the Internet as you are bad publicity."
Joe Griffin said: "This gets my vote for the best new term coined lately: ...'FundamentaLouism'".
Gordon responded to Lou by saying: "Lou, thanks for stopping by. I must say that I am somewhat confused by your comments. In one you say that you appreciate the article that I have written, describing your own efforts as being scriptural, and then in the next, you perpetuate the very tactics that this article is rebuking."
Gordon would go on to emphasize: "You are continuing the tactics that this article addresses."
Gordon said to Lou: "I do not say that you are guilty of all of the tactics that I mentioned in my article. You asked me for specific instances, however, of personal attacks. Here are a few: in a recent discussion on Rose's blog, she told you politely, several times, that she did not want to continue the discussion at that time. You repeatedly persisted in badgering her, telling her she needed to get a 'thicker skin'. If you were following biblical principles of speech seasoned with grace, why would she need a thicker skin? The continued gag of referring to Antonio as 'Sock Puppet' is nothing more than name-calling, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. It is beneath someone of your abilities. Brother, in all sincerity, it is not your act of exposing error or proclaiming truth that I view as personal attacks, but the methods your employ to do so. I have seen your name on several forums and blogs in this discussion. On nearly every one of them, there is a trail of carnage to be found. You have been requested not to comment on a number of blogs that I know to be open for Christian debate. Over and over I have seen people tell you that your presentation is abrasive and offensive. Does this not say something to you?"
J. T. Borah said: "This man is really a sad representative of Christ."
Bob Topartzer said: "It would be good if you stopped referring to yourself as a Fundamentalist on the Internet as you are bad publicity."
Joe Griffin said: "This gets my vote for the best new term coined lately: ...'FundamentaLouism'".
Antonio da Rosa said: "Lou Martuneac...brings disrepute upon his ministry and the theological positions to which he espouses.
Matthew said: "Lou...you could talk and talk until we are all skeletons [cf. 1 Cor. 13:1]."
Missy said: "You don't get it, Lou. I have been trying to understand your position from the start. But, honestly, your personal witness deters me from your gospel. You appear to have more interest in plugging your book by trolling. Maybe that is not your intent, but a mature unwelcome Christian would brush the dust off his feet and walk away when he is told he is unwelcome - so this comes across as your intent. Also, it appears to me that you have been driving at a division within an organization - and that with your book and following, possibly hope to lead those you have pulled with you. Of all those in this debate you appear to have selfish ambition rather than pure motives. I may be wrong, but this is my impression as an outsider looking in. By this your life and doctrine are not aligned and do not speak the witness of Jesus Christ. That is truly Crossless."
B. SERIOUS BREACH OF ETIQUETTE
Wayne (Jazzycat) said to Lou: "Your action was an insult and a serious breach of etiquette, since you had no problem coming to my blog and linking to your blog. One would think if links to my blog would not be allowed on your blog, then you would not use mine to link to yours."
Matthew said: "Lou, you really don't have any manners."
Rose said to Lou: "When exceptional cases arise, one has to alter the way one does things. I have asked you nicely to quit commenting here because I have become very tired of your attitude."
C. LACK OF INTEGRITY
Antonio said: "Once I was having a discussion with a friend of Lou Martuneac's. Her name is Rachel. I asked her if it were possible for someone to have major misconceptions about someone yet still refer to them. She said it was possible. In the course of her answer to me [it was in the context of the Mormon understanding of Jesus and the Evangelical] she stated these things: 'Yes, in a historical sense the Mormons are referring to the same Jesus that orthodox Christians are.' 'We know they [the Mormons] are referring to the same historical person we [the Evangelicals] are.' Lou was asked if he agreed with Rachel's quotes, and Lou answered: 'I agree with the entirety of her comments above'. The most anyone can even say about the quote you give of me is that I believe that the Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus are one in the same HISTORICAL person. That is all your quote of me signifies in its context. Furthermore, both Lou and his friend Rachel stipulated as much! To continue to use that quote as an offensive weapon is shady and unethical. I certainly do not believe that the Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus, in the sense of conceptions, are the same!" (See comment by Free Gracer on 08-16-2008, 6:14 PM.)
Lou continues to interact, acknowledge, and even misrepresent my views in spite of having said: "I barely look in myself, maybe once a day, just out of curiosity, nothing more. No way will I interact with or even acknowledge him, his views and/or antagonism."
Lou continued to interact with Michele after he said he would not. Michele responded by saying: "Lou, Excuse me? I said hypocrisy, or else explain: Lou wrote: 'I am NOT going to interact with Michele here.' 'That ends my recognition of her participation here.'"
Steve Sensenig said: "Lou wrote: 'All done here.' and then later wrote: 'I'm done interacting' and yet continues to post accusations and belittling comments. Please, Lou, keep your word and be done here as you said twice that you would be."
John Brown said to Lou: "Also, you've told me in the past that 'you've marked me and were going to avoid me as the Bible commanded me'. But now you hound me. So which is it?....So I have an idea for you. You're a chronologically mature man. I suggest you start acting like it. If you have 'marked me to avoid me'....well pray tell start acting on it. If you 'pay no attention to what i say', act like it! If you 'have nothing to say to me', why can I still see your words? And you keep saying I have the integrity issue? Whenever you post to me or about me or mention me in a post I will respond with the above paragraph and this to show who the man with the integrity issue REALLY is. You shot yourself in the foot when you first came on this board and lectured everyone about how carnal this place is and you were never coming back because of it, only to be back 5 days later! No Lou, I think I will place my credibility against yours on this forum ANY day!"
D. PLAGIARISM
On December 14, 2008 at 2:46pm Phillip M. Evans sent a bulk email to myself and twenty-seven other individuals including Lou Martuneac, Rick Whitmire, Liam Moran, Ron Shea, Bob Nyberg, Greg Schliesmann, Kevin Lane, Stephen Stark, Jonathan Moorhead, David Wyatt, and Mark Pierson. In the email Phillip wrote:
"Brother Jonathan, when Lopez wrote: 'Zane was a picture of grace. What would happen if you looked up the word 'grace' in an encyclopedia or dictionary? I am sure that below Jesus' picture somewhere in the word's description will appear the picture of Zane C. Hodges.', to me it indicated such a degree of reverence as to certainly skirt the border of worship. In my opinion it is not fitting to give Hodges an honorary eulogy at all, for those who disagreed with him concerning his teachings on the Gospel late in his life were not merely having 'theological disagreements' with him. He gutted the Gospel of its essential content (the person and work of Christ). Not that he denied that content himself, but that he asserted that a person could be saved while disbelieving the content of the Gospel. And if the Gospel and its content are one and the same (and they are), then Hodges was in effect asserting that one could be saved while disbelieving the Gospel. He did not finish well. I don't think you could pick a subject more important than the Gospel to err on, and Hodges erred severely concerning it. His death saddened me, for I had hoped and prayed he would change his mind and come back to true doctrine. I wanted him to finish well. But I will not let the emotion of that sadness sentimentalize his life in my eyes, no matter what help some of his writings may have been to me in understanding certain passages of Scripture. In the same way we do not condemn a repentant sinner for his past wicked deeds, we should not be celebrating a man who fell away from the faith because of his past good work. See Exekiel [sic] 33:12-13. Phillip M Evans"
On December 17, 2008 at 7:54pm Lou Martuneac plagiarized Phillip Evans at the BibleExposition blog (notice the slight changes in bold). Martuneac wrote:
"Sir: In my opinion it is not fitting to give Hodges an honorary eulogy at all, for those who disagreed with him concerning his teachings on the Gospel late in his life were not merely having 'theological disagreements' with him. Hodges* gutted and stripped the Gospel of its essential content (the person and work of Christ). Not that he denied that content himself, but that he asserted that a person could be saved while disbelieving the content of the Gospel. And if the Gospel and its content are one and the same (and they are), then Hodges was in effect asserting that one could be saved while disbelieving the Gospel. He did not finish well. I don't think you could pick a subject more important than the Gospel to err on, and Hodges erred severely concerning it. His death saddened his followers. Those of us who rejected his reductionist assault on the content of saving faith had hoped and prayed he would change his mind and come back to true doctrine. We wanted him to finish well. But we will not let the emotion of his passing sentimentalize his life in our eyes, no matter what help some of his writings may have been to us in understanding certain passages of Scripture. In the same way we do not condemn a repentant sinner for his past wicked deeds, we should not be celebrating a man who fell away from the faith because of his past good work. LM"
On December 17, 2008 at 8:18pm Lou Martuneac once again plagiarized Phillip Evans, this time at The Daily Scroll blog (notice the slight changes in bold). This time Martuneac wrote:
"Zane Hodges did NOT Finish Well! In my opinion it is not fitting to give the late Zane Hodges an honorary eulogy at all. Those who disagreed with him concerning his teachings on the Gospel late in his life were not merely having 'theological disagreements' with him. Hodges gutted and stripped the Gospel of its essential content of saving faith (the Person and work of Christ). His interpretation of the Gospel came to be known and accurately defined as the Crossless Gospel. It is not that Hodges denied that content himself, but that he asserted that a person could be saved while disbelieving the content of the Gospel. And if the Gospel and its content are one and the same (and they are), then Hodges was in effect asserting that one could be saved while disbelieving the Gospel. He did not finish well! I don't think you could pick a subject more important than the Gospel to err on, and tragically Hodges erred severely concerning it. His death saddened many, but those who rejected his reductionist assault on the content of saving faith we hoped and prayed he would change his mind and come back to true doctrine. We wanted him to finish well, but we can't let the emotion of his passing sentimentalize his life in our eyes, no matter what help some of his writings may have been to us in understanding certain passages of Scripture. In the same way we do not condemn a repentant sinner for his past wicked deeds, we should not be celebrating a man who fell away from the faith because of his past good work. LM"
Lou: "the 8th Commandment, 'Thou shalt not steal,' is still in the Bible." Lou eventually admitted to some wrongdoing but only posted his partial apology for about a day before quickly deleting it. Before deleting his partial apology, Lou claimed to have "posted Brother Evans's original e-mail in the thread below". However, that was NOT actually the case. Instead, Lou Martuneac once again edited portions of the original email - just like he did when he plagiarized! Lou dishonestly removed "Brother Jonathan" from Evan's original email and capitalized the "w" in the next word "When", making it appear as if it was the first word in the "original e-mail" when in reality it was not. Even in his admission of plagiarism, Lou Martuneac was dishonest.
