LOOKING TO PRAISE AND WORSHIP JESUS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].

Friday, December 26, 2008

Can A Meaningful Conversation Ever Take Place Between A Calvinist and A Person of The Zane Hodges Tradition?


For one thing it seems they never want to journey far from his claims. They seem to have been spoon-fed what it is that Calvinists believe, and it seems that he had provided for them a number of talking points to fall back on. Whenever it seems that meaningful dialogue is about to take place, BAM!, "the Calvinist teaches works righteousness", "the Calvinist can have no assurance of salvation", "the Calvinist teaches that you must surrender, give up, commit, commit, before Christ can save you".

It's beinning to seem like a gigantic waste of time talking with those people. The conversation can never progress. Every time you try to make a point with them they fall back on a tired talking point. What's disheartening is that three years of conversing with them can go all up in smoke in one comments thread when they choose to ignore and disregard ALL of the conversations you've had with them over the years.

Very sad. My sadnes here is very profound.

Perhaps it is time to move on, and not try to dialogue with them anymore.

Wayne, please let this post stand for several days.


Blogger mark pierson said...

I guess I like it when they infer that if you're a Berean you'll track with Zane Hodges' literature. That one actually makes me smile...

December 26, 2008 4:05 PM

Blogger jazzycat said...

I am really enjoying Abrahams Four Seeds. He is really explaining all of my problems with covenant theology. NCT makes much more sense to me.

To the subject of this post: I think it can, but it will take them being a Berean with Zane Hodges theology just like other theologies. I will continue to debate them, but it will have to be 50/50. I am not going to do it only on their blogs..........

December 26, 2008 10:56 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Wayne, glad you like the book. I'm going slowly - only on page 82.

On their blogs they lite on some straw-man errection of what it is that they think that we believe; then all their buddies jump on board. No real conversation takes place in that environment. They pass themselves off as Bereans, and us as folloers of tradition. Heaven help you if you quote an author. But Zane Hodges' name comes up very often in their own comments.

Talk about inconsistency.

December 27, 2008 11:46 AM

Blogger Rose~ said...

I agree sometimes that the conversations can be frustrating and that double-standards are present on both sides.

BTW - Rose's Reasonings is MY blog. I have often participated in discussion on your blog so I see a 50/50 already with you coming over there to talk. I don't think it is one-sided.

Do you or Jazzy think so? Do you think it is unfair coming to my blog? Personally, I think if we all just practiced a few guiding principles of politeness, it would be comfortable and shouldn't matter whose blog it is. It wouldn't matter if I were to discuss something with you here or there if we would all try to think of how we come across. I mean ALL of us, to, Mark... I am not pointing the finger at anyone.

Then there are some blogs (I'm thinking of one in particular) where you go and make a comment and just because the person doesn't appreciate you or you have some HISTORY, they immediately delete your comment. They act like the Gestapo on their blog and treat you rudely there as well as on your own blog. That is obviously an unfrinedly environment and in a league of its own.

I don't undersatnd the insistence on "come to my blog and we'll discuss it." Do you not feel I am fair? Please tell me how I can improve the discussion atmosphere.

December 27, 2008 2:35 PM

Blogger Rose~ said...

BTW - I had a copy of that book and even posted on it:


Mark, you said some nice things in the comments of that post.

December 27, 2008 2:39 PM

Blogger jazzycat said...

I think you have been willing to discuss and debate here on Bluecollar. However, some that comment on your blogs the most seem unwillingly to do so.

FOR EXAMPLE: In an attempt to explain my position on a certain blog I referenced a post at Jazzycat that gave my view in more detail. I was accused of trying to advertise my blog and the comment was deleted. Some of your most regular visitors were involved on that thread and refused to even check out my referenced post.

This does not mean I will not comment from time to time, but I prefer to take items from your blogs and the comment threads and do posts here at Bluecollar or Jazzycat. Anyone is welcome to come by and comment.


December 27, 2008 3:43 PM

Blogger Rose~ said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 27, 2008 9:42 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Thanks, Rose

December 29, 2008 6:52 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

As I said in the post, What's disheartening is that three years of conversing with them can go all up in smoke in one comments thread...

