A Response to Lou Martuneac by a Gentleman
Your continued use of the term [theological expletive] and your misrepresenting them on several issues has not served your cause well. You have posted on SI that they state one can deny the resurrection and believe the Gospel when what they state is one can not believe (be aware of the truth) of the resurrection.
You are constantly providing links back to your own blog to see their statements in your own articles instead of seeing their statements in their own articles.
In what I have read concerning your evaluation of GES and some others, you are either not understanding the nuances and context of their arguments or you just wish to ignore them.
As you are aware they will not respond to you as they view you as a "trouble maker." I read one post you sent to Robert Wilkin seeking to take him to task regarding one of his posts. You missed the entire point and wanted him to give references concerning 12 steps to salvation by some pastors. You had missed the entire hypothetical illustration of his argument.
Lou, in my opinion you have lost all credibility on this issue. You have falsly accused, misunderstood arguments, and ignore Biblical exegesis and arguments offered.
There are three accusers of GES who have exaggerated the issues. They are Dennis Rokser, Tom Stegall, and Lou Martuneac. These use the term [theological pejorative]. Rokser and Stegall have little formal education. It shows in their approach and arguments. Perhaps you should not be too quick to embrace their viewpoint and approach.
There are others who disagree with some of GES positions. These include men who are members of the "Free Grace Alliance." These include men such as Earl Radmacher, President Emeritus of Western Cons. Baptist Sem. and a theologian. These have debated Robert Wilken on the issues. However, they have done so without using pejorative labels and misquotes. [editor's note, see Earl Radmacher's dependence upon Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin in his soteriological book, Salvation, where Earl agreeably and liberally quotes both men. Earl's soteriology, in most ways, parallels Zane Hodges, see pgs 120-128, esp. 126-127.]
Others are handing these differences properly and discerningly. They do not view GES and others as heretics but do disagree with Zane Hodges on some points. Since all hold openly and strongly to the main Orthodox tenets of the faith, there is no need to consider them as those to separate from on these issues.
Lou, as you know I have taught theology at an accredited institution and am possibly informed on the subject. I view some of what Zane Hodges and Robert Wilkin have said as wrong. However it is with regard to the sufficiency of Gospel information needed to be saved, not the definition of the gospel or what the full information is. This has been the subject of debate many times in history and on several issues today. EXAMPLE: the vast majority of church fathers for the first three centuries did not hold to the penal substitution theory of the Atonement. Most held to the governmental theory and some to the ransom theory. Yet we have some today who say one cannot be saved unless they believe the Penal substitution theory.
When you start filling the Gospel with theological content necessary to believe to be saved you do away with the simplicity of the Gospel and the concept of Grace through faith. [Editor's note: Amen, amen and amen!] I believe one can be saved by the information of John 3:16. Any who are saved will not expressly deny additional truth as informed. There is a rich context of the history of theology and the breadth of opinion of the substance of theology that makes one more gracious when dealing with differences within a non heretical context.
In short, I do understand the issues. You may have some on SI stirred up as fighting fundamentalists, but good men have and are debating these issues with knowledge and balance.
This man, Bob Topartzer, is a bastion of level-headedness and balance. This letter speaks volumes for itself. Bravo, Mr. Topartzer!