E. DISHONESTY
Antonio said: "was it not Lou Martuneac who posted on my blog over 3 dozen times under a sock puppet name 'Mr. Fly Guy'...This is Lou Martuneac for you."
Matt Gumm (bugblaster) said: "I don't know [you] Lou [but]...If you want to publicly apologize, then publicly apologize and end the sentence. But this is a 'sorry, BUT...' apology, which we've taught our kids is actually no apology at all....With respect, your comment emanates disingenuity."
John Brown (just john) said: "The funny thing is he posted on his website that I said no one would ever respond to him. What a lying nutcase. Just another example of his overeactions."
John Brown (just john) went on to emphasize: "Now I realize this probably matters to no one but me but I despise liars like this and will expose them when I can because these are the kind of people I encounter far too often spreading false witness in their attempts to warn about the 'evils of others'."
Jarthur001 said: "That's Lou....This is why I always ask for what page in the book when he quotes. The guy has a problem with being honest." (ellipsis his)
Jarthur001 went on to emphasize: "Let it be known that Lou has once again been dishonest. He said over and over for days on end that he would give quotes if I answered. I have answered...now he still withholds the quotes. Me thinks its another Lou game."
F. BANNED FROM BLOGS
Lou Martuneac is banned from:
Lou Martuneac has restricted access to:
The Gift and the Prize
*Lou acknowledges his falling out with Sharper Iron in his June 8, 2009 blog post titled "Cancelled My Membership at Sharper Iron" (accessed January 1, 2010). In the post, Lou never once mentions that he was banned. However, Lou does admit that he asked Sharper Iron to delete all his comments.
G. CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR OTHERS
Lou Martuneac said: "If da Rosa shows up again, it will be fun reading how he tries to dodge the questions again, and how JP will run interference for him. Pass the Jiffy-Pop."
Lou said: "So predictable! Another classic and oft repeated example of his dodge and evade mechanisms to avoid what is the truth and crux of the heresy [Antonio] believes and propagates. So predictable! If not so predictable and commonplace with him, I'd say, 'Laugh with me!'"
Lou said: "Oh, it was fun for my friends and I, we laughed ourselves silly because of Antonio and his recklessness." (Email excerpt used by permission.)
Lou said: "I agree with much of what the man [Phillip M. Evans] wrote in an e-mail, which was: In my opinion it is not fitting to give Hodges an honorary eulogy at all".
Antonio said: "Lou Martuneac has been a busybody. He has been circulating blogs that have memorialized and honored Zane Hodges and has been spreading his hatred and lies. He is the bulldog of the Duluthian Antagonists, who joyfully sanction his sinful and debased operations. May the Lord repay him for his willful folly [cf. Eccl. 10:12-13]."
Charles Savelle said: "Lou, I hesitate in some sense to publish these [plagiarized] comments since I am not sure that this post is the appropriate forum for remarks like this. While I might differ with Hodges on a number of issues, I believe that his death was noteworthy."
In the comment thread of his blog post memorializing the late Professor Zane Hodges, Dr. Dan Wallace affirms: "Folks, this was not the place or time to discuss the merits of Hodges' views on soteriology or textual criticism. I just wanted it to be a time in which we remembered one of God's servants. I'll be happy to start up a dialogue later about Hodges' soteriological viewpoint. But not now." See Daniel Wallace's article "Zane Hodges (1933-2008), Parchment and Pen blog, comment 6.
H. BULLY TACTICS AND HARASSING BEHAVIOR
Lou asked: "Rose: I'm not trying to bust or invade your site, but I do not have your private e-mail address."
Lou asked: "Rose: I'm not trying to bust or invade your site, but I do not have your private e-mail address."
Rose's husband (John Wendell) said: "I have asked Lou Martuneac as politely as I can (several times) to stop emailing my wife with his derogatory, intimidating, high-minded, and threatening, letters. This drove me to my wits end. He has backed off for a while until just recently. It has come to my attention that he has started the harassment again. Is he going about the blogosphere looking for every American girl to pick on? Does he email your wife when you have told him to stop? Do you know anything about this annoying anonymous blogger other than his oft repeated boast, 'I have written a book?'"
Todd replied: "I'm afraid not John. Only that he's shown he has 'stalker-like' tendencies which probably has a lot to do with his not very widely read book or blog. From what I've seen of him he's a very unreasonable character so don't take him personally. I'm sure he'll soon go away."
Lou said to Rose: "Not to be the chauvinist pig, but men have thicker skin than women, and you need it to debate these issues."
Gordon Cloud said to Lou: "in a recent discussion on Rose's blog, she told you politely, several times, that she did not want to continue the discussion at that time. You repeatedly persisted in badgering her, telling her she needed to get a 'thicker skin'. If you were following biblical principles of speech seasoned with grace, why would she need a thicker skin?"
Kris said: "One more thing, Rose. I am in no way condoning what Lou has done to you this past year in my post. He is clearly wrong and does need to correct that."
Matthew said to Lou: "I think it is shameful the way you are bullying a good Christian woman like Rose."
John Brown said to Lou: "You try to dominate the discussion and bully your way around."
Steve Sensenig said to Lou: "What has happened here is that you have continued in your contempt for people you don't even know, continuing to use the most condescending, schoolyard bully-type language in the process."
No wonder George Fox said to Lou: "Go away blowhard. You are known as a stalker."
I. JUDGMENTAL OF MOTIVES
Lou Martuneac (aka Sock Puppet "Mr. Fly Guy") said: "Finally after 11 months of hiding his sin, Antonio da Rosa confesses. He was forgiven the day we caught him. So, that has been settled, but I reiterate that forgiveness here again. The problem with his confession, he is obviously primarily sorry he got caught, and had to confess it, which is false repentance."
Lou Martuneac (aka Sock Puppet "Mr. Fly Guy") said: "Finally after 11 months of hiding his sin, Antonio da Rosa confesses. He was forgiven the day we caught him. So, that has been settled, but I reiterate that forgiveness here again. The problem with his confession, he is obviously primarily sorry he got caught, and had to confess it, which is false repentance."
I replied: "Lou...Your response here clearly lacks a spirit of grace and compassion. Once again, Jesus showed more grace to the woman caught in adultery than you have shown to a Christian brother who desires to be washed whiter than snow. Why are you forgiving Antonio if you believe his confession is 'false repentance'? And why are you judging his heart?"
Gordon Cloud said to Lou: "Rose issued an apology to Steve and myself in this thread. This apology was not addressed to you, yet you felt it incumbent upon you to question the truthfulness of it. Do you have the ability to see what is in her heart?"
Steve Sensenig said to Lou: "I know Gordon Cloud personally, and while you choose to believe that he is less than forthright with what he believes, you are absolutely incorrect. What you continue to do in your comments here and elsewhere is inject biting sarcasm, patronizing remarks, arrogance, and assumptions about people you don't even know. This is not only inconsistent with the spirit of Christ, but is also counter to what the scripture indicates as maturity in Christ".