December 29, 2008 6:57 AM

Blogger Rose~ said...

I am a little confused. What went up in smoke? Did I say something that caused you to feel all our previous dialogue went up in smoke? Help me understand what you're saying.

December 29, 2008 10:53 AM

Blogger Rose~ said...


December 29, 2008 10:56 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Comments? Yes, Rose, your comments about L/S - "cheap grace". In short you displayed absolutely no understanding of the L/S position in your comments on that thread. I'll let the other Calvinists who have been over this with you react in their own way. As for me I just see it that I wasted my time all these years. You could go back to the latter part of February, 2006 on your blog to see some of my earliest interaction with you on these matters. Then when I saw your comments on this last thread on your blog I saw it all went for nought. I could explain and explain over and over again and what's to guarantee we won't end up with you making those kind of misinformed statements again?

December 29, 2008 11:19 AM

Blogger Rose~ said...

I thought I explained to you that if this comment didn't apply to your views that I hope you wouldn't take it to. You yourself said that you did not agree with that sermon I had linked to. That comment is mainly a reaction to that sermon, not to any of your statements.

Does that help?

December 29, 2008 11:24 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Friend!, yes it helps.

I do not agree with Paul Washer myself. I believe that he operates on the "examine yourself" mindset, a mindset I have changed my views on.

December 29, 2008 11:38 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

But then again Rose, on her blog, pulls the old Roman Catholic link to L/S calvinism. How original. She's just made my case. Once again we see that the discussion can not proceed with them.

December 29, 2008 9:05 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Can you say "waste of time"?

Can you say "Loss of respect"?

December 29, 2008 9:07 PM

Blogger Rose~ said...

Dear Mark,
I am so sorry. You mistook my comment regarding the Roman Catholic system. The ONLY reason I brought that up was because I know you and I both disagree with it. I do not think your are like the Catholics. They do not believe in regeneration preceding faith.

I probably should have broken that comment up into two parts. I had two points.

The first was just to explain what I mean by "cheap grace." I was pointing to the Catholic system as an example of that. I know that the FG position has been called "cheap grace" but I just think that it is a tag better placed on a view that you "trade something for grace," like the Catholic view. I brought up the Catholics because I thought that was a system you and I could both agree was wrong. I was trying to find common ground with you. I meant it when I said I did not want to offend you! :~)

Secondly, I was trying to let you see that I understand in your view, with your Regeneration Preceeding Faith (RPF), that you do not have a "trade for grace" - but that someone like me, who does not believe in RPF, might see it that way. You believe that the committment/surrender is a gift just like everything else. I was trying to understand your view and see how you justify it through RPF. I was also trying to help you see how someone like me can have a difficulty digesting it because I don't have RPF in my "grid."

I did not mean to offend you - just the opposite.

I am sorry for the mistake.

December 30, 2008 8:22 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Rose, sorry I misunderstood you!

December 30, 2008 10:09 AM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...


To Rose you wrote, “You could go back to the latter part of February, 2006 on your blog to see some of my earliest interaction with you on these matters. Then when I saw your comments on this last thread on your blog I saw it all went for nought.”

I can tell you what happened. For well over two years Rose has been in close communication and cooperation with the advocates of Zane Hodges’s Crossless gospel. She became increasingly susceptible to their doctrinal errors. She has over time increasingly supported and defended not only the most absurd doctrinal views of Hodges and da Rosa as a mere “difference of opinion that is acceptable.”

I have read comments by Rose to Antonio da Rosa (aka- Sock Puppet: fg me) from 2 to 3 years ago where she was recognizing and asking penetrating questions about da Rosa’s extremist teaching that originated with Hodges. She was commended then by some of you for her recognition of and opposition to the teachings of da Rosa. Now, you can’t find any example from her of any serious disagreement she has with anything that comes from the Hodges, Wilkin, GES camp.

