Sunday, March 08, 2009

The Grace Of A Man - Discussion Disabled

What I hope to post here is a collection of "Screenshots" that will show what it's like to discuss the fundamentals of the Christian Faith with a man who is openly lauded as "Graceful" and "Loving." To understand the man, I will not be writing anything about him in this article. In fact I will not even mention the man's name in this article. The only identity given him will be the one he himself establishes in his own words and signatures.

The purpose of this article is not to promote drama.. or controversy. But to be a resource for those who find themselves in similar conversations. To start here is his a picture of the man in his own words. (EDIT: I had the screenshots out of order)


The man was upset by an article written by Brother Lou. Here is a picture of that article from Lou's blog. As you will see from the man's complaint, it is the title and the quotation that he was upset about - so I didn't screenshot the entire post.


Here is the man's response.


After some conversation about the nature of the man's complaint I felt he was not being clear with his guests. I have some history asking this man the very same question I did in this conversation for over a year. I have never received a clear answer from him. More importantly, those who he has influence over have never received a clear answer from him to the best of my knowledge.

I want you to experience now what it is like speaking with a professing Christian who claims to be very graceful. A man who does not appear to like to be criticized at all, but who is not shy about criticizing - at least by my estimation which may not be accurate.

Here is the conversation that led up to my asking the question I did. Unfortunately many posts were deleted by the admins of that blog. I can not speak to the purpose of deleting them as I was not present with the admins when they did such. I understand that Phillip is writing something about his experience in this conversation as well. When I have a link to that I will provide it.


So Phillip reposts his question.


And the man gives reply.


I
did not find this answer to be clear, though I suppose someone else may. So I jumped in to ask for myself, in such a way as the man (and everyone else) could be aware of why I was asking. I started out by speaking to Phillip but I address the man half way through my comment.


This is his reply to me - which he actually posted twice in the thread.


To which I replied


A strange thing happens whenever I attempt to have conversations with this man - which is not all that often - some women tend to step in between the two of us and draw the conversation away from the question I am asking him. Two women got involved in this particular instance. I will show you the very short conversation with one because it was mostly relevant to the conversation. Also because you will plainly see my frustration show through. Please note this is among posts from another woman who keeps bringing up an entirely different person as though that is relevant to the conversation at hand. At this point I'm shocked that anyone would not simply wait for the man to answer... so if you're frustrated in such a conversation realize - you're not alone.





The man then offered this reply to my answering of his questions, and this is his response to my continued request for a clear answer to my question.

There is one more post in the thread after this made by a person I do not personally know, but who criticized the man's reply to me. I'll save you the read as I believe you now have enough information.

When I tried to reply to the man I found the comment thread was closed. As you can see, discussion was disabled from the beginning. The natural now shows what was previously established in the spiritual.
This is the grace of a man.

28 comments:

Kevl said...

In light of the many articles this man has either written or supported since January I could have written this article much differently.

I've decided to simply show my experience with him and let you glean from it what you will.

Kev

Kevl said...

Oops I realized I left out two screenshots with my discussion with the woman. I've just added them.

Kev

Jan said...

Kev-

I understand what you are trying to do with this. I have just come from reading the comments section at the blog in question.

Unfortunately, they have deleted all of Lou's comments. I am trying to get some kind of handle on why so many people keep saying Lou is a brute, etc. But I couldn't assess that at all without his words. I don't have kids, but I have seen this kind of thing often enough to know it would make me tear my hair out if I had to deal with it: one kid comes crying to the adult in question insisting that another kid had committed a heinous crime. Then comes the other kid, usually denying the whole thing and saying kid 1 is a liar. None of this is an issue if the adult saw what happened in the first place. The real criminal is identified by his/her crime and chastised accordingly. But if the event was missed completely by the adult and he/she has nothing but the children's testimonies to go on (and everyone knows all children are angels sometimes and devils other times so it could go either way) and yet the adult is expected to render a judgment....

Maddening!

I think if I were the adult in charge I would be inclined to banish everyone to his or her room for the remainder of the day. So everyone go to your rooms (blogs) and stay there until you can learn to behave like civilized human beings. And if one more person says anything about anyone else- no dinner for you!

However, in this case it is even worse because first, this is not a playground and we are not children. Second, while the accusations fly, the evidence that would either substantiate or refute the accusations is scrubbed. So it becomes like a trial in some Communist or Islamic country where someone is brought before a tribunal on accusation and not allowed to defend themself (I can't remember what the name for such a "trial" is.) They are just declared guilty and executed or whatever, and that's the end of it.