Michael Riley said: "My...concern with Mr. Martuneac's letter is his direct attack on my motives. His assertion that my critique of Piper's lack of separatism is a smokescreen, a 'bone thrown to appease militant Fundamentalists,' is uncharitable and exactly false....If one gives careful thought to Mr. Martuneac's words, they express a suspicion that I am being dishonest and hypocritical, giving the militant fundamentalists what they really want to hear while endorsing a different position myself."
J. DOUBLE STANDARDS AND HYPOCRISY
Lou Martuneac has written numerous articles emphasizing the need and necessity to Biblically separate from the proponents of Lordship Salvation. In fact, Lou even wrote a book against Lordship Salvation that Nathan Busenitz tried to take seriously. Lou has stated his separatist position in no uncertain terms:
Lou Martuneac has written numerous articles emphasizing the need and necessity to Biblically separate from the proponents of Lordship Salvation. In fact, Lou even wrote a book against Lordship Salvation that Nathan Busenitz tried to take seriously. Lou has stated his separatist position in no uncertain terms:
"Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin....To pursue union at the price of truth is treason to the Lord Jesus....Whether it be the teaching of Lordship Salvation or the 'Crossless' gospel, both are antithetical to Scripture and an assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
In spite of this, Lou Martuneac still maintains friendships, alliances, and cooperative efforts with the proponents of Lordship Salvation! Lou admits: "I have worked in happy cooperation for the cause of Christ with men who are Reformed in their theology." This is not surprising, since Lou is a member of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI) and affirms that "a man is not saved by accepting Christ as Savior while consciously rejecting Him as Lord." (See the FBFI 1997 Resolutions, Concerning Repentance.) Furthermore, Lou believes "that the genuine believer will continue in his faith and show evidence of his faith in Christ until he meets the Lord." (See the FBFI Constitution, Article 3, Section 6. Salvation) Another clue that Lou is more soft-Lordship than Free Grace comes from his view of Chuck Swindoll's classic book The Grace Awakening, which Lou believes to be "a redefinition of Biblical grace living"! What Martuneac really means is that his brand of extreme hyper-fundamentalism is at odds with Swindoll's free grace! Related to this, Pastor Dennis Rokser of Duluth Bible Church actually "DISCOURAGED" a member of his congregation from reading Swindoll! See Sanc's expose of the Duluthian double standard and hypocrisy here.
Lou also maintains cooperative efforts by private e-mail with the advocates of Lordship Salvation, particularly Mark Pierson. Lou writes: "Mark...Anyway, I did read some of the comments in the thread you refer to. Doctrinal differences aside for the moment IMO da Rosa, (and select others) were behaving with the usual vitriol and open contempt, for those they disagree with, that da Rosa is especially notorious for. Finally, I suggest you accept the debate over Calvinism will never be settled this side of Heaven. LM PS: I have a proposal for you I'll send via e-mail." (accessed January 8, 2009)
Lou went on to say: "Hi Mark: Thanks for the replies....BTW, I'll link you in an e-mail some samples of how just how far over the last 2+ years Rose has been changed and worn down by the Hodges's followers. (accessed January 8, 2009)
Later in the thread Mark said: "Lou, that was my doing....Remember my last email to you???" (accessed January 8, 2009)
In the case of Lou Martuneac "The Issue of Incongruity" is actual, not artificial!
Alvin said: "Lou you need to take your own advice!....That is being a hypocrite. So you need to take your own advice."
Alvin asked: "Lou are you consistent in your judging, and shouldn't you be judging yourself first?"
Missy said: "That's rather hypocritical, Lou."
John Brown said to Lou: "I think they call that a double-standard."
K. OBNOXIOUS AND OFFENSIVE
JDale said: "Lou: Have you been diagnosed with OCD? Paranoid schidzophrenia perhaps?! Good heavens man, you act like a man possessed! If you are attempting to truly warn people about what you perceive to be false doctrine, you are going about it in the absolutely 180 degree WRONG way! Stop acting like an arrogant, know it all, holier than thou pharisee and actually engage in a real conversation rather than posting rehashed hit pieces from Ultra-Fundie websites with axes to grind. Oh, and one last thing -- a small dose of humility and self-depreciation would do you a world of good. Pride goeth before a fall..."
Michele said: "Hi Lou, I am trying to help myself and perhaps others understand why you say things in the manner you do....Even if it were true that those who disagree with you don't own a dime's worth of care for you (but I am sure that is not the case), they are consistently affected by your mannerisms, your words, your choices of interactions in conversations. It is offensive, and it is painful and I am utterly convinced it is largely unnecessarily so."
Tim Nichols said: "Lou took his Martuneaxe And gave his brother forty whacks And when he felt his work was done He gave his sister forty-one". (Scroll down to Nichols' comment on September 30, 2009 at 2:39pm.)
Tim Nichols went on to say: "You know I don’t like you, Lou, and I despise the way you treat God’s people." (Scroll down to Nichols' comment on October 1, 2009 at 12:39pm.)
KC said: "Like Dr. Nichols, I despise Lou's obvious hatred for any and all of the brethren who disagree with him and so I normally avoid him like the plague". (Scroll down to KC's comment on October 1, 2009 at 1:27pm.)
Steve Sensenig said: "Lou, you are out of line. Extremely out of line."
Alvin said: "I see Lou as very mean spirited."
Greg Linscott said: "Just walk away, people. Lou is too obstinate to know when to stop, and the threads of the last several days have demonstrated he simply isn't going to acknowledge the ways he's stepped over the line. If you attempt to point that out, you are only likely to be labeled by Lou as a partaker in the evil deeds of Driscoll, Piper, Carlin, or whomever."
Dan Miller, a moderator at Sharper Iron agreed with Greg Linscott's comment and said: "Greg has some wisdom here, everybody. Why don't we all just quote Greg and move on?"
Gordon Cloud said to Lou: "I have seen your name on several forums and blogs in this discussion. On nearly every one of them, there is a trail of carnage to be found. You have been requested not to comment on a number of blogs that I know to be open for Christian debate. Over and over I have seen people tell you that your presentation is abrasive and offensive. Does this not say something to you?"
L. LACK OF DEMONSTRABLE LOVE
Paul Barber said: "Lou's article and demeanor reflect an attitude that many fundamentalists are tired of being associated with, namely, the heightened and continued desire to search out and denounce all who differ with them over every doctrinal error. It seems to border on hysteria. It seems to be the supreme goal of their existence, and in the process they appear to have lost their first love." (comment on May 27, 2007, 2:06pm)
Paul Barber said: "Lou's article and demeanor reflect an attitude that many fundamentalists are tired of being associated with, namely, the heightened and continued desire to search out and denounce all who differ with them over every doctrinal error. It seems to border on hysteria. It seems to be the supreme goal of their existence, and in the process they appear to have lost their first love." (comment on May 27, 2007, 2:06pm)
John Wendell said to Lou: "I will respetfully decline any further dialog with you and your erroneous orthopraxis on these blogs until you repent of the lack of demonstrative love for others who disagree with your orthodoxy."
Matthew said: "Lou...you could talk and talk until we are all skeletons [cf. 1 Cor. 13:1]."
Kris said: "Lou Martuneac has fallen victim to Hyper-fundamentalism. I feel sorry for him and all those who are being poisoned by this ISM. Lou, Hyper-fundamentalism is dangerous! It is rooted in legalism and those who depend on their 'perfect' lifestyle and 'perfect' reading of scripture to be acceptable to God. The biggest problem with this legalistic approach to relating to God is other relationships are void of love."
M. LEGALISTIC CHARACTERISTICS
Kris said: "Lou Martuneac has fallen victim to Hyper-fundamentalism. I feel sorry for him and all those who are being poisoned by this ISM. Lou, Hyper-fundamentalism is dangerous! It is rooted in legalism and those who depend on their 'perfect' lifestyle and 'perfect' reading of scripture to be acceptable to God."
Lou affirms: "While we are thankful for legitimate recreational and family building activities, we urge pastors and parents to find wholesome activities that reinforce their teaching to youth rather than feeding their carnal appetites by sponsoring trips to worldly amusement parks and the like. Pastors must teach the practical application of biblical principles without fear of accusations of 'legalism.'"
Lou affirms: "we reject as unscriptural and unwholesome that type of religious music which seeks to imitate the world, and we also repudiate the adoption of contemporary sounds in Christian music as a viable means of reaching people."
Josh Gelatt said: "Lou, I can see some of your points, but others leave me baffled. For example, unless you can cite a scriptural prohibition against rap music I must confess I am left scratching my head as to why a young African American Christian man cannot sing a song that is lyrically glorifying to Jesus–whether that be rap, a hymn, or any other form of music."
