The Cowardice, Cultishness, and Childishness of Lou Martuneac and the Duluthian Antagonists, Not to mention Lou's Flip-Flopping and Duplicity
A guest writer for my blog, who by the way agrees WITH Lou against the GES, has written a piece revealing Lou Martunuac's lack of integrity and good form here: Free Grace Theology Blog: Commentary on Lou Martuneac and the Duluthians in the Matter of this Public Debate This article was written by the friend of a member of Tom Stegall's church whom Lou Martuneac publicly shamed and charged in an ill and unfounded manner. He also touches on the method that a Christian debate should follow.
Dennis Rokser and Tom Stegall have publicly shamed and misrepresented the Grace Evangelical Society, Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges in writing. They had at one time stated that they desired public interaction on issues that they disagreed with. What they really wanted is for the GES to step in line behind them and their cult-like practice of excommunicating anyone who does not agree with every jot and tittle of their doctrine. They want their little peice of the lime-light and are envious of the national support of the GES.
Bob Wilkin was only too happy to interact with these antagonists. Yet after it was apparant that Bob was not going to get on their bandwagon, Dennis Rokser and Tom Stegall resorted to pejoratives, name calling, misrepresentations, and shady debate tactics and ploys in their written journal. Bob Wilkin called them on this and publically challenged both men to a debate. Apparantly these two men have given up their desire to personally interact with Bob Wilkin on these subjects, for they both, without given reason, have refused to debate.
This is nothing but rank cowardice. How is it that they are so bold to print misrepresentations and pejoratives, shaming godly men, yet when push has come to shove, they shrink back into reclusion? They have forfeited any credibility and respectability that they may have had, leaving us all wondering how we are to take such men seriously when they feel no moral compunction to stand their ground and defend their attacks against those whom they shame.
Enter Lou Martuneac. After posting these happenings on my blog, Lou came up with every reason in the book why there should not be a public debate on these things. He, in essence, was defending the cowardice of the men who show themselves bold in writing and to their flocks, but who remain safely tucked away in the confines of their cultish assemblies. Lou stated that he was morally and biblically against a public debate.
For instance, Lou wrote:
It is IMO foolish and dangerous to intentionally expose believers to known error. The debate you suggest is allowing trhe [sic] teacher of false doctrine to teach and instruct within the confines of a debate. Some believers, who may be suseptible to buying into error, could well be lead astray, and that is a serious issue.
IMO, the best place to hammer out doctrinal discussions is in the written forum. This way men can carefully reason through the Scriptures.
If I were asked to host a debate such as is being suggested; No Thanks!
I would never agree to host a debate/open forum on the interpretation of the Gospel being debated in recent months.
Lou Martuneac has been emotionally affected because I have discussed a debate and the Duluthian Antagonist's cowardly refusal to stand up like men and defend their shameless attacks against godly teachers. I get the idea that Lou felt the shame of his heroes in the faith as they dastardly refused to show themselves reputable by standing their ground in an open square. Since Tom and Dennis refused to debate, I asked Lou himself if he would. He didn't even answer. We have seen his grasp of the issues and how he has conducted himself on the blogs. He has been quick to point the finger, and charge the GES with heresy, but he himself cannot put two sentences together which equate to some form of biblical argument against the GES. He merely balked, asserted, and proof-texted.
Lou Martuneac's heroes wouldn't debate, being scared to death of such a consideration, so he came up with excuses why it would be unwise and unbiblical to debate. He can't do it, for how can someone who only can charge error to his opponents and proof-text be effective? He is on record that he would never agree to sponser a public debate in an open forum on this specific subject of evangelism, soteriology, and the 'gospel'.
Like I said, I suggested that Lou debate Bob. When I did so, Lou responded this way:
Question to Antonio:
Does Bob Wilkin know you are trying to encourage and arrange a debate/open forum for him?
Do you have his permission and blessing to be speaking on his behalf?
But Lou has now shown a forked tongue, his duplicity, and has flip-flopped. Since the shame of Lou's refusal to debate and his heroes' refusal to debate has been so weighty on Lou, seeing it shows their weak position and character, he has changed his mind on the morals and biblical considerations of a public debate. He has since tried to find a any opponent willing to debate Bob Wilkin. He has said this in an entry on his blog, speaking about an email he sent Bob Wilkin:
I expanded my proposal to help him realize the open forum/debate he has been calling for on the [GES position]. I asked if he is still eager to go ahead with a debate if a man from the opposing view can be found who would agree to publicly debate him...
I trust Bob is willing to go ahead when and if a man will agree to meet him in this open debate format he is pressing for.
So I have a question for Lou Martuneac, the same he asked me, "Does Bob Wilkin know you are trying to encourage and arrange a debate/open forum for him? Do you have his permission and blessing to be speaking on his behalf?" LOL!
How is it that Lou charged me with what he has now done? How is it that Lou has changed his mind on a debate? It is duplicity, and rather humorous as well. Lou has stated that he would "never agree" to sponser a debate on this particular 'gospel' issue, but this is what he has been attempting to do now. Is this not the tell-tale sign of hypocrisy?
It wasn't his morals or biblical compunction that made him state categorically that he "would never agree to host a debate/open forum on the interpretation of the Gospel being debated in recent months". It was the refusal of the Duluthian antagonists to debate Bob, and his own cowardice to do so.
The most vocal antagonists of the GES's position have declined a debate. They obviously didn't want their names to be disreputed by their mouths being shut in a public forum. What could Lou do? He has pounded the pavement, desperately, to find someone who has the constitution to debate Bob Wilkin. Noone who has made a name for themselves in writing against the GES could be found, so Lou has had to find someone in obscurity.
Lou has indeed found someone. The person he found has a few good credentials. His name is Ron Shea. I want to reserve judgment on this fellow. I have done a little research on him and found out some things that may not make him the best candidate to debate. Furthermore, this man has not even put one thing out concerning this issue with GES, not written a single peice, or gone on record about it. When you can't get the 'biggies' to debate, because they are scared, just go fishing and find anyone willing to. But I sure would like to see a debate, and if the details can be ironed out, and places to debate can be found, I would be for it.
But what about Lou? His lack of character has shown forth in his own commentaries. Let me leave you with this last statement from Lou, which I received today in an email, and decide if this is a man who you would be pleased to associate with:
I have informed a wide circle of interested persons that you are now being considered irrelevant to any discussion of the [pejorative] gospel by any of us who are in the debate. You can post anything you want at your site or any site that you have not been banned from [Ed. Note: and which ones are those again, Lou?], but be assured you will not be recognized, acknowledged or interacted with at any level.
You are effectively out-of-the-loop of relevant discussion. You, your site, your articles, comments and behavior are irrelevant. As far as we are concerned you are a non-entity in the discussions and will be accordingly ignored.
PS: Now we'll see if Bob Wilkin wants to have his debate, won't we?
Who is this Lou, and where does he get such presumption? He says, "As far as we are concerned..." Who is the 'we'? Lastly, who cares!? What utter childishness! I ask again, who is this LOU!?
As far as I am concerned, not a single thing that comes from the keyboard, pen, or mouth of Lou has any credibility whatsoever. Back to the carlot for him.