Because of the nature and potential seriousness of the matter in question, especially in light of that fellow's posting of Lou's email concerning criminal charges, I don't think it is good for them to delete Lou's comments from the comment thread. If this grievance is to go to official governing bodies all of the evidence should be intact.

It is impossible to make any kind of reasonable assessment without Lou's comments.

JanH

Jan said...

BTW, thanks for that lovely compliment on the other blog. :)

I don't think you assess yourself fairly, though. You have a good ability to communicate and understand things. I benefit greatly from your blog. I don't have to "put up" with you.

JanH

Kevl said...

Hey Jan,

I believe that Lou has a copy of almost the entire thread (even many of the deleted posts).

The rattling about Lou is just a continuation of what you probably read at our now (sadly) impotent Brother's blog. He is a full-on type poster. He doesn't "play along" very well, which is to say he doesn't allow people to continue their play games when he calls them on the stuff they do.

I tend to like to allow someone to live in their own special world while they talk to me.. and I try to show them any error through that. I'm not sure either way has been the least be effective in assisting the Professing Christian that my article is about.

The real problem is that the man this article is about behaves in two wildly different manners. When he is describing himself, or rebuking someone for being "ungracious" you'd guess he was the most loving can caring and careful guy in the world... but when he's posting about some man who has caught him in error... well he tends to be a bit more ravenous. At least that is what I have experienced... again my experience is not complete.

My opinion has been formulated over the last two years... but even in the conversation above I tried to let the man be the man he claims to be....

Kev

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev

Thanks for this, what I will call, investigative documentary. You are showing from the now hidden evidence that their is no genuine graciousness nor integrity with this apostle of the GES’s Crossless gospel heresy.

The fa├žade of graciousness has been peeled away by his never ceasing misdeeds. Given enough time he always reverts back to what he is widely known to be: arguably the most dishonest, vitriolic, unethical, ultra-combative advocate of heresy anywhere in Christian circles.

All one must do is ask him for and expect an honest answer on his belief in regard to the content of saving faith and you are first met with evasion. If you press him for a clear, transparent answer he then responds with playing the victim card, vitriol and personal ad hominen attacks.

Furthermore, you have done a great service revealing the obvious determined effort of the two women who run interference for, their application of a double-standard and their obvious personal affinity for the Crossless gospel advocate. There is no amount of vitriol and/or gross unethical behavior they will not support or find some way to legitimize that routinely comes from this young man. Most disturbing is the obvious desire of the one woman to promote ecumenical unity with her "friend" at the expense of compromising the Scriptures.

In any event, I appreciate your documenting this advocate of Hodges’s reductionist heresy throwing off the phony veneer of graciousness that has never been lasting or genuine in his on line activities.

Yours in His service,



Lou

Lou Martuneac said...

Jan:

As Kev noted I have it all on file. I'd like to share it with you off the blogs. Send me an e-mail and I'll arrange it for you.

BTW, Kev refers to Phil's developing article, which also demonstrates the poor behavior and ungracious behavior of the GES Crossless gospel advocate.

The article appears at my blog later in the week.


Lou

Kevl said...

Hey Lou,

Yup I think the conversation speaks volumes...

Kev

Jan said...

Hey Lou,

Yup I think the conversation speaks volumes...

Kev,


Half of it does anyway!

JanH

Kevl said...

Jan - LOL!

Sanctification said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

Thanks for blocking the latest incursion (of one of the women you refer to) into our discussions and lives. I am hopeful she can one day be recovered from not just the heresy of the Crossless gospel, but the corruptive influence of its advocates and sympathizers.


Lou

Antonio said...

Kevl,

Why do you stand by a man who is vandalizing my blogs after we have asked him not to? We have had to delete nearly 80 comments. Your double standards are surprising.

I ask you, as a brother in Christ, that you talk to Lou and ask him to please stop posting on my blogs. Do you not realize the immaturity and childishness, not to mention sin, of this?

At the request of me and others, we have asked Lou to cease from posting on my blogs. He refuses. What does this say, sir, about your friend?

Antonio

Kevl said...

Antonio,

If I take both your word, and Lou's word as true (neither of which do I have first hand experience to either confirm or deny) then you are both posting at each other's blogs which has been a source of frustration to you both.