Lou said: "Keep those [church growth] movements and their advocates at arms' length. Do not listen to them. Do not read them. If you want to understand what these movements stand for, consult someone who can counsel you from the Word of God."
Lou said: "This was not meant to be the Lord's Supper, but in the middle of the service the pastor had the ushers come down the aisle handing out Hostess Twinkies for everyone to eat during the service. [Editor's note: It reminds me of Jesus and His disciples feeding the 5,000!] I like Twinkies as much as the next guy, but I looked at my kids and they understood my look to mean do NOT eat those Twinkies in church."
Todd said: "Good grief Lou, you didn't give them an apology. You've got a demand stacked at their doorstep for forgiveness, wherein, if they don't meet that, you've got God's condemnation waiting for them (see your remarks above), after which you're sure to be wanting yet another apology. I'm not sure whether that's disingenuousness or blindness [or legalism]."
Lou exclaimed: "If you are willing to warn without ceasing, just as Paul did [in Acts 20:31], then do it now!"
I replied: "Lou, it is legalism to suggest that I'm disobedient if I don't warn right 'now!' in this comment (or in this thread, or in this post). Please show me where in the Bible it says I have to warn right "now!" to be obedient? Don't you understand that through my blog I already am warning "night and day" (Acts 20:31)? Furthermore, Acts 20:31 is descriptive, not prescriptive! It is also interesting to note that Paul did many other things during the night and day besides "admonish[ing] each one with tears" (Acts 20:31). For example, Paul wrote the epistle of 1 Corinthians while in Ephesus on his third missionary journey. You need to balance your pet passages with the whole council of God's Word."
Kris said: "Lou Martuneac has fallen victim to Hyper-fundamentalism. I feel sorry for him and all those who are being poisoned by this ISM. Lou, Hyper-fundamentalism is dangerous! It is rooted in legalism and those who depend on their 'perfect' lifestyle and 'perfect' reading of scripture to be acceptable to God."
Lou affirms: "While we are thankful for legitimate recreational and family building activities, we urge pastors and parents to find wholesome activities that reinforce their teaching to youth rather than feeding their carnal appetites by sponsoring trips to worldly amusement parks and the like. Pastors must teach the practical application of biblical principles without fear of accusations of 'legalism.'"
Lou affirms: "we reject as unscriptural and unwholesome that type of religious music which seeks to imitate the world, and we also repudiate the adoption of contemporary sounds in Christian music as a viable means of reaching people."
Josh Gelatt said: "Lou, I can see some of your points, but others leave me baffled. For example, unless you can cite a scriptural prohibition against rap music I must confess I am left scratching my head as to why a young African American Christian man cannot sing a song that is lyrically glorifying to Jesus–whether that be rap, a hymn, or any other form of music."
Lou said: "Keep those [church growth] movements and their advocates at arms' length. Do not listen to them. Do not read them. If you want to understand what these movements stand for, consult someone who can counsel you from the Word of God."
Lou said: "This was not meant to be the Lord's Supper, but in the middle of the service the pastor had the ushers come down the aisle handing out Hostess Twinkies for everyone to eat during the service. [Editor's note: It reminds me of Jesus and His disciples feeding the 5,000!] I like Twinkies as much as the next guy, but I looked at my kids and they understood my look to mean do NOT eat those Twinkies in church."
Todd said: "Good grief Lou, you didn't give them an apology. You've got a demand stacked at their doorstep for forgiveness, wherein, if they don't meet that, you've got God's condemnation waiting for them (see your remarks above), after which you're sure to be wanting yet another apology. I'm not sure whether that's disingenuousness or blindness [or legalism]."
Lou exclaimed: "If you are willing to warn without ceasing, just as Paul did [in Acts 20:31], then do it now!"
I replied: "Lou, it is legalism to suggest that I'm disobedient if I don't warn right 'now!' in this comment (or in this thread, or in this post). Please show me where in the Bible it says I have to warn right "now!" to be obedient? Don't you understand that through my blog I already am warning "night and day" (Acts 20:31)? Furthermore, Acts 20:31 is descriptive, not prescriptive! It is also interesting to note that Paul did many other things during the night and day besides "admonish[ing] each one with tears" (Acts 20:31). For example, Paul wrote the epistle of 1 Corinthians while in Ephesus on his third missionary journey. You need to balance your pet passages with the whole council of God's Word."
N. COMMENT SPAMMING
Tim Nichols said: "Lou, Yikes! Three posts here, and one more on my blog because I didn't answer fast enough to suit you?? Ease up, man."
Tim Nichols said: "Lou Two more comments from you insisting on an answer in the time it took me to compose an answer to the other three? You write faster than I can read. If you really want a two-way discussion, and not just an excuse to declaim loudly, you're going to have to slow down a little."
Tim Nichols said: "Lou, As I said on the other blog, I have some difficulty keeping up with my reading on the internet on weekends. I'm a pastor, and I have other things to do, you know? If you want to have a two-way discussion, you're going to have to accommodate the other person's schedule - even for internet discussion. Judging from the fact that another comment from you has appeared while I'm writing this one, you're going to have difficulty mustering the required patience....If you want to talk, let's talk, but you can't savage me for not having the hair-trigger responses that you do."
Larry (a moderator at Sharper Iron) said to Lou: "I pointed out that over the course of this thread, you have posted quite a bit. Your own assertion is that you have posted as much as everyone else combined. Perhaps...But in the time it takes to do all that posting, you have not answered the question that has been on the table since the last thread."
Rose said to Lou: "I decided I am not going to let you post repetitious comments at my blog anymore."
DHK (a moderator at Baptist Board) said to Lou: "As others have pointed out to you, you have 'spammed' this board with anti-LS material, and in doing so have referred to MacArthur so many times it is impossible to count."
Bible-boy (a moderator at Baptist Board) said: "Lou, You have multiple threads on this same topic. I will be merging them all into one thread. Do not keep spamming this forum with multiple threads on the same basic topic."
Before closing a thread that Lou had started on Lordship Salvation, the administrator at Baptist Board said: "Spam (continued flooding of the BB with the same tripe) reported to webmaster." forums
Dr. Bob Griffin said: "Every day WITHOUT Lou is a day we don't have to wade through vomitous cut-and-paste. I don't know what we'd do without him...but I'd rather!"
Dr. Bob Griffin said: "Lou has not posted the same vomit on the thread ONCE today! God is good."
Dr. Bob Griffin asked Lou: "Are you...embarrassed at being the #1 spamming hypocrite here?"
Scott (Ransom) said: "Prediction: Lounatic will start vomiting this post all over the forum, ad nauseam."
ForGodSoLoved said: "Should we just go ahead and copy and paste for Lou? Nah."
ForGodSoLoved said: "Just a few more times reading it and I will have Lou's post memorized. God help us."
O. QUESTION DODGING AND LACK OF MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE
Gordon Cloud said: "Lou, nice dodge on the last question."
Gordon Cloud emphasized: "I have asked you three times to state what it is that you believe about how a person is saved."
Havensdad said to Lou: "I have asked for the quotes...and yet, you dodge again."
Larry (a moderator at Sharper Iron) said to Lou: "It is also unfortunate that you have decided not to answer the direct questions that were put to you."
Larry (a moderator at Sharper Iron) said to Lou: "That's what I have been discussing, Lou, but you have been avoiding the questions."
Larry Rogier said to Lou: "Why should I read your book? You seem unwilling to answer even simple questions. You dodged them."
Ryancoon said to Lou: "This discussion has been more than a little bit frustrating....I also feel frustration at your failure to answer key questions."
Bob Griffin asked Lou: "Are you incompetent to answer a question?"
John Brown (just john) said to Lou: "I have many other posts and comments from other people on the internet with accusations towards your refusal to deal with truth, the issues, or even to answer simple questions put to you."
John Brown (just john) said: "Typical Lou....he gets nailed so instead of responding he goes back to hiding".
Don Sailer asked: "Lou, no response?"
Don Sailer said: "No, I won't buy your book because your response shows that you can't answer a simple challenge to your misguided statement."
Pearson Johnson said: "Lou, Since the 20 page limit is fast approaching, please answer the simply yes or no question I submitted to you several pages ago. I think it would be disingenuous for you to chide others for not doing it, then avoid doing it yourself."
P. SLANDER
Lou yelled: "Liar!"
Scott (Ransom) said: "Ransom holds his breath, waiting for more evidence than Motormouth Martuneac bellowing 'You are a liar'".
MClark said: "You slander him, Lou, when you say that he is unresponsive to counsel and wholly unrepentant (unless you're willing to call him a liar)."