This is Rose’s most recent statement in regard to her view on the teaching of Zane Hodges:

1. Resonate perfectly with my understanding already, or

2. Bring something new out that make lots of seeming contradictions in the Bible now make perfect sense, or

3. Really make me think, stretch my mind and challenge me in ways that open up and clarify my thoughts on different doctrinal issues

Bottom-line, Rose has fallen victim to the reductionist heresy of the GES (Hodges/Wilkin) cell of theological extremists. She ignored personal and biblical warnings to keep her distance from them because close cooperation with the teachers of heresy can, and in her case, did lead to deception and acceptance of their reductionist assault on the content of saving faith.

If Rose has any conviction left that they are in gross doctrinal error she refuses to state it because she clearly prefers unity with her Crossless gospel friends. She has in essence taken on the mindset of the ecumenical who prefers unity at the expense of doctrine. And Heaven help you if you raise this with her and/or take on the reductionist assault on the content of saving faith by her Crossless friends, especially Antonio.

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 is notorious for.

Finally, I suggest you accept the debate over Calvinism will never be settled this side of Heaven.


PS: I have a proposal for you I’ll send via e-mail.

December 30, 2008 10:43 AM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...


I do not want to upset you, but may I please share the following.

At my blog I feel a responsibility to filter and even delete comments and/or links to others blogs that I feel could possibly cause one of my guests to stumble. I play no favorites on that policy.

My blog gets 200+/- hits daily, many are from folks that read, but never identify themselves. I do not know who many of these guests are and what level of spiritual maturity they are at. So, I feel a sense of duty to protect those who may be unsuspecting and/or susceptible to error.

You’d be surprised how many e-mails I get from folks I don’t know that are not aware of doctrinal controversies that men like you and I are very familiar with and settled in our convictions over.

This year I made the difficult decision to begin blocking Rose. IMO, because of her “niceness,” but especially her sympathy for and support of the reductionist assault on the content of saving faith coming from Hodges, Wilkin and GES she is more dangerous to the unsuspecting than Antonio da Rosa. One can read the absurdities coming from da Rosa and even the untrained can sense some trouble there. Rose, however, paves the way for the unsuspecting to keep reading and listening to da Rosa’s errors. She encourages people to visit and interact at her pro-Crossless gospel blogs. Those people are at great risk because she is being nice to them while she guides them to her GES friends (especially Antonio) who are the advocates of the Crossless gospel.

Anyway, I hope this explains why I administer my blog the way I do. I make no apology for it. I just want you to know why I do it.


PS: I have read your blog a number of times, FWIW.

December 30, 2008 10:44 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

I am one with you in wanting to see Rose come away from the Hodges system. More later.


December 30, 2008 10:46 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

I agree. I too have seen Rose have to swallow a lot of incredible information.

I am not "Hyper Calvinist". I stand against them. That stand would include not running a blog with them.

Rose is FGA. That stands against the GES in much the same way as I stand against hyper Calvinism.

See my point?

December 30, 2008 10:56 AM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...

Hi Mark:

Thanks for the replies. I have little time now, but I do want to discuss hyper-Calvinism with you. I have some thoughts to share. You to, Wayne.

Plus, I share your hope that Rose can be recovered from the effects of her close cooperation with the Hodges’s Crossless gospel followers, but it is looking increasingly unlikely, which is sad and tragic.

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.


December 30, 2008 2:33 PM

Blogger jazzycat said...

You said…………….
At my blog I feel a responsibility to filter and even delete comments and/or links to others blogs that I feel could possibly cause one of my guests to stumble. I play no favorites on that policy.

That is certainly your right on your blog! However this reminds me a little bit of the time several centuries ago when the Roman Catholic Church banned Bible possession. They considered themselves a filter for those who were not capable of understanding the Bible. They were also protecting people who did not have the spiritual maturity to discern for themselves; just as you are doing on your blog.

There are many good reasons to delete comments from blogs. However, the reason you give is not valid because all a reader has to do is click on the screen name to get to the blogs of all who comment on your blog. If you really mean that as a reason, you should have comment moderation selected or either not allow comments at all.

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.

That being said, I will not delete anything you say at Bluecollar and if you are welcome here by Mark, you are also welcome by me.

