Why I Would Not Recommend Lou Martuneac's Books

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/07/summary-of-lordship-salvation-on-single.html

Y'all Wanna See Lou Martuneac When He Is In Defense Mode?

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17893637&postID=6823074750748303347

Feel free to join in the fun.

Lou Martuneac and Mark Pierson Speak

The discussion took place here... https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4325570063154994968&postID=4018681151046232299

Lou M. says - I am all for expecting the genuinely born again Christian to live (at varying degrees) in obedience to the Lord’s commands. However, I also understand from the Scriptures the inevitable existence of “carnal” believers/Christians that we will always have in the church....

I will, however, say this much: I reject any theology that suggests “commitment, surrender or submission” to the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) and/or obedience expected of a born again disciple of Christ is necessary from a lost man for justification (the reception of eternal life).

This week I posted a review of John MacArthur’s newest and third edition of The Gospel According to Jesus. There is the link for your consideration. In my brief review I expand on some of the notes I shared in this comment.

It might interest you to know that after the initial storm my book raised among men who were sympathetic to MacArthur’s LS interpretation of the Gospel I have received a number of calls and e-mails from men in the Reformed camp. Many of these conceded they had initially misjudged my arguments and have come to find that I was much more right on LS then they had at first given me credit for. They took the time to read my book, mediate on my arguments from the standpoint of Scripture.My revised and expanded edition will build upon the good foundation the original established.

Kind regards,LM

Lou M. says - /Mark/All:

I have done a great deal in recent months at various sites to show that there is a clear division in the FG community.I wrote a special article Is “REDEFINED” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?

I encourage all of you men who oppose the unusual GES brand of theology to read it.

The GES faction is a shrinking cell of extremists that will no doubt continue to slide into new and even more absurd ideas. The GES Crossless gospel advocates do NOT speak for or represent the FG camp in general.

When you read the kind of absurdity coming from those who follow the teaching of Hodges and Wilkin, just remember that these strange views are almost totally exclusive to GES followers.

LM

Lou M. says - [Jazzy Cat asked] You asked, “Do you consider 100% of regular church goers to be true Christians?”I suspect we can find “church-goers” in most every evangelical church who were never born again. As far as I am concerned the more unsaved “church-goers” attending Bible-believing churches the better. This way they will be under the preaching of God’s Word.

That will most certainly result in some of them being saved, unless of course they are subjected to the Lordship or Crossless gospel.

LM

Lou M. says - Jazzy:You wrote, “I agree. Justification is by faith alone.”

I’m glad to read that because then there is no way you can agree with the error of John MacArthur’s LS gospel.

For example he wrote, “Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith.” (TGATJ)

Sine qua non defined means: an indispensable condition. Dr. MacArthur says “forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake” is not subsequent to, does not follow conversion. Therefore, the “sine qua non” (indispensable condition) of saving faith is “forsaking.” Dr. MacArthur requires an upfront commitment to this for salvation.

He also wrote, “That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom.” (TGATJ)

Lordship Salvation frontloads faith with conditions for salvation that the Bible does not force on the lost.

MacArthur’s LS is a non-saving, works based message that calls on man to offer “commitment,” “surrender” and “forsaking” in “exchange” for salvation.

Again, I am very pleased to read that you have not bought into this erroneous teaching.

LM


Mark P. says - mark pierson said...
Lou,

Question #1- Did Mark 8:34-38 happen in an evangelistic setting or no?

#2 - On a timeline stretching from the Reformation; where on that timeline did your views originate?

#3 - Could a holder of Covenant Theology or New Covenant Theology, using their hermeneutic, arrive at your conclussions, conclussions wherein MacArthur's TGATJ is a works salvation, or "front-loaded" as you say?

Please answer my questions carefully. I believe that you are holding MacArthur's work up to a standard that was born in and of a certain strand of dispensational thought - Chafer, Ryrie - and hope you'll understand that if that is the case, you views would be regarded as irrelevant to those of us outside of Dispensationalism.

Lou M. says - Mark:I may come back later with more, but I am at work and very busy at this time. You might find me more receptive to addressing your questions if you asked in a less militant tone. Furthermore, why not interact with the statements I posted from JM?I bring no presuppositions of any kind into my reading of MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation. I am holding MacArthur’s soteriology up and comparing it to the eternal Word of God. His LS view simply fails the test of Scripture.His call for the lost man to make a “commitment” to the “good works” expected of a mature Christian is a false, works based, non-saving message.

Mark P. says -
mark pierson said...
No sir, he merely considers ALL of the information from all 4 gospels when he considers what a gospel presentation should include. Even Ryrie lightly hints at the idea that the Gospel of John is THE book to look at for evangelistic purposes - a "Dallas Doctrine" distinctive???I shall awaite your responses to ALL of my questions from the previous comment I left to you. I'm off to my second shift job shortly.

Lou M. says -
Lou Martuneac said...
Mark:It does not matter how MacArthur arrives at his LS interpretation of the Gospel. His statements articulate very clearly what is a false, works based message.

LM

Lou Martuneac said...
Like Jazzy wrote to me earlier in the thread, "I agree with you if, by the term lordship salvation, you mean anything to do with justification. This is a blog dedicated to the true free grace of eternal life by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone."

MacArthur teaches (which I have documented) faith, plus "commitment" of life in "exchange" for the reception of eternal life.
L.M.


mark pierson said...
I am sure your book does/will resonate with those who hold to "Ryrian Theology". But those of us who hold to the Biblical view of regeneration - that being that the regeneration experience ALWAYS results in conversion, a new creation with a new nature, with new desires - will see your book as simply one side firing on another side within Dispensationalism. Unfortunate for you that your system does not let you interpret passages like Mark 8:34-38 properly, that is that that passage is indeed taking place in an evagelistic setting. Many people in that passage were hearing Christ for the very first time.

Question: Why didn't Christ run after the departing rich young ruler?


mark pierson said...
Besides all of this B.B. Warfield took apart Chafer's "Ye which Are Spiritual" within two years of its publication. That whole idea of a state of carnal Christianity was popularized in that work by Chafer and was soundly refuted by Warfield and many others since then. Even other dispy's would not agree with Chafer's views there.
7:19 AM