John Brown (just john) said: "Tell me Lou, what did my blog say? LOL Was it good? Help me out because I never READ it. You throw around that 'liar' word pretty well Louie, let's see you back it up. Got proof? Maybe an address? Maybe an archive? Maybe an outdated link? Maybe proof of me intentionally lying anywhere? Maybe an apology?"
Steve Sensenig said to Lou: "Your accusations have no basis in reality. And you, sir, are slandering a genuinely dear brother in Christ. As another brother in Christ, I am formally asking you to cease your insulting comments and cease slandering a brother in Christ. By continuing your immature tactics, you are continuing to behave in a manner that is contrary to the Spirit of Christ."
Lou said: "A professional IT investigator provided the documented proof it was Antonio posing as the Sock Puppet: fg me. BTW, Antonio has also been proven to be using at least one other alias, for a particularly heinous act he committed in the blogs, which I am not at liberty to discuss in the public forum at this time."
Pearson Johnson said: "Lou, you are in risk of slandering a pastor, a church, and these men by your accusation. From your words, I get the impression that you weren't there. One would think it unwise to pass along rumors in a public forum like this. And one would wonder why you seem so determined to attack and discredit Mike Harding that you would pass along inaccurate and unsubstantiated rumors."
Pearson Johnson went on to say: "Lou, I wish I could say that your answer actually satisfies the requirement of making your statement about the conference truthful and you not guilty of sullying the reputations of good men. Here's the essence of what you claim: someone told me that Calvinism was rammed down people's throats from the platform and I have one quote from Mike Harding which confirms it for me, so I am sticking to it. Here would be a better response, 'In light of the fact that I wasn't there, I probably should have kept my mouth closed about the matter rather than pass along rumors that I can't substantiate.' How hard is it to see you were wrong to throw this into the discussion? As a general principle, my observation is that when men cannot admit when they are wrong even about little things, it is not a good sign."
Dr. Bob Griffin asked Lou: "Next question: Do you know anything TRUE and FIRSTHAND? Obvious answer is 'NO'."
Yakkityyak said to Lou: "It is obvious as to why you are not a pastor. Liars should not be pastors. And you are a slanderous liar. Louie, you might just be a disgrace to the 'finance it here' auto sales industry."
Bob Topartzer said: "Lou, I don't think you get it so let me make one last post to you. You are appearing to assault and disagree with many good men and slander many. You slandered [Dr.] Alan Potter regarding Pillsburgy [Baptist Bible College] and disagreed with others including Rolland McCune, his son, and Kevin Bauder (continued on your blog), all who have first hand knowledge of the situation. You preferred the hearsay evidence of the gossip of some friends. You have then slandered Rick Warren, and on this thread you have gone beyond your first hand knowledge to pass on second hand innuendo and gossip regarding two others, Driscoll and Piper....It would be good if you stopped referring to yourself as a Fundamentalist on the Internet as you are bad publicity."
Roger Carlson said to Lou: "You know that I was with you on the Crossless Gospel issue and I appreciated your work. So Bob T and I are on different sides of that issue. He is dead on when he says that you are slandering Driscoll. That is sin Lou and you need to repent. This is a problem that you have. Whenever someone confronts you, you sidestep it or excuse it."
Gordon Cloud said to Lou: "Brother, I am not your enemy. You seem to be determined to make me out [to] be so."
Michele said: "It leaves me utterly convinced that he does not see what is wrong with his techniques...Lou reminds me of the prophet Jonah, who, after dispensing the word of the LORD to Nineveh, goes up to a vantage point outside the city limits, and sits. Waiting, sitting in the sun sweating, anticipating God's fiery destruction of the city. He has not yet become aware of the theological significance of the shade tree God caused to grow to give him shade from the heat of the day as he sits, sits, sits there waiting for 'God's enemies' to be taken out of play."
Chris Rosebrough said: "The chief passage regarding apologetics and defending the faith is found in 1 Peter 3:15. It reads...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, The battle for truth or the 'truth war' as some have called it, has taken a bad turn. Some segments of the battlefield have degenerated into ad hominem bickering and biting and toxic vitriol. This is not what Christ has called us to. In fact, that behavior is contrary to the clear teachings of scripture which call us to defend the faith with 'gentleness and respect'....What I find ironic almost to the point of irreconcilable contradiction is that there are some that claim to share a passion for the gospel yet they employ the most demeaning and vicious forms of personal slander and ad hominem attacks in their 'defense of the gospel'. I don't see how this contradiction is even possible because the gospel message is the good news of how 'God so LOVED the world' that His only begotten Son died for my sins and yours on the cross and thereby reconciled us to himself in one supreme act of LOVE."
Q. LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY
John Brown (just john) said to Lou: "And of course I note how when you're dishonesty is pointed out you just go back to your same [tactics]. No accountability, no comment.
Antonio said: "Lou Martuneac...brings disrepute upon his ministry and the theological positions to which he espouses. He is an irresponsible man who finds himself accountable to none, and in whom resides a spirit of malice and deception."
Interested Spectator said in reference to Lou: "there is a small cell of extremists who believe that it is OK to make a side career out of offending and belittling the brethren. Those of us who have been watching on the sidelines see exactly what is going on and it horrifies us as much as I am sure it has you. There is no accountability for the way people act. Certain persons might get a 'talking-to' if those in authority over them knew what they do on the internet, but it is probable that the pastor has not been clued in, and if he has, his authority and counsel is being ignored."
R. BITING SARCASM
Steve Sensenig said to Lou: "What you continue to do in your comments here and elsewhere is inject biting sarcasm, patronizing remarks, arrogance, and assumptions about people you don't even know. This is not only inconsistent with the Spirit of Christ, but is also counter to what the scripture indicates as maturity in Christ".
R. BITING SARCASM
Steve Sensenig said to Lou: "What you continue to do in your comments here and elsewhere is inject biting sarcasm, patronizing remarks, arrogance, and assumptions about people you don't even know. This is not only inconsistent with the Spirit of Christ, but is also counter to what the scripture indicates as maturity in Christ".
Missy said to Lou: "a large portion of your blog relies on sarcasm and smugness."
For more examples of Lou's sarcasm see his blog posts: "SHOCK, OUTRAGE, and SCANDAL!!!" and "I've Been Promoted: New Adjunct Contributor".
S. INCONSIDERATE AND DISRESPECTFUL TO BLOG ADMINISTRATORS
Gordon Cloud said to Lou: "You have completely hijacked this post, ignoring the topic and trying to force a debate instead of engaging the point at hand."
S. INCONSIDERATE AND DISRESPECTFUL TO BLOG ADMINISTRATORS
Gordon Cloud said to Lou: "You have completely hijacked this post, ignoring the topic and trying to force a debate instead of engaging the point at hand."
Matthew said to Lou: "Rose has told you she does not appreciate your comments, yet you keep commenting again here."
Michele said: "Lou, You need to take that last post and send it via email, or find another way to share it, such as the one paragraph or take your conversation about that issue to Coram's blog. It's off topic here and you aren't considering my request in my space. I can overcome a good deal of offense but I made a rule. Even you have material you want to restrict on your own site, so I know you know why I do so."
I said: "No Lou, I want you to answer a question that was directed to you. Kev has answered my question to him. And Antonio has not posed any comments since I asked him a question. This means that only you have violated my simple request."
Susan R (an Administrator at Sharper Iron) said: "Bro. Lou, While I appreciate your passion to see doctrinal purity at SI, I think your approach has been unnecessarily confrontational. Your initial accusations of a cabal of Calvinists running the site have been proved wrong, and you have not acknowledged or apologized for those harsh and inaccurate statements, many of which were aimed at me as an Admin. I for one don't appreciate being accused of being involved in a conspiracy to promote false doctrine. Several incidents you have brought up are problems that arose during the previous 'administration', including the composition of the blogroll, and thus IMO should not be brought up as something for which current Admin and Mod Teams should answer. I believe that asking the *current* Admin and Mod Teams about the new direction of SI would have been more productive than slurs such as 'The SI site is made up of administrators, moderators and participants that are by and large strongly Calvinistic in their theology. Many embrace Lordship Salvation.' You say you haven't taken any potshots at SI, but the above is not a question or even speculation - that's a statement. I know the thrust of your article was aimed at Dr. Bauder, and you are welcome to your opinion of him and his writings, but taking a sideswipe at SI and its leadership was uncalled for, and as I said - I believe you should have asked the Admin and Mods personally about their beliefs, and given time for a response, rather than making unfounded accusations in public and then implying that admin was reluctant to answer publicly as if we have something to hide. Again - I believe and support your desire as commendable, but IMO your approach is inappropriate." (NOTE: To make matters worse, instead of apologizing to Susan for his "inappropriate" behavior, Lou rudely brushed her concerns aside by saying she was "slightly naive" and "overreacting"!)
