Unashamed of Grace

Saturday, October 20, 2007

UoG under scrutiny

Apparently, we who write for this blog are IMCOMPETENT to study the Bible.
The author of the post below (me) does not understand grace or regeneration.
We here push a gospel that has an appearance of godliness but it denies the power of God the Holy Spirit.
The leader of that blog has not an ounce of respect for anyone on this blog.

56 Comments:

Rose,

I see in your post that you write:
"We also have no fruit or any change of heart."

I’d just like to clarify that it was my comment on Bluecollar that stated something with regard to fruit and changes of heart, but I think that you have misunderstood my comment. Here’s what I wrote there:

“I don't frequent any FG blogs anymore. There's nothing there for me. I'm surprised that Reformed bloggers do because the engagements mostly seem to frustrate the participants (and readers). I have yet to see fruit or changes of heart resulting from them, and I decided at one point for my own self with limited time to stick to Reformed blogs. ...."

Not unlike a careful study of Scripture with referents that need to be examined to determine what exactly is referred to in the first place, my sentence here states "resulting from them." It does not state in them.

So what does the word them refer back to?

See previous sentence: "the engagements" (aka discussions or conversations via printed word).

I did not write that anyone on this blog has neither fruit nor change of heart. I would have no way of knowing those things.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:29:00 AM
Oh good, Susan.
Yes, I totally misunderstood that!
I am glad.
I will take that off this post.
Thanks for your gracious comment.:~)

By Rose~, at Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:49:00 AM
Thanks, Rose.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:52:00 AM
I really really do appreciiate your clarification.

Let me clarify something too.
In my post below, I was not trying to paint anyone with a braod brush.
I actually have had conversations with two LS people in the last two weeks who view the upfront commitment and willingness to give up something as necessary for salvation. If Mark or anyone else feels mischarcterised by the post below, I can't help it. I was not thinking of my conversations with him when I wrote: "...the LS gospel is presented. IOW, this passage is viewed as the requirement for eternal life, for regeneration – give up, give up, commit, commit, and you can be saved, born again."

Also, I wasn't referring to J. MacArthur when I spoke of "a book" in the post below. Although, I noted in Lou Martuneac's link in the comment section of Mark's blog that he has some quotes from J. Mac's book about the Rich Young Ruler. I think commit and give up would very much seem to be part of salvation that MacArthur is descibing there. But maybe I again misunderstand?

Oh well. Again, thanks for your gracious explanation of what you meant. I do pray for you. :~)

By Rose~, at Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:57:00 AM
Oh, and I am sorry for misunderstanding you.

By Rose~, at Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:05:00 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Lou Martuneac, at Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:46:00 AM
Rose,

I appreciate your discussion with me here. And I greatly appreciate your prayers. Very much. Thank you.

I'm going through quite a time now, actually, with these very issues. How timely that the rich young ruler passages of Scripture are being discussed.

I believe in my case it has less to do with actual abundance and finances than it does the heart attachment to things. And that is where the real issue lies - with the heart. It troubles me.

No need to apologize for misunderstanding, but thank you. I'm glad that you do understand now what I meant when I wrote that.

My heart is grieved when I read back-and-forth comments that appear sometimes to wrangle over issues with anything less that Christian love and brotherhood. That is what I meant - and then to not see resultant coming together of the minds or hearts, changes in hearts, fruit, etc. It's discouraging. That is why I tend to stick with like thinkers, although I do not begrudge anyone here or think ill of anyone here.

Like you, I pray for you and your blogmates in this group.

I pray this post brings us all a measure of the Lord's peace.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:05:00 PM
Incidentally, the words attributed to JM in the link Lou provided are troublesome as well.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:05:00 PM
Lou,
I do appreciate your comment. I agree. It seems I mischaracterise some then... some... not ALL, of the LS advocates, if I am reading the leader of the BC blog right.

Did you think I was way off in my post about the Rich Young Ruler?

