Thursday, May 14, 2015

Omissions From the Gospel, Important to Consider: Follow-Up

It looks like two different gospels (or more), what some might justify is two different versions or editions of the gospel, is mostly fine with independent Baptists and fundamentalists.  I see most as really picky about the Bible version, pant/skirt, and music issue, but fairly come-what-may, kesara sara about the gospel, at the same time talking like the gospel is of importance.  I don't think most care about the gospel that much.  I think they care about "being saved," but not about what the gospel actually is.

Down in Arizona, a meeting is called Gospel Proclaimed, with both Sexton and Doran, go figure. Somebody should say what's going on with that.  And I'm just using that as an example -- there's far more of this strangeness all over.

Some of the response that I at least got, and I'm glad to get a response, brought some other thoughts that I had heard before.  Not necessarily in this order, but I'm sure that the secular worldview has influenced Christians in a big way today, namely the idea that theological truth is subjective, not like objective science, gravity and blood circulation.  That ship already sailed on beauty and then "cultural issues," which are related.  However, should we wonder about how that two gospels (or more) could be tolerated as both acceptable?  These folks don't take their own doctrine too seriously.  Broad parameters exist.  Is the gospel being diminished to some slight level above paper or plastic?  You say tomaetoe and I say tomahtoe.

Your coalition will shrink if you start getting too picky on stuff like the gospel.  Do we really want to split things, whatever things are, right down the middle?  Perhaps it's all being done in a low-level way behind closed doors with the two different gospels unifying out front.  If you're wanting to give them a chance, give them a call or go visit them.  "Hey, if I give him a platform, he might appreciate me more, and listen" -- a sort of dollar diplomacy, hearkening back to President Taft.

Some try to turn this into a semantical thing.  We're saying the same thing, just using different words. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.  Boink.  Or a testimony thing.  Like when I was a kid, I didn't receive Jesus as Lord, and like are you saying that I wasn't like saved?  Didn't think so.

I read this comment at SharperIron about part one of this now mini-series:

I feel like the purpose of this article is strangely divisive. I have no problem theologically with people saying Christ is their Savior or even relating to Him primarily that way. I don't see it as a disconnect from Christ being one's Lord.

"Strangely divisive."  You've got two different gospels, but they don't have to be thought as two? That's strangely divisive?   Is this acceptable theological or biblical precision?   Someone doesn't understand what's going on, and needs correction, if he thinks this issue is just about how we "primarily relate to Jesus."  These are two positions.  What's strange is accepting two different as the same or deconstructing the issue so that both can be the same.  "The anti-federalists were actually federalists and the two groups just related to the Constitution in a different way."  This is the postmodern loosey-gooseyness with the truth, folks, and it slides right by anymore.  Eternal souls are stake, but someone doesn't want to hurt someone else's feelings.

I would relate the unwillingness to divide here to the threat to the size of the coalition.  Folks are unwilling to divide based on the gospel.  Why?  Does it matter?  Does anything that we believe really matter, or it all just a matter of personal taste anymore?

71 comments:

Greg Linscott said...

Kent,

You seem to be projecting motives. I will allow that your accusations of diminishing for coalition building is _possible_. At the same time, it may also be possible that as strong as examples like you cite such as Doran and Sexton are, they are also getting the opportunity to clarify their positions and get the gospel right between them. Sometimes when people with seemingly competing ideas sit down, they discover there is more agreement than was first supposed.

I am much less familiar with Sexton than with Doran, but I am thinking that this is an opportunity for needed clarification between the parties involved, and that it will strengthen and clarify the gospel that is proclaimed among those who participate. You should come and at least observe. I'd even split a hotel room with you if that would help. :)

Jim Peet said...

Thanks Kent!

Kent Brandenburg said...

Greg,

It is true that I am speculating on motives. You are also giving a motive by saying that it is for reasons of understanding and dialogue. You probably noticed that I speculated on that motive too.

When it comes to keeping a coalition, I know that is a motive for dumbing down doctrine, because it's most commonly said to be that. They won't use "dumbing down," but they will say that the are ranking the doctrines for the sake of unity, and this unity is keeping together the coalition. I could research it and show you quotes, but I could probably sift through your comments here and show you it is the case.

I appreciate your defense. Maybe someone can come out and say that the reason why Sexton is given a leadership slot in the conference is to convince him that he's wrong. Maybe Sexton believes something different than the guys he honors like Schaap and Hutson. Explain that, then.

I wouldn't go to the conference, even though I'm curious. If I were going to start with something where I'm not in fellowship, I'd start with other ones first. Maybe you can live blog the play by play of it, and we'll enjoy your take. It is true that I'm wanting to help along some clarity here. I really don't foresee myself going, being very, very nice, but confronting face to face, being acceptable. I appreciate the offer though. We could go to Superstitution mountain for a hike and then do the after conference trip down into the canyon too. :-D

Are people really going to be confronting each other at this thing? Is there going to be debate level discussion of the message that's being preached by various factions? This is serious stuff. It's more important than the Manhattan Project.

Greg Linscott said...

I don't know, but I can't help but think that something will come up. I am going to try to go, though I have a similar, more regional event I'm working on for this fall:

http://baptistcongress.org

We can make some time for such discussion- at the very least on a personal level- if you come to the Dells this fall.

d4v34x said...

If Bro B. goes to the Dells, I may just have to change my rsvp response.