T. CONDESCENDING SPEECH AND BELITTLING COMMENTS
Lou said: "Michele: I will address you in a public forum any time I like. I banned you from my blog for reasons I disclosed to you. Here at FG/FS I may address you directly or indirectly at my pleasure."
Susan R (an Administrator at Sharper Iron) said: "Bro. Lou, While I appreciate your passion to see doctrinal purity at SI, I think your approach has been unnecessarily confrontational. Your initial accusations of a cabal of Calvinists running the site have been proved wrong, and you have not acknowledged or apologized for those harsh and inaccurate statements, many of which were aimed at me as an Admin. I for one don't appreciate being accused of being involved in a conspiracy to promote false doctrine. Several incidents you have brought up are problems that arose during the previous 'administration', including the composition of the blogroll, and thus IMO should not be brought up as something for which current Admin and Mod Teams should answer. I believe that asking the *current* Admin and Mod Teams about the new direction of SI would have been more productive than slurs such as 'The SI site is made up of administrators, moderators and participants that are by and large strongly Calvinistic in their theology. Many embrace Lordship Salvation.' You say you haven't taken any potshots at SI, but the above is not a question or even speculation - that's a statement. I know the thrust of your article was aimed at Dr. Bauder, and you are welcome to your opinion of him and his writings, but taking a sideswipe at SI and its leadership was uncalled for, and as I said - I believe you should have asked the Admin and Mods personally about their beliefs, and given time for a response, rather than making unfounded accusations in public and then implying that admin was reluctant to answer publicly as if we have something to hide. Again - I believe and support your desire as commendable, but IMO your approach is inappropriate." (NOTE: To make matters worse, instead of apologizing to Susan for his "inappropriate" behavior, Lou rudely brushed her concerns aside by saying she was "slightly naive" and "overreacting"!)
T. CONDESCENDING SPEECH AND BELITTLING COMMENTS
Lou said: "Michele: I will address you in a public forum any time I like. I banned you from my blog for reasons I disclosed to you. Here at FG/FS I may address you directly or indirectly at my pleasure."
Lou said to Missy: "I have to prioritize who and what I will answer."
Lou said: "a *little known blogger accused me of plagiarism". Curiously, Lou failed to mention that he admits he was guilty of plagiarism! Lou has since completely removed this post from his blog, but it can still be seen through FeedShow. Using the link provided scroll down to the article "Putting It Under the Blood" dated Tuesday, January 13, 2009. Although in the article Lou claimed to have "posted Brother Evans's original e-mail in the thread below", that was NOT actually the case. Instead, Lou Martuneac once again edited portions of the original email -- just like he did when he plagiarized! Lou dishonestly removed "Brother Jonathan" from the original email and capitalized the "w" in the next word "When", making it appear as if it was the first word in the "original e-mail" when in reality it was not. Even in his admission of plagiarism Lou Martuneac was condescending and dishonest.
Baptist Believer said of Lou: "Yet, instead of actually entering into a discussion, he promotes his book, his blog (a forum he can control), and his apparent condescending tone toward those who question his position."
Kris said to Lou: "Lou, 'Condescending'? Are you kidding me? Your reply to me is what is condescending. I have watched your condescending comments toward Rose, Michele and others for the last year and frankly it is appalling. I don't know if I have ever run across such a misuse of scripture by a person such as you to justify your hyper-fundamentalism. Your folly is quite evident to all who have interacted with you in good faith. When someone has any negative comments toward your comments your consistently pull some scripture out accusing them of SIN. You, you are the one that is sinning in your treatment of people who debate you with an honest and good heart....You, Mr. Martuneac & your hyper-fundamentalism is what is dangerous to the unsuspecting...And I am not sinning. I am calling you into account Mr. Martuneac for your mistreatment of others." (accessed January 8, 2009)
U. UNGRACIOUS SPEECH
Ironically, Lou used to cite this verse at the head of his blog: "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt...(Colossians 4:6)." In light of his own ungracious speech, it's no wonder Lou removed this verse from his blog header!
U. UNGRACIOUS SPEECH
Ironically, Lou used to cite this verse at the head of his blog: "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt...(Colossians 4:6)." In light of his own ungracious speech, it's no wonder Lou removed this verse from his blog header!
Tim Nichols has said: "Nothing is quite as ugly as an ungracious man preaching a gracious message."
Scott (Ransom) said: "Louney's message is a lesson on 'How to Fill FFFers [i.e. the Fighting Fundamental Forums] with Hostility and Rage.'"
Scott (Ransom) said: "Lou must be trying to figure out a way to fill the Webmaster's inbox with complaints."
John Brown said: "Notice how I don't rudely call you by your last name. I, and others have mentioned that to you before but you continue to do that to me. Wonder why? Just to be contentious?"
Lou said to Matthew: "Because you are a vocal advocate of the Hodges' false interpretation of the Gospel I cannot express any appreciation for or encouragement to you."
Lou said to Antonio: "You are an angry, bitter young man."
Todd said to Lou: "Will you not be happy until all are burned at the stake? Shortly here Lou, I'm very joyfully going to throw all of these comments in the trashcan. So glean from them what you may while they're here and be thankful that I had the questionable judgment to even reply in an attempt to give my true feelings for you to ponder. Slow down and let the gracious and wise things you've been told elsewhere sink into your understanding of this matter of yours."
Rose said to Lou: "Your evaluations are irrelevant to me. They might not have been irrelevant, but they have been delivered with such a lack of grace that I can't even hear you anymore."
Steve Sensenig said to Lou: "What you continue to do in your comments here and elsewhere is inject biting sarcasm, patronizing remarks, arrogance, and assumptions about people you don't even know. This is not only inconsistent with the spirit of Christ [cf. Jn. 1:14], but is also counter to what the scripture indicates as maturity in Christ"
Gordon Cloud said to Lou: "My father always told me, 'If you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one you hit will holler.' You, Sir, are the hit dog in the pack that this post addresses. Everyone else who has commented has done so with humility and grace. You have demonstrated a spirit of arrogance and hard-heartedness. You have completely hijacked this post, ignoring the topic and trying to force a debate instead of engaging the point at hand. You 'sincerely' asked me for examples of your wrong-doing in light of this post. I gave you three. You responded to one, ignored the other two and dismissed the topic as 'peripheral issues'. You have spoken to my friends in a manner that is unbecoming Christian grace. You have acted in a way that is rude and devoid of manners. Now you are questioning my integrity. If you were a guest in my home, I would be showing you to the door at this point. So let me say this clearly. This kind of behavior is not welcome on this blog. Please do not comment here any more."
I said to Lou: "You are building your own legacy [Lou Martuneac], and in contrast to Hodges, it is not one of grace, but ungraciousness."
Liam Moran said: "I am writing this post in response to Lou Martuneac's comments which he posted on September 2nd, 2007 on his blog....After reading the...post by Lou, I felt compelled to publish my concerns. I am deeply troubled by what I see going on in this debate. I have never seen a theological debate spiral so out of control and get as personal [as] this has become. I believe that this is cause for concern. My intent here is not to delve into the issues of the debate. Let me say from the offset that I do not agree with the GES teachings on the issue. I am concerned by what appears to be a 'shift' in their teachings on certain doctrines in recent years. I agree with the Duluthians in that they are raising some serious concerns that need to be addressed. However, with that said, I feel their method of communicating these issues to the public are cause for concern. My point here is not to delve into the theological issues regarding...the debate but to address the proper method of this debate. Lou's post here is one of the most egregious examples of ad hominem I have ever seen. For Lou to accuse others of ad hominem is 'the post calling the kettle black.' Jonathan Perreault in no way 'assaulted' or 'lambasted' his pastor. He was trying to reason with him regarding the issue of Tom and Dennis debating Bob Wilkin. These are public issues and are in the public forum. Therefore, it is in no way inappropriate to respond publicly. Paul and Barnabas had a 'sharp' disagreement over John Mark (Acts 15:39). If anyone in church history could accuse someone of 'undermining his leadership' it would have been the great apostle Paul. But I do not see in Scripture where Paul rebuked Barnabas (or Barnabas rebuking Paul). In fact, we see later that Paul changed his mind about John Mark (2 Tim. 4:11). Jonathan should be able to communicate his disagreement without worry of verbal retaliation by his pastor or others of like mind [Ed. Note: who do so under a 'biblical' guise]. There are others in the Free Grace camp who feel that Tom and Dennis should have accepted the offer to debate [Ed. Note: Its not too late!] Are they 'assaulting' Tom by their reasonable opinions? Is disagreeing with someone over whether or not Tom and Dennis should have said 'yes' to the debate a 'church conflict' 'an assault' or 'lambasting?' I think not.