December 30, 2008 4:44 PM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...

Hi Wayne:

Thanks for hearing me out. I don’t see a correlation between my policy and the RCC issue exactly the way you do, but that is OK.

As for the screen names I do understand that one can click and be taken over to that blog. I am more concerned with having links to specific articles, but I often do delete permanently so that all trace of the comment is gone, therefore, no link opportunity at al.

I try not to use Comment Moderation, but have at times when certain vitriolic Crossless gospel persons have been naughty and needed to be blocked 24/7.

You wrote, “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.”

OK, I can appreciate that and we’ll work on it.

So, would you be open to afresh start for you and I? I’m not feeling the need to enter into any discussion at this time, but would like the door to open for it if the need or desire should arise.



PS: Thanks for the welcome.

December 30, 2008 5:18 PM

Blogger jazzycat said...

I certainly cannot refuse a fresh start with you.

However, I have lost much of my desire to discuss doctrine with the free grace group on their blogs. I would prefer to post here where I can emphatically distinguish between justification & sanctification and control and refute the strawmen that seem to always come up. They are welcome to discuss it here and I will respond here. Also, like Mark, I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I have really never met one. So apparently they are rare. Thanks.


December 30, 2008 10:11 PM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...


I know what constitutes what is generally viewed as a hyper-Calvinist and I have met only one. I never assumed either of you are.

As you are likely aware, there are various interpretations among non-Calvinists of what for them constitutes a hyper-Calvinist.

I'm told by Reformed men that I have it right.


December 31, 2008 1:17 AM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...

After 11 months of refusing to admit or deny, Antonio finally confessed to being the Sock Puppet: fg me.

He was forgiven the day we caught him posting under a false identity. So, that has been settled, but I reiterate that forgiveness here again.

In reality his full apology, which is filled with vitriol and personal ad hominen attacks cannot be posted in its entirety. What it shows, however, is that he was primarily sorry only for having been caught. That is false repentance.

Nevertheless, here is the only portion of da Rosa’s apology (which I have posted at my blog that you can view through the link above) that is suitable for publication.

I indeed was the fg me on Lou’s blog. 

I have long since confessed my sins concerning that (and many others along the way) and forsaken them. It is a sad thing when the urges of the flesh to pride and superiority show their ugly, and evil heads so as to bring others low and cut them down.

 It isn’t an unheard of thing...To those (including Lou Martuneac, Stephen, Rachel, and any others) who were hurt or offended by my few day stint as fg me, I apologize and ask for your forgiveness.


December 31, 2008 10:49 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

it appears progress is being made, albeit very slowly...but progress nonetheless.

December 31, 2008 11:20 AM

Blogger Kris said...


Why are you so concerned about Rose?

Why so much time spent on researching her replies to "crossless" issues?

Don't be scared to answer, I think you should clarify your motives.

December 31, 2008 4:24 PM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...

Dear Kris:

Scared…motives? You should prayerfully consider restraining yourself from the use of condescending speech and thinly veiled (disguised) attempts to call into question my motives. That is sinful (Matt. 7:1-2).

I would like to give you time to reconsider how you’d like to rephrase your question and comments to me in more gracious terms. Once you compose that proper balance, I’ll be more than happy to interact with you.

In the meantime please go back up this thread and read my notes to our hosts that I submitted on 12/30 @ 10:43am & 10:44am.

You will find much in them to reflect upon.


January 01, 2009 9:26 AM

Blogger Kris said...


"Condesending"? Are you kidding me?
Your reply to me is what is condesending.

I have watched your condesending comments toward Rose & Michele & others for the last year & 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-fundamentalsim. Your folly is quite evident to all who have interacted with you in good faith.

When someone has any negative comments toward your comments you consitently 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.

And the gall to somehow put yourself above anyone by making this statement:

"This year I made the difficult decision to begin blocking Rose. IMO, because of her “niceness,” but especially her sympathy for and support of the reductionist assault on the content of saving faith coming from Hodges, Wilkin and GES SHE IS MORE DANGEROUS to the unsuspecting than Antonio da Rosa."

