[We are] not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

Monday, February 25, 2008

A Serious Misnomer

by Rose

In all of the discussion lately swirling around about the content of saving faith, I have noticed a phrase that keeps popping up: “disobedient brethren.” Now, just in case you may not be aware, let me brief you: Lou Martuneac uses this phrase in referring to some folks who hold a different understanding than he does as to the content of saving faith. He has a list of names of these disobedient brethren: Hodges, Wilkin, da Rosa (I don’t think he includes Myers anymore), Matthew. (I don’t think he knows Matthew’s surname.) The list seems very slightly fluid, (sometimes a name appearing one week and gone the next) but there is a firm core.

Both Lou and the group he opposes would probably both say that saving faith is “believing in Christ.” However, Antonio and Matthew allow for a very skeletal “requirement” of understanding who Christ is. Personally, I am not comfortable with how skeletal an understanding they think a convert may have of Jesus. I have discussed this at length with these brethren. I don’t see it their way. Yet, I don’t feel they are “disobedient.” In fact, I would say that there are being obedient to what they are convinced about and they have found their persuasion in the Bible. They argue for their position from the Bible.

There are certain views on Biblical concepts that I am convinced about. If someone else holds fast to his way of seeing these, who is to decide who is the disobedient one? This is a dilemna. Now, let me be clear, we are talking about brethren. So I am referring in this post to people that I am convinced are believers. To be sure of this, I do have certain truths that I must be sure the person is committed to or I would not count him a brother.

I am thinking right now of a wonderful man who just left our church because he could not go along with our dispensational statement of faith any longer, having been convinced of Covenant theology. I would never call him a disobedient brother! He has to be true to his convictions. I respect him. Something was spelled out in our doctrinal statement and he could not agree with it. This is a good indication that one may need to find a different congregation that one agrees with.

On the other hand, there has to be room for acceptable Christian disagreement, especially when we get into views about theory and scenario.

For example, in our church, there is no clear statement on the Calvinist thingy. Calvinists and non-Calvinists can both agree to the statement of faith, the way it is worded. I have been in discussions with my former pastor about predestination and the like. I have been very adamant that I do not view the Scriptures (that he sees as clearly teaching Calvinim) in the same way he does. He had given me leeway to be faithful to that which I hold. Wouldn’t it be awful if a pastor were to brand me a “disobedient sister” because I do not see what he sees about this "doctrinal nuance" ...about this disputable matter?? This would be quite ironic. While being faithful to what I think the Bible teaches, I would be branded “disobedient” for that.

In our personal friendships which are not in a church setting, I think the room for these disagreements can be a lot larger. But again, who is to decide who is disobedient and who is not?

I do realize that I could be accused of being irresolute for saying all of this, but I think if someone is able to defend their view from the Bible, and they are fully convinced that the Bible teaches what they are saying, having studied the Bible, then calling them disobedient is a serious misnomer. A contraire, they would be disobedient to the Scriptures if they were to just give in to Christian peer pressure to abandon what they see the Bible teaching… in favor of going along with what the rest of the brethren that are opposing them hold to.

Anyways, I did a search on the word disobedient and disobedience and it seems to me that it is always used in connection with someone who is a rebel against Christ, (an unbeliever) or a Christian living in blatant, bold and unapologetic sin or a Christian teaching others to live in blatant, bold and unapologetic sin. I don’t think Matthew or Antonio are disobedient brethren.


  • This is a really good post.

    I understand where you are coming from. I atend a Lorship Salvation church, which Lou also says is heresy.

    I have sometimes heard terrible misrepresentations of the Gospel in my church; but on other occasions the same preachers will present the offer of eternal life in a most beautiful fashion. Sometimes they manage to presnet true grace, even though they are confused about it themselves.

    It does not follow that beacause one's soteriology is not absolutely correct, one will inevitably fail to preach the Gospel.

    Every Blessing in Christ


    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Monday, February 25, 2008 9:19:00 AM  

  • I am glad you like it Matthew.

    The main point of my post is that there are probably very few Christians who hold beliefs out of "disobedience."