I am not an admin at either blog. I have no control over the issues you speak of. I have given influence where I thought I could, and should.

I would love to witness adult dialog at your blog, and the one which you admin at. I however, have no control over whether that actually happens or not.

Kev

Kevl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Antonio said...

Wow, Kevl.

Do you think it is right that Lou continually spams my blogs when I have asked him to desist?

Kevl said...

I don't think that has anything to do with this article... which would indicate spam to me.

Kev

Lou Martuneac said...

To All:

I need to remind everyone that Antonio's dodging his responsibilty to promise that he will never again invade my blog.

I had comment moderation enabled long before da Rosa’s most recent violation of the ban that was placed on him well over a year ago.

Because of previous vitriolic postings by GES friendly people at my blog when it was NOT moderated and prior comments posted by Antonio while he was banned I finally had to enable comment moderation 24/7.

The latest 2-3 attempts he refers to are just the most recent. He posted a comment calling me a “liar,” but quickly pulled it. I suspect his memory might have been suddenly refreshed about his numerous posts at my blog as the infamous Sock Puppet: fg me.

I am prepared to wait as long as it takes for his promise with no other commentary to NEVER again attempt a post at my blog again. With his closing many of his threads, however, he will need to either:

1) Post his promise on his home page, or

2) Post it in the thread under my article, Believing the Gospel: May Indeed Frustrate Grace?”

Or maybe he would be willing to send me an e-mail, which he should have done in the first place. He can e-mail that promise and the I'll post it for him. That way we will be able to return to the mutual ban that he repeatedly violated under his own name and other false identities, such as Mr. Truth Detector; didn't you Antonio.


LM

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

I'll not comment on that subject any longer in this thread.

Thanks,


Lou

Kevl said...

NOTICE

Earlier in this thread I replied to Antonio in error. I wrote.

Antonio,

The posts of Lou's that I saw before you deleted them surely did show that he was "vandalizing" your blog.

Kev


This comment has now been deleted

I HAD MEANT TO WRITE that Lou's posts surely did NOT show that he was vandalizing his blog.

That's why I had linked to dictionary.com on the word vandalizing.

NOW I understand why Antonio replied with "Wow Kevl" which made no sense to me before....

The posts I saw by Lou were not vandalism. Clearly. Further that is NOT what this thread is about.

Kev

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

Thanks for clearing that up.

Lou

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

You did see that Antonio has even deleted the article from his Crossless gospel blog?


Lou

Kevl said...

Hi Lou,

Yes I saw that. In instances like these screenshots are superior to links in two ways. The person linked doesn't unknowingly land on something they didn't expect, and the Screenshot can not be deleted.

I'm not "out to get" the man, but to document what a conversation with him is like. So that the next time he talks about how someone asking him a question is "ungraceful" we can see his example of grace ourselves.

Again, this is not a tool "against" him, it is a tool FOR those who would want to test his teachings, words and honesty.

If the man is honest, then there is no harm to him. If he is dishonest there is still no harm to him, only that the person dealing with him will not be shocked.

Kev

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

Thanks for the reply and for your permanent archive of what transpired with da Rosa at the Crossless gospel blog.

Documented facts are a powerful defense against a charge of "misrepresetation." This is why da Rosa's mantra like cries of "misrepresentation" always end much like the latest episode.

It is proven that there is no misrepresentation and then he disappears. This time, however, he tried to bury the proof that he went too far.

Maybe one day he will stop dodging and truthfully answer this question for you.

MUST a person believe that they are a sinner, that Jesus is God, that He was here in the flesh and died on the Cross for our very own personal sins, that He was buried, that He rose to life again and was seen in the flesh by a multitude of people in order to be saved?

Can anything in this “list” be unknown, unbelieved, or rejected at the moment of conversion and the person ACTUALLY be Eternally Saved at that moment?



Lou

Kevl said...

Here are some comments posted by the man this article speaks of.

It is addressed to the Husband of Rachel.

Stephen,

There has been no retreating on my part, only exasperation. Have you noted the length of many of your wife's comments, questions, objections, etc.?

I do not have time to interact with dozens of issues concommitantly. Now do I desire to re-invent the wheel, which would often be necessary to do in order to asnwer your wife to her satisfaction.

It is wrong to paint me the way you do when in fact, if you or your wife wishes to take an issue and dialogue with me on it, I have been ready and willing to do so. I have extended my invitations and welcome to you both, and yet I see many blog articles pass without your participation. Tell me why that is so?