"she is more dangerous to the unsuspecting"
Are you kidding me? Who are these "unsuspecting" that visit your blog? And for the life of me what has she or Michele said on their blogs that is so dangerous the "unsuspecting" have to be protected from?

You, Mr. Martuneac & your hyper-fundamentism is what is dangerous to the unsuspecting.

Now again, Lou, what are your motives for taking the exhausting time to track down every comment by a person who is very reasonable and publishing them on other blogs than your own?

And I am not sinning, I am calling you into account Mr. Martuneac for your mistreatment of others.

January 01, 2009 12:32 PM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...


I’m sorry that Kris has brought a da Rosa like vitriol to your thread.

I encouraged him to address me in a civil, Christ-honoring manner, but that only enflamed him for more emotionally charged vitriol.

Kris is one of the unfortunates to have come under and succumbed to the corruptive influence of the Crossless gospel and the likes of Antonio da Rosa. The tragic result is a seared conscience and IMO (based on his two comments to me) he has lost his ability to be objective.

As for what Kris is trying to provoke me to here IMO it best for me to follow the biblical wisdom of Proverbs 26:4, which states:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”

If I could be convinced by Kris that his concerns were sincere and honorable, coupled with graciousness, I would address them.

Now back to the Hawks/Wings game, which I am thoroughly enjoying.


January 01, 2009 3:38 PM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 01, 2009 3:55 PM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...


Did I blow it on the linking issue? My bad, innocent mistake, I forgot our discussion.

My apologies if that was the case.


January 01, 2009 5:42 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Lou, that was my doing. I do not want to pile on the Cole's. Remember my last email to you???

January 01, 2009 6:42 PM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...


Sorry, understood.


January 01, 2009 6:53 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

No problem, Lou.

I guess my latest participation on the GES blogs has shown me that I don't like merry-go-rounds. So I'll be staying away from them for a while.

January 02, 2009 3:24 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

The following comment from Lou was deleted by an over zealous blog administrator. I believe what Lou said here was important. I just wish, though, that Lou would leave out personal names outside of the inner-circle of the GES because I want those who have been swept up into that heresy to feel comfortable here where their views can come under friendly examination.

Here is Lou's comment -


I know what you mean by “merry-go-rounds.” You get mind-dizzy reading their reductionist assaults on the Lord’s Person, deity, death, resurrection and content of saving faith.

I don’t know which is or more sad and tragic: the Crossless heresy itself or how some of them, out of loyalty to one man (Zane Hodges) who introduced a heresy that has never before been seen in the NT church, fall to their knees before his egregious errors.

Only the Lord knows the future, of course, but it appears very likely that they will persist in the course Hodges set for the Crossless debate, rather than reconsidering and repenting. Knowing their esteem for the man, and how they think he was faithful to the Lord to the very end, having died with his boots on serving the cause of God’s grace (so they think), they are more prone to pick up the flag/torch and cheer “forward march!” They are likely to think, “If Zane died combating this ‘theological legalism’ then can we do any less by continuing this noble cause.”

I'm afraid this is how they honestly think, rather than seeing the horror of Hodges’s Hydra’s Head article as his lasting legacy.

Anyway, I rarely look in on the GES Crossless gospel blogs. Used to, but you keep reading the same tired ol’ (Hodges/Wilkin) mantras that have been, time and again, thoroughly and biblically devastated.

My chief desire is to do what I can to alert and warn as wide a cross section of evangelical Christianity about what the heresy of the Crossless is, how to recognize it and who (by name) its prime instigators/sympathizers are.

In the opinion of many Hodges’s Crossless gospel is the most dangerous reductionist heresy ever introduced to the body of Christ by one of its own.

God forbid it gains a foothold in the minds of those who have not yet fallen to prey to the reductionist assault on the content of saving faith that was originated by the late Zane Hodges.


January 03, 2009 10:51 AM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 05, 2009 2:23 AM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...


Thanks for bringing that one back, I did not know it was pulled. I will name those who are among the inner circle of the GES/Crossless gospel camp.


January 05, 2009 2:24 AM


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home