By Rose~, at Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:09:00 PM
Susan,
I am sorry for your struggles. I was just reading this morning an old diary - 15 years ago - I had such struggles over things my heart wanted, I loathed myself because of my wants and expectations for this life in the flesh etc...
I was feeling so wrong about my attitudes over these things.
The Lord gave me many of the things I worried about, funnily enough. I don't worry so much about that anymore, but if I started to lose my home and my family, would I be OK with that? I do not know. I hope I would.
Either way, I know that the Lord will be with me. If you are His child, He will never leave you nor forsake you, even if you are not doing so well. He knows we are but dust, Susan. He loves us anyways.

My heart is also grieved when I read sniping things on blogs. I suppose I posted this very post because I was hurt (for lack of a better word.) and I know that the sniping comes from many sides. I try not to do it myself, but in that I am not perfect either.

Susan,
I have seen you use the words from Proverbs lately "chasing wind." Those words have been ringing in my head for weeks. Do you ever feel that blogging is like "chasing wind"? (I do)

:~)

By Rose~, at Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:29:00 PM
Susan,
If you are troubled for the same reason I am, then I am glad and thank the Lord that those words trouble you. They really, really, trouble me. (Not because I wonder if I am living up to those words, but because I think it is not the message Christ would have us give out). That is the only reason I ever get into these internet discussions about this stuff - it troubles me.

God bless.

By Rose~, at Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:32:00 PM
Do you ever feel that blogging is like "chasing wind"? (I do)

I never thought of blogging that way, although sometimes I wonder if I even should be blogging. I would like to be more consistent in my praise and giving glory to God rather than questioning and struggling as much as I seem to be doing. Nonetheless, I pray God will use the words for His purposes and will be glorified in what I write.

I do think of my heart attachment to certain worldly things as "chasing the wind." It's fruitless. Self-serving. Unnecessary and trivial. Pointless.

Like you, I have many (more than I need) things. The Lord has provided all I need and more. However, I question if I squander the money He has graciously given? Am I serving myself more than I should? These thoughts (and really the amassing of these things) dishearten me.

Sometimes I think that losing our home or some (even all) of our "things" would actually be a blessing. When do folks tend to draw closest to the Lord? In times of lack and need. In suffering and times of trial. But in times of abundance - well, I don't know about you - but I can be distracted. It concerns me.

I don't want disaster to hit, but there are times when I view Christians in persecution with, well, dare I say it, envy. Think about it. If all we had were Christ, I wonder if we'd be closer to Him. I wonder if I would.

Forgive my thinking out loud here. I'm sure it must sound muddled, but well, there ya go. That's from my heart and gut right now.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:55:00 PM
Lou Martuneac,

You have been politely asked to cease and desist from posting on this blog. That ban has not been lifted. Any comments that you post from here on out will be promptly deleted.

Antonio

By Antonio, at Saturday, October 20, 2007 5:10:00 PM
Well,
Lou I did appreciate that comment and I wish it would not have been deleted. Maybe if you hadn't been heckling Antonio on his missionary journal with queries on doctrine then he would not have been so annoyed to see a comment from you here. I wish the two of you could get along. Oh well.

By Rose~, at Monday, October 22, 2007 6:18:00 AM
Here were the references from John MacArthur's book that Lou had referred to in his comment: (although I remind anyone reading this that I was not oringinally referring to MacArhtur's book in the post about the Rich Young Ruler - a bluecollar contributor brought JM into discussion about that post of mine)
___________________________________

When the rich young ruler approached Christ, he asked, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” That “good thing” is works.

In commenting on this passage, John MacArthur writes,

"Our Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what points of doctrine he affirmed, because he was unwilling to turn from what else he loved most, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is only for those who are willing to give Christ first place in their lives." (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 85.)

That citation from the revised edition of The Gospel According to Jesus is a sanitized revision of what John MacArthur first wrote. In the original edition, John MacArthur states:

"Our Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what he believed, since he was unwilling to forsake all, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything." (p. 78.)

From his book Hard to Believe MacArthur wrote:

"And he needed to be willing to submit to the Lord Jesus, even if it meant he had to give up all his earthly possessions. He might not ask, but the requirement for eternal life is the willingness to give it all up if he does." (p. 9.)
_____________________________

I wanted to post that so that the discussion here would make sense since Lou's comment was removed and Susan and I had been discussing part of what was in his link.