I am able to trek on one thing at a time as I have done the past 3-4 years with many, many others on my blog.

It is unreasonable to characterize me as you have with regards to my willingness to discuss issues. I do so all the time, and have done so for years. Yet I am not willing to engage in answering multiple objections at the same time.

It is easy to rifle off a grand list of objections to a position, but it is quite another thing altogether to actually answer them scholarly, sufficiently, biblically, and timely.

Paint me as you will, for you and your side do anyway. But there are those who have a greater impartiality who would interpret the events that have transpired differently as you have.

If you haven't been over to my blog recently, I have written a treatise exposing fundamental flaws with the position that you align yourself with. I am more than happy to begin dialogue with you on those points. Or take for instance any of my past few blog articles. They are their for your consideration and interaction.

I again extend to you or anyone willing to, come over and dialogue.

As an end, I see that you painted me in the Facebook incident as a villain. I saw it completely another way. I note that after my last email you failed to follow up with a reply. I also note that you have failed to respond to my statements concerning if the roles were reversed. Nor have you given an assessment of the harrassing, haranguing vandalism that occurred (and is still going on with moderation) on my blog from a man who you have personally aligned with and fellowship with.

Believe me Stephen, if an individual on my side did the same thing to you as one on your side continues to do to me, I would confront him, and if he did not cease, I would never again associate myself with such a one.


I don't think I need to add comment to this.

Kev

Kevl said...

I think I should post Rachel's reply to the man because it gives some added context.


I must confess that it is somewhat frustrating to hear, first from Rose and now you, that my comments are too long or discuss too many points, and that is why you avoid them.

First of all, if you or Rose or whoever prefers "sound-bite" theology in one-paragraph comments, then you won't get that from me and perhaps I should avoid any significant conversation with you. I'm interested in a discussion of these issues, which requires some hashing out and, yes, a good amount of reading in order to fully understand and agree with or refute the other's position.

But second, I again find it hypocritical that you complain that my comments are too long. Your most recent article about Hixson was 6 pages long (of a Word document) and just shy of 3,000 words. Most of your other articles are also fairly lengthy. Yet you expect me to respond by picking just one issue and writing brief comments? This is yet another reason why I'd rather discuss these issues at our forum, where longer comments are more welcome, and the site is neutral with no banning, moderation, etc. I note that you indicate we are welcome at your blog, which I am thankful for, but you seem to be also making it clear that you will only discuss these things at your blog. If I am mistaken about that, please correct me. But if I am right, why is that?

You said,

"I am not willing to engage in answering multiple objections at the same time."

I have difficulty seeing how this is fair though, when you post an article with numerous points that could be contended. If you only want to talk about one thing at a time, maybe you should only post one thing at a time.

Even so, the last time I tried to discuss your position with you (at JP's blog), you reiterated how you didn't have time and asked that I pick just one issue. I did - here is my last comment to you there on January 10 (3 months ago):

"Please show us a few of the many places you claim that Hodges taught that the lost are required to believe that the Jesus they're believing in is the Jesus of the Bible.

I will wait for your response"

I realize that JP has recently deleted pretty much everything at his blog, so this comment isn't there anymore. But I still have it, and of course you could respond at your blog rather than JP's, or at our forum. But yet it's been 3 months, and no response from you on that issue.

In any case, you also said this to me at JP's:

"When statements such as yours concerning my comments are full of innacuracies and holes in logic, it seems that to sufficiently show your errors that I must reinvent the wheel, something that is not prudent for me to do. I must choose wisely where I will spend my time. And at this juncture, the positive expression of my positions seems to me to be where the best use of my time is."

So here, you broad-brush my position as having tons of problems, but you don't have time to correct even one of them. In fact, in the statement above, you remark that you're not even interested in defending your positions, but merely the "positive expressions" of them.

You asked why it is that articles of yours are posted without contribution from us. I hope the reason why has been made clear in this comment. I have no interest in taking the time to explain my problems with your positions, when I have no reason to think that you'll bother to answer them.


Again, no need to comment.

Kev

Kevl said...

To remind the readers.

The purpose of this thread is to protect those who will find themselves painted as "ungraceful" by this man and his followers in the future because they expect him to discuss some point of theology.

Kev

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

In doing some research I came back to this documentary you posted. Thanks again for holding the line for truth- calling out Rose for her obvious double-standard and her running interference for Antonio for whenever Antonio's statements come under scrutiny.


Lou