Lou never once addressed Jonathan’s biblical reasons describing why he felt his pastor should have accepted the offer. Rather, he attacked Jonathan and Antonio da Rosa. This is a classic example of ad hominem [Ed. Note: not to mention presumptious]. Though Lou has since revised some of what he said, he is standing by his comments on Jonathan Perreault. Lou’s further ad hominem approach is seen by his frequent use of the designation 'young man' describing those he opposes. The fact that Lou makes it a point to mention this appears to me to be a further violation of the principle Paul sets forth in 1 Tim. 4:12. It seems Lou is trying to attack the credibility of what he perceives to be the folly of a 'young man.'
Obviously, Lou feels that Bob Wilkin needs to be debated, thus his offer [Ed. Note: It makes me wonder why Lou has changed his mind...]. This appears to be an inconsistency. It seems that Lou is in effect defending Tom and Dennis for choosing not to debate but now he now wants to? Paul says in Philippians 4:5a, 'Let your reasonableness be known to everyone (ESV).' We are also called to 'speak the truth in love' (Eph. 4:15). Unfortunately, I do not see these principles along with 1 Cor. 13:4-7 being consistently applied here by Lou or the Duluthians. This militant, combative, belligerent and fundamentalist type of debating is not biblical nor is it glorifying to the Lord. It solves nothing....Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges are well-recognized, erudite Bible scholars. They are skilled exegetes. If Bob is going to 'change his mind' and 'repent' then it is going to happen after careful exegetical examination of his arguments are done. Bob is not going to change his mind through nasty rhetoric. His arguments from the gospel of John must be examined and refuted. This debate will only be solved through an exegesis of Scripture. While I agree with Tom Stegall's concerns, I am concerned by his approach in the GFJ, Grace Family Journal....There seems to be a fanatical obsession with Bob 'changing his views.' I would love for Bob...(and others) to retract their position on this. However, if they are going to do so, the approach that has been taken by the other side will not accomplish this. Their reactionary, ad hominem style of debate is only going to cause those trying to be reached to be even less receptive and leave them on the defensive. This belligerent approach to ministry lacks a spirit of love and grace. I don't sense a 'grace-oriented' attitude by my fellow brothers (who I happen to agree with) on the Duluthian side. This is not how Christ has called us to dialog. Furthermore, it lacks a.) scholarly aptitude b.) it is unprofessional c.) it is not a dealing objectively with the issues and d.) it is not being reasonable. It surely does not present a good testimony....after reading the blogs, the journals and especially after Lou's acerbic blog post, I feel compelled to bring forth my concerns. I am extending a plea to stop the unprofessional vicious name-calling rhetoric and ad hominem arguments. Let's please get this debate back to the Bible and to the exegesis."
Gordon Cloud affirms: "We are never so right that we may use ungracious speech to those who are wrong."
Michele asks: "How can we be men and women of a free grace gospel, without demonstrable grace? It's base hypocrisy if we do not find it."
V. CHURCH SPLIT LINKED TO LOU MARTUNEAC
Although Lou Martuneac is a member of the Free Grace Alliance (FGA), he continues to violate the FGA Covenant through his unbiblical actions against others. His ungracious tone and ungodly behavior have caused divisions and offenses in the body of Christ including the fracture of at least one local church. This church split is merely the bad fruit of Martuneac's unbiblical behavior. Michele submits the following testimony....
"In October 2008, at the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) National Conference . . . pastor [Shawn Leach] . . . introduced himself to me. He was . . . [a] Pastor at [name removed] Church. Face to face he told me the story of how his Free Grace church split in two because of the declarations of heresy from Lou's site, 'In Defense of the Gospel'. He told me he had been teaching in Sunday school on the doctrine concerning 'outer darkness' and one of the elders of the church stood up in front of everyone and called him a heretic, for teaching this. He said that there was a significant period of time when his alleged heresy was being reviewed amongst church leadership. This process was so stressful for them that his wife lost weight, worrying about it."
After the FGA National Conference Michele contacted pastor Leach for more details and permission to tell his story, which he agreed to do. Pastor Leach recently sent me an updated version of his ordeal, which now appears below. He is answering the question: "How did Lou Martuneac's website affect your church and your pastorship?"
"My first pastorate out of seminary was a small but friendly church that had been without a pastor for some time. During the hiring process I wanted to make sure they knew I was completely against lordship salvation so I put together an extensive written explanation detailing what I believed with regards to repentance, faith and perseverance. I even spoke on the clarity of the gospel during my first visit to the church, so I am confident that all of the elders knew that my gospel message was different than what John MacArthur preaches. Regarding the Grace Evangelical Society [GES], I had not yet joined as a member but had spent two years being discipled in seminary by executive director Bob Wilkin and had even used him as a reference.
Over the course of my first year, one of our elders began meeting with a family in our church that openly held to lordship salvation. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss some of the things I had been teaching, specifically my agreement with Zane Hodges on the 'outer darkness' in Matthew and Luke. The elder and this family also began researching GES as well. While I didn't know of their meetings together, I did know of the elder's hesitance regarding some of the views presented on the GES website. He and I began conversing over email my views regarding the outer darkness, perseverance of the saints, fruit in a believer's life and judgment at the bema seat. The conversation would go like this: the elder would send me lengthy articles critiquing GES and I would respond with the ways I agreed with GES on these issues.
This continued cordially for the next few months until I began my exposition of the Epistle to the Colossians during Sunday School. When I taught how I believed Colossians 1:22-23 was referring to sanctification rather than justification and how our past lives may nor may not look blameless when we present them before Christ's bema seat, the elder became emotionally upset. I knew how he felt toward the subject and once the class quickly ended I approached him to tell him that I loved him. He responded that he loved me to but that I was teaching heresy. If this accusation had been done in private, the damage would have been left to a minimum. Instead, since it was made in the presence of many witnesses, I had to call an elder meeting once the service had ended. It was here that the elder suggested I be put on administrative leave pending an investigation of the views I was teaching. While the board didn't agree to this, they did agree to have a professional mediator visit to help us through this predicament. A few months later a mediator came down, met with the elder, then myself and finally the board as a whole. The mediator's opinion was this: lordship salvation and free grace theology aren't that different and that both could be taught in our church.
Though both the elder and I disagreed with the mediator's suggestion, I nonetheless appreciated what the mediator told me later. When I called and talked to him about what we should do next, he said that some people need to see grace performed for them to believe it and that if it were him, he'd resign peacefully from being pastor. I talked to Bob Wilkin of GES and he responded the same way. Both agreed that to continue fighting would only damage the small church even more and that one of us should probably leave. I met with each of the elders the following week and told them of my plans to resign. I sent out a brief letter to the congregation and preached my last sermon a few weeks later.
I have to tell you, the things my wife and I had to go through in this small town made me want to quit the ministry all together. Once people hear the word 'heresy,' even if it isn't true it still inflicts irreversible damage. People we once trusted began to change and react harshly to our friendship. Statements I had made earlier were twisted and changed. I was offered money to resign as pastor. The lordship family in our church kept telling our foster daughter that she could come live with them if I were to get fired. My wife began to lose weight. I wasn't sleeping at night and began to drink. Yes, I know that missionaries and other pastors have suffered much more than this, but I must be honest: the pain of being persecuted is real nonetheless. You never really know how you will respond until it happens to you.
My point in sharing all of this is what happened once we left. Half of the elder board resigned from the church and many of the families followed. The lordship couple divorced. The [accussing] elder expressed regret on how everything was handled and shared with our former chairman of the board the source of all of his and the lordship couple's arguments toward GES: a website called In Defense of the Gospel.
Once the chairman shared this website with me, it all made sense. Long before the 'Crossless Gospel' debate had ever started, Lou Martuneac has been wielding a negative campaign against GES, Bob Wilkin, Zane Hodges and anyone else who agrees with them. But it goes beyond arguing or presenting expositional truths regarding their claims. In fact, Lou Martuneac's website goes far beyond anything I've ever seen regarding blogs hosted by Christians. He's just plain mean. This guy calls Wilkin, Hodges and the rest of GES actual heretics. He laughs when he hears their conference numbers are down. He writes that he prays for their literal demise. He casts GES and those who disagree with him in such a negative light that you can't even dialogue with him.
I firmly believe that once my former elder and lordship couple began a steady diet of Lou's comments and vitriol, it was only a matter of time before he began to suspect his pastor as being a heretic and dangerous to the community of believers. I can only hope that through prayer and admonishment the members of FGA will be able to show Martuneac how his published comments are hurtful to the body of Christ and do nothing to help the free grace community."