By Rose~, at Monday, October 22, 2007 6:18:00 AM
Susan,
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. I have had similar ones about "envy" over those who are persecuted.
Interesting.

God bless you today, as He loves you in spite of your shortcomings, Susan, and all the members of this and the Bluecollar blog as well.
He is the gracious God.

By Rose~, at Monday, October 22, 2007 7:04:00 AM
... and even Lou Martuneac.

:~)

By Rose~, at Monday, October 22, 2007 7:05:00 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Lou Martuneac, at Monday, October 22, 2007 7:48:00 AM
I can't tell you the number of times I've gone over to that blog and they're ranting on something that anyone who denies Calvinism supposedly believes. But of course they are not open to discussion many of them "used to be like us" until God "enlightened" them to the glorious DOG. That's not a nice blog so I certainly wouldn't worry if they think you've got something wrong Rose - they certainly post a lot of nonsense.

By Anonymous, at Monday, October 22, 2007 7:51:00 AM
Lou,
Well, they seemed like "heckling" to me, considering the circumstances of your exchanges with him over the weeks building up to that and then the fact that he was actually on a missionary trip at the time asking for prayer.

But if that was not your intent and you did this out of love, only you know. :~)

Mary,
Those things they said weren't very nice, but Susan has some nice things to say in her comments here and I would like her to feel welcome. Thank you for your visit. :~)

By Rose~, at Monday, October 22, 2007 7:55:00 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Lou Martuneac, at Monday, October 22, 2007 7:57:00 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Lou Martuneac, at Monday, October 22, 2007 9:40:00 AM
Lou you still haven't answered my question. And you haven't apologized for calling me a liar?
alvin

By alvin, at Monday, October 22, 2007 11:03:00 AM
Hi Rose
Lou needs to be made accountible for his actions. Lou is mean spirited, making personal attacks, calling people liar's. And as far as I see only one person on this blog has made him accountible for it.
blessings alvin

By alvin, at Monday, October 22, 2007 11:40:00 AM
Rose, I'll certainly leave you to it. For me - I'm not convinced by what appears from the evidence of that "other blog" to be a false humilty. I'm also reminded of the phrase "when you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas" One cannot profess a distaste and "frustration at a lakk of fruit or changes of the heart" and yet still align themsleves with those who think it's funny that you've made this post. Can't talk out both sides of the mouth.

By Anonymous, at Monday, October 22, 2007 2:21:00 PM
Mary,

It was my comment about the frustration regarding lack of fruit or changes of heart, but I was not writing about not seeing it in people on this blog or any other.

I was referring to seeing lack of change resulting from the dialogue and open exchange of ideas. That is what would be refreshing to see - people coming together uniting in truth in Christ - not the usual squabbles that seem so prevalent.

Just wanted to clarify that statement, since you brought up that specific sentence referring to fruit and changes of heart.

Perhaps you would enjoy the most recent post here:
http://doulogos.blogspot.com/

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:51:00 PM
May I ask that you please delink me from this blog and also from your personal blogs as well? Thank you for doing so.

Signed,
One who is guilty of false humilty.

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:45:00 AM
Mark, are you in a bad mood?

May the Lord bless you and grant you joy and peace in the Holy Ghost.

By Matthew Celestine, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:19:00 AM
Mark,
No one said you were guilty of false humility. You should not contribute Mary's comment to me or Matthew. Why don't you read these comments and see that I even said something nice toward your whole blog in this comment thread. (and it wasn't in response to feeling that you had treated me nicely, I might add, "loss of respect" and all)

By Rose~, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:26:00 AM
"Mark, are you in a bad mood?"

I guess I need a hug... or would it be a nap... or both... Oh, I don't know...

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:56:00 AM
Okay, Rose, here it is, plain and simple...

I was wrong to say that I had lost respect for you and those on your side of the debate. Brothers and sisters in Christ should not treat one another the way I did in that comment. I was wrong, and I am sorry. I will now delete that whole post.

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:03:00 AM
I do not wish this move of mine to be viewed as my stand against FGT to be softening, however.

I am L/S Calvinist, period.