    Behaviour is an area where we are often disobedient, but to accuse someone who studies the Bible and comes to a different conclusion about doctrine than oneself as being "disobedient" is just the wrong charge.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Monday, February 25, 2008 9:46:00 AM  

  • Wise words, Rose. :)


    By Blogger Another Voice, at Monday, February 25, 2008 12:54:00 PM  

  • >I do realize that I could be accused of being irresolute for saying all of this,<

    I think the bottom line here is Rose that you continue to view men like myself and Lou as either being your accusser or you are making some kind of litmus test for those who are burdened that Antonio and Matthew who are leading people away from the truth are actually accussers. It is disturbing. You seem to victimize yourself to cover your tracts in your posts and divide us into the catagory of the accuser for strongly resisting the Antonio and Matthew. Positional truth does not change by using a tit for tat type of scenario to continue to exhonerate yourself for defending brethren who are clearly opening hearts and minds up to false teaching. It is disturbing. Could you please ask yourself if before you met Antonio and Matthew and a few years ago if you had heard someone teaching this would you have fled it instead of lingering?

    I dont know what else Lou or Kevl can say or do to convince you that they are simply burdened about the core truth of the gospel that you are not much concerned about.

    Hi Rose.

    By Blogger Only Look, at Monday, February 25, 2008 2:39:00 PM  

  • Missy,
    Thank you. I am glad you get what I am saying here.


    You seem to have this unheard of ability to figure out the motives behind the words that I express on the internet. (not)

    You have not answered one single thing I said about my thoughts on this post, but instead you take a swipe at me by saying that I am "not much concerned about" the gospel.

    Kevl has been very reasonable with me and I have not questioned his motives as you imply I have. I have not said that Lou is not burdened - I am just addressing one specific phrase in his dialogue.

    How about addressing this if you want to participate here:

    The main point of my post is that there are probably very few Christians who hold beliefs out of "disobedience."

    I have seen you carrying on about me at other blogs over the last months and have ignored it. I am afraid that you have your mind made up about me and the inner workings of my mind and heart, so what can I say?

    I think it is best for me to now go back to ignoring it.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Monday, February 25, 2008 3:19:00 PM  

  • As far as this article Rose. It is not a good argument for the truth but rather and argument in defense of tolerance of clear and present false doctrine. Antonio and Matthew are not speaking from a skelital argument, they are acting and arguing the same way evolutionist do and are in fact calling everyone to look for the missing link and in the process have taken the true link out of the way.

    I will try to find time to come back and debate the substance and point for point if I can this week. I have been attending a revival and just got back. I will say this. After a wonderful meeting, I couldnt be more discouraged by this post.

    By Blogger Only Look, at Monday, February 25, 2008 7:09:00 PM  

  • Brian,

    the wonderful thing about the internet is that it does not require you to visit this site. You very well may wish to exercise that prerogative.


    By Blogger Antonio, at Monday, February 25, 2008 7:25:00 PM  

  • Brian, I really hate having to do this to people, but I am afraid it has come to this.

    You are not telling us anything constructive. You are simply repeating the assertion that Antonio and myself are promoting false teachers.

    You have made this point time and time again. Enougth is enough.

    There is simply too much hostility in your comments for them to be considered edifying.

    Your comments are no longer welcome on this blog.

    You may continue to post on my blogs other than this one.

    Whether Rose and Antonio let you comment on their blogs is up to them.

    I will be praying for you.

    Every Blessing in Christ


    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Tuesday, February 26, 2008 6:09:00 AM  

  • Only look, your assertion is unproven. You asked Rose to "Positional truth does not change by using a tit for tat type of scenario to continue to exhonerate yourself for defending brethren who are clearly opening hearts and minds up to false teaching."

    Once again we are presented with a person who is obviously much wiser that the rest of us. I'm not sure about Rose but I didn't any advanced theological knowledge when I believed John 3:16. So I guess to you and people like you I am dammed and going to hell.

    Have you ever asked yourself the question did I have all the aspects of soteriology, harmitology, and anthropology understood when I believed?

    If you did, you yourself would probably not be saved. Why? Detailed knowledge of doctrine is not required for a unbeliever to be saved.

    And BTW, what does the doctrine of positional truth have to do with this discussion?

    This is not my blog, but as Matthew and Antonio have pointed out, I would add my respectful desire for you, kevl, and Lou to depart from this blog and go to those who believe your doctrine and leave those of us who have made up our minds on these matters alone.

    If your burdened so much for those of us who are so misled as you say, pray for us, don't argue with us.

    We will pray for you as well.

    By Blogger Jim, at Thursday, March 06, 2008 6:22:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home