Thank you Pastor Leach for sharing your story. If anyone would like to contact Shawn, his email address is: shawnleach75@gmail.com.
This account is a real tragedy, especially since it was preventable. The ungodly behavior of Lou Martuneac has resulted in the defilement of many individuals (cf. Heb. 12:15). The ungracious approach of the accusing elder was obviously fueled by Martuneac's own lack of grace. It is also important to point out that the "crossless gospel" was not even the issue of debate! Rather, the controversy concerned the doctrine of rewards as taught by men like Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, and Charlie Bing. While there is some debate among free grace theologians over the doctrine of rewards, the various positions are legitimate views in the free grace community.
Those of us with ears to hear, let us learn from this tragic church split. May we never cultivate the bitter root of ungracious behavior (Heb. 12:15). Instead, let us "grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen" (2 Pet. 3:18, KJV).
V. CHURCH SPLIT LINKED TO LOU MARTUNEAC
Although Lou Martuneac is a member of the Free Grace Alliance (FGA), he continues to violate the FGA Covenant through his unbiblical actions against others. His ungracious tone and ungodly behavior have caused divisions and offenses in the body of Christ including the fracture of at least one local church. This church split is merely the bad fruit of Martuneac's unbiblical behavior. Michele submits the following testimony....
"In October 2008, at the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) National Conference . . . pastor [Shawn Leach] . . . introduced himself to me. He was . . . [a] Pastor at [name removed] Church. Face to face he told me the story of how his Free Grace church split in two because of the declarations of heresy from Lou's site, 'In Defense of the Gospel'. He told me he had been teaching in Sunday school on the doctrine concerning 'outer darkness' and one of the elders of the church stood up in front of everyone and called him a heretic, for teaching this. He said that there was a significant period of time when his alleged heresy was being reviewed amongst church leadership. This process was so stressful for them that his wife lost weight, worrying about it."
After the FGA National Conference Michele contacted pastor Leach for more details and permission to tell his story, which he agreed to do. Pastor Leach recently sent me an updated version of his ordeal, which now appears below. He is answering the question: "How did Lou Martuneac's website affect your church and your pastorship?"
"My first pastorate out of seminary was a small but friendly church that had been without a pastor for some time. During the hiring process I wanted to make sure they knew I was completely against lordship salvation so I put together an extensive written explanation detailing what I believed with regards to repentance, faith and perseverance. I even spoke on the clarity of the gospel during my first visit to the church, so I am confident that all of the elders knew that my gospel message was different than what John MacArthur preaches. Regarding the Grace Evangelical Society [GES], I had not yet joined as a member but had spent two years being discipled in seminary by executive director Bob Wilkin and had even used him as a reference.
Over the course of my first year, one of our elders began meeting with a family in our church that openly held to lordship salvation. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss some of the things I had been teaching, specifically my agreement with Zane Hodges on the 'outer darkness' in Matthew and Luke. The elder and this family also began researching GES as well. While I didn't know of their meetings together, I did know of the elder's hesitance regarding some of the views presented on the GES website. He and I began conversing over email my views regarding the outer darkness, perseverance of the saints, fruit in a believer's life and judgment at the bema seat. The conversation would go like this: the elder would send me lengthy articles critiquing GES and I would respond with the ways I agreed with GES on these issues.
This continued cordially for the next few months until I began my exposition of the Epistle to the Colossians during Sunday School. When I taught how I believed Colossians 1:22-23 was referring to sanctification rather than justification and how our past lives may nor may not look blameless when we present them before Christ's bema seat, the elder became emotionally upset. I knew how he felt toward the subject and once the class quickly ended I approached him to tell him that I loved him. He responded that he loved me to but that I was teaching heresy. If this accusation had been done in private, the damage would have been left to a minimum. Instead, since it was made in the presence of many witnesses, I had to call an elder meeting once the service had ended. It was here that the elder suggested I be put on administrative leave pending an investigation of the views I was teaching. While the board didn't agree to this, they did agree to have a professional mediator visit to help us through this predicament. A few months later a mediator came down, met with the elder, then myself and finally the board as a whole. The mediator's opinion was this: lordship salvation and free grace theology aren't that different and that both could be taught in our church.
Though both the elder and I disagreed with the mediator's suggestion, I nonetheless appreciated what the mediator told me later. When I called and talked to him about what we should do next, he said that some people need to see grace performed for them to believe it and that if it were him, he'd resign peacefully from being pastor. I talked to Bob Wilkin of GES and he responded the same way. Both agreed that to continue fighting would only damage the small church even more and that one of us should probably leave. I met with each of the elders the following week and told them of my plans to resign. I sent out a brief letter to the congregation and preached my last sermon a few weeks later.
I have to tell you, the things my wife and I had to go through in this small town made me want to quit the ministry all together. Once people hear the word 'heresy,' even if it isn't true it still inflicts irreversible damage. People we once trusted began to change and react harshly to our friendship. Statements I had made earlier were twisted and changed. I was offered money to resign as pastor. The lordship family in our church kept telling our foster daughter that she could come live with them if I were to get fired. My wife began to lose weight. I wasn't sleeping at night and began to drink. Yes, I know that missionaries and other pastors have suffered much more than this, but I must be honest: the pain of being persecuted is real nonetheless. You never really know how you will respond until it happens to you.
My point in sharing all of this is what happened once we left. Half of the elder board resigned from the church and many of the families followed. The lordship couple divorced. The [accussing] elder expressed regret on how everything was handled and shared with our former chairman of the board the source of all of his and the lordship couple's arguments toward GES: a website called In Defense of the Gospel.
Once the chairman shared this website with me, it all made sense. Long before the 'Crossless Gospel' debate had ever started, Lou Martuneac has been wielding a negative campaign against GES, Bob Wilkin, Zane Hodges and anyone else who agrees with them. But it goes beyond arguing or presenting expositional truths regarding their claims. In fact, Lou Martuneac's website goes far beyond anything I've ever seen regarding blogs hosted by Christians. He's just plain mean. This guy calls Wilkin, Hodges and the rest of GES actual heretics. He laughs when he hears their conference numbers are down. He writes that he prays for their literal demise. He casts GES and those who disagree with him in such a negative light that you can't even dialogue with him.
I firmly believe that once my former elder and lordship couple began a steady diet of Lou's comments and vitriol, it was only a matter of time before he began to suspect his pastor as being a heretic and dangerous to the community of believers. I can only hope that through prayer and admonishment the members of FGA will be able to show Martuneac how his published comments are hurtful to the body of Christ and do nothing to help the free grace community."
Thank you Pastor Leach for sharing your story. If anyone would like to contact Shawn, his email address is: shawnleach75@gmail.com.
This account is a real tragedy, especially since it was preventable. The ungodly behavior of Lou Martuneac has resulted in the defilement of many individuals (cf. Heb. 12:15). The ungracious approach of the accusing elder was obviously fueled by Martuneac's own lack of grace. It is also important to point out that the "crossless gospel" was not even the issue of debate! Rather, the controversy concerned the doctrine of rewards as taught by men like Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, and Charlie Bing. While there is some debate among free grace theologians over the doctrine of rewards, the various positions are legitimate views in the free grace community.
Those of us with ears to hear, let us learn from this tragic church split. May we never cultivate the bitter root of ungracious behavior (Heb. 12:15). Instead, let us "grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen" (2 Pet. 3:18, KJV).
SCRIPTURAL APPEALS TO LOU MARTUNEAC
"If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me" (Psalm 66:18).
"He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will find compassion" (Proverbs 28:13).
"And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption" (Ephesians 4:30).
"We do not give anyone an occasion for taking an offense in anything, so that no fault may be found with our ministry" (2 Corinthians 6:3, NET).
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleans us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).
FINAL APPEAL IN LOU'S OWN WORDS
Lou, "as long as you continue to deny [your ungodly and ungracious behavior], and resist the convicting work of the Holy Spirit and God's desire to forgive you, your prayers and fellowship with God are hindered. Is covering up what you [have done] worth that level [of] expense?"
"Why don't you decide to become the type of Christian who might be the example for other Christians to follow? I am not talking about turning into a high-minded, puffed-up, pharisaical snob. Set out to become a man...who, above all things, wants to please God with his...life." (Your First Step Won't Be Your Last)
2 comments:
"Is Lou Martuneac a hero saving Free Grace or is he Satan's accuser of the brethren? I say Lou Martuneac is Lordship Salvation and Satan's accuser of the brethren." —Von McCrea (lightninboy)
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/eternallysecure/lou-free-grace-or-accuser-of-the-brethren-t2493.html
Post a Comment