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:00:00 AM
If you folks wish to continue seeing things through the Hodges/Wilkin lens then so be it. All I ask is that you display some knowledge of the opposing view points in your postings.

Now please remove my link from this blog as well as your personal blogs. Thank you.

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:06:00 AM
Mark, in what ways have I shown myself to be in ignorance?

By Matthew Celestine, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:12:00 AM
""All I ask is that you display some knowledge of the opposing view points in your postings.""

Wouldn't it be nice if you could show the same respect toward those who disagree with your Calvinism - your blog is full of caricutures and mischaracterizations.
Just look at the synergy v. monergism post - obviously someone who knows nothing of what some of us who reject Calvinism actually believe. It you don't exhibit a false humilty thatn prove it by showing real humility and admitting you have no clue what a lot of us who rejct Calvinism actually believe.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:17:00 AM
""that the default way the world deals with a conviction that it is right about a thing, is to adopt a patronizing stance against those who don't get it, as though their ignorance were willful and obstinate"""

Now Susan, take this quote over to Bluecollar and look at all the mischaracterizations and caricutures that you've written recently in comments and blog posts and apply.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:29:00 AM
Mark,
Your apology is nice.
I will not remove your link unless I want to.

By Rose~, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:54:00 AM
Matthew how often have you tried to catch us at BC blog preaching works righteousness? How many times have I had showed amazement that you, having read Berkhof twice through, and Grudem at least once through, still aren't clear that Calvinist's believe "by grace through faith" that one is saved?

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:06:00 AM
Have I actually said anything that is incorrect about what you guys believe?

By Matthew Celestine, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:09:00 AM
Mary, are you capable of articulating my views back to me? If so, I respectfully ask you to do so, please. I will read what you have to say. if even tomorrow as I must get ready for work soon.

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:09:00 AM
Matthew, your questions speak volumes.

Rose, it is my wish that you do so. Now I'm asking please do so. Thank you.

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:12:00 AM
Why Mark?
It seems like your demanding that I do this is unwarranted. You may do what you like with your blogroll (and you do) but we are free to manage our own blogroll, don't you think?

By Rose~, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:18:00 AM
We do not want to remove the link.

We enjoy your blog and we are glad to give the readers of U of G the opportunity to visit it.

I very much doubt that anybody will conclude that the link indicates your sympathy for views expressed here.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:19:00 AM
""Mary, are you capable of articulating my views back to me? If so, I respectfully ask you to do so, please""

Oh ok, so the only way you think you should stop posting all your mischaracterizations and caricutures of what nonCalvinist actually believe is if someone meets your standard of "articulating your views back to you" YOu want everyone to respect your views and not discuss them in mischaracterizations and caricutures, but you get to hold everyone else to some higher standard?

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:21:00 AM
Mary, I'll make it simple then. Please show me where we post our mischaracterizations and caricutures of what nonCalvinist actually believe. Be specific, please.

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:29:00 AM
Mark, your whole definitions of Monergism vs Synergisn was just a bunch of nonsense - lot's of strawmen. There is not one post without some misconception are caricutures in either the post or the comments.

This whole conversation is just incredebly sad - Here Mark is demanding to have his blog removed from links because he must have suddenly realized that there are a whole lot of lurker's out there who just aren't very impressed, especially when he makes rulings that everyone who disagrees with him are imcompetent to study the Bible- The whole Bluecollar blog is nothing but a venue for bashes anybody who doesn't hold to their views, but here today we have all this self-righteousness and false humility? Uuuuuh that horse done left the barn. Yeah Mark keep demanding respect for your views when you and your co-bloggers have shown none, zero, zilch, nada.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:39:00 AM
Mary, thanks for taking the time to be specific. I do so appreciate it. I've gained a lot through this exchange.

May the Lord bless you and yours.

Mark

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:49:00 AM
Mary,
Mark did not make the "incapable" comment - that was Daniel, who is normally very reasonable.

I understand the accusation of "synergism" is frustrating and the idea that if you believe that the sinner comes to God in faith, then why can't he leave God *without* faith. We probably both know that this is not possible. Yes, anyone who understands the nature of the new birth (which I am estimated by Jazzycat as not understanding) knows that it cannot be reversed.

Mary,
I understand the emotion that gets involed in theese things. Try to remember that this is supposed to be a "friendly" place, even if you feel someone else is not so friendly.

Thanks.

By Rose~, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:50:00 AM
Ahhh Rose, you know I tend to the emotional. I'll Just stop reading that Bluecollar stuff again.

You know synergism is the new Arminian - it's anybody who disagrees with 5 point Calvinism and it's thrown about like a cuss word. When someone is using the word synergism - it's used in the way of an insult but in a pretentious "I'm better than you" self righteous way - because of course only Calvinist are monergist.

By Mary, at Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:03:00 PM
Maybe this is not going to make me popular round here, but I actually think the terms Synergism and Monergism are reasonably accurate and helpful in defining positions on the order of salvation.

Synergism is certainly a more useful term than Arminianism.
Of course, you are all welcome to disagree with me.

God Bless

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:31:00 AM
""that the default way the world deals with a conviction that it is right about a thing, is to adopt a patronizing stance against those who don't get it, as though their ignorance were willful and obstinate"""

Now Susan, take this quote over to Bluecollar and look at all the mischaracterizations and caricutures that you've written recently in comments and blog posts and apply.

I'm sorry, Mary, but I'm lost here. Could you tell me what that first quote means? I apologize, but I just don't have the time today to go digging through all the comments here and find the original context. Would you mind dumbing it down a notch for me? I honestly don't get it or your point here. If you could restate what you are trying to say a bit more plainly, I would be grateful and try to clarify my position on whatever it is you're suggesting of me or my position here.

I don't know who wrote the original quote you provided or the context in which it was stated. That would be helpful. Also, could you tell me specifically what "all the mischaracterizations and caricutures that [you've] written" are? That would be helpful for me to address them. Otherwise, I can't answer to such a generalization. Thanks!

By Anonymous, at Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:26:00 AM
The whole Bluecollar blog is nothing but a venue for bashes anybody who doesn't hold to their views, but here today we have all this self-righteousness and false humility? Uuuuuh that horse done left the barn. Yeah Mark keep demanding respect for your views when you and your co-bloggers have shown none, zero, zilch, nada.

Mary,

How would you know if anyone at BC is self-righteous or falsely humble without ever having met them? Could you perhaps be reading into the words and assigning individuals these qualities? Internet communication does leave much to be desired in way of actually "knowing" the people behind the words. There's a lot missing in this form of communication - especially getting to know people very well over time and in lengthy conversations over many things face-to-face.

I'm guessing everyone of us writing and reading has written things on-line in blog posts and comments that he or she wishes to take back. Mark humbly apologized for what he wrote. No doubt we've all erred in one way or another and we would be in good Biblical stead to afford one another - as presumed brothers and sisters in Christ - a little more grace.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:33:00 AM
Susan,
Just FYI, the quote Mary originally quotes is from Daniel's post that you referred her to.

By Rose~, at Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:19:00 AM
Matthew,
Yes, I have seen you say that before about the word "synergism." However, if that word were tied to the notion that if you believe that the sinner comes to God in faith, then why can't he leave God *without* faith.... IOW, that if you, as a cooperating party in your salvation ceased to cooperate, then your salvation would cease to exist, then I think you would not appreciate that concept.

Every Blessing in Christ

By Rose~, at Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:21:00 AM
Oh, ok. Thanks Rose.

So I still don't get it. Is what Mary saying in putting those two paragraphs together - first Daniel's one sentence and then suggesting I take it over to BC and compare it against "mischaracterizations" she asserts that I have made - that I or the others at BC are behaving in the way that Daniel is saying the world is here?

Is that it? I'm having problems following, it seems. Mary, could you clarify? It still would be helpful to know what mischaracterizations and caricatures you refer to that I've made.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, October 25, 2007 11:22:00 AM
Isn't it wonderful what Jesus has done for us?

Always look and remember the cost

Let us praise and exalt His name together today!! Hallelujah to Him. He is so precious.

By Only Look, at Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:27:00 PM