To the affirmative, I guess I should clarify.

Kent Brandenburg said...

I have great memories of the Dells. My Awana class in jr. high went there. I don't remember the leader's name, but I remember his face. He took us if we memorized our verses and did some other Christian living things. And we camped out there, and I'll never forget the runniest eggs ever over the fire the next morning.

We drove through the Dells on away sports (football and basketball) trips multiple times every year. I remember a giant statue of Paul Bunyan, unless I got my memory wrong on that.

d4v34x said...

Greg, lets bring it to a more practical point of rupture. Lou Martuneac has made himself as clear as he is able (smile) on what his gospel is. Is his the true gospel? Is his the same gospel as the fundamentalist luminaries who are in direct fellowship with him in the FBFI? Do you think the FBFI cares about fellowshipping around the same gospel? Why does Martuneac remain with them?

I know you're not a member of the FBFI, but you were, and you know many who are. Is this a problem?

d4v34x said...

Bro. B. I think the giant Paul Bunyan is at Devil's Lake. Which is right by the dells.

Greg Linscott said...

"Lou Martuneac has made himself as clear as he is able (smile) on what his gospel is. Is his the true gospel?"

Here is my perspective: I think someone like Lou is close enough that those considering his position deserve to be in the conversation. I went to Faith, where several of my professors were old school Dallas grads, and took the Ryrie side of the Lordship debate that was prominent in the 1980-90s. It seemed to me, both then and now (as one more sympathetic with _The Gospel According to Jesus_, which was one of the first theological books I remember really getting getting into at 16 years old) that the difference between them were more on the theoretical level than not (though I would articulate my position very much like Kent would). Practically, those who argued for "accepting as Savior but not as Lord" would not allow someone to go on living in gross, open sin as a member of their congregation in perpetuity without being exposed to church discipline. On the other hand, as someone who is a firm proponent of recognizing that salvation means that Jesus Christ sets the agenda for our life--essentially, we are enslaved to Him--there are examples of "exceptions" in Scripture... people who appeared to follow their own direction in life for an extended period of time while still being identified as regenerate. In 2 Peter 2:7, Lot is identified as "righteous." Reading Genesis and observing the general trajectory of his life, that certainly isn't the impression one is left with.

I'm not the one to authoritatively settle this dispute. I do believe that repentance from sin and presenting Christ as one Who not only saves one from sins' penalty, but establishes the agenda for your life, is essential to the gospel. Based on past conversations with those coming from another perspective (people generally easier to converse with than Lou), I am not convinced that everyone who opposes "Lordship" is guilty of missing the essence of the true gospel.

On the other hand, I do think that there are definitely people who do distort it beyond recognition. I remember reading an account from Jack Hyles about getting a coma patient to repeat "the sinners' prayer" and considering that a salvation profession. Methodologies like that, as one extreme example, leave me to believe that this is a conversation that needs to take place, not just in the theoretical, but as it relates to methodologies and presentation (like some of the excesses I have seen in things like children's/bus ministries, for example).

Does that help at all?

Anonymous said...

Can you identify who are the Gospel proclaim group you talked about. Thank you

d4v34x said...

Greg, I would say helpful to an extent, but ultimately unsatisfying. I'm not sure I know what 'Lou is close enough that those considering his position deserve to be in the conversation' means in the context of my question as it excludes from consideration the one specific case I was referring to: Lou and the FBFI. Lou has a position; he's written a book on it and countless blog posts.

Lou calls your, my, Kent's and MacArthur's gospel a "false interpretation of the gospel . . . a works based, man-centered message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21)." Particularly telling are his scripture refs, the contexts of which are, of course, Paul's anathemizations of apostate teachers and their doctrine.

I am fine drawing a line against that. It's the first thing; and I don't agree with Lou about the first thing. Whatever else he and I agree on is moot.

If the FBFI is a conversation, well, ok. I thought it was a fellowship of believers in a certain set of doctrines, the first of which ought to be a certain gospel, not a range of possible gospels or a "gospel in conversation," otherwise I do not see the point of it.

(citation for my quote of Lou above: http://standforthefaith.com/2014/03/22/lordship-salvation-for-dummies-examining-the-meaning-of-faith/)

Lou Martuneac said...

For those who want to know what my concern is with with the "Lordship Salvation" interpretation of the gospel, why I reject it as a false, non-saving message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2. Cor. 11:3) frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21) I boiled it down to a very brief paragraph, an excerpt from my book's appendix, and posted it as an article at my blog. Here is the link to that excerpt,

Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page of John MacArthur's Book(s)

There many more articles on the subject you may link to from there.


LM

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/07/summary-of-lordship-salvation-on-single.html

Greg Linscott said...

I am not in the FBFI, so I cannot speak to them specifically. I don't know if you could say that they are a "conversation," per se--but I do think they are a group that needs to have this conversation, if I can say that.

I do not think Lou would be the ideal representative, personally, but I do think it would be worth hashing it out in that group, to see exactly what they could agree on on the specifics of that issue, and how strongly they would support or oppose some of the things Lou has said. An official document involving people like Bauder, Minnick, Mike Sproul, and Van Gelderen, for example, would be something worth reading (and the process that would lead to its composition worth watching, IMHO).

Perhaps a sharp break might be in order at some point. I think there is enough agreement on this issue, though, that it shouldn't be the first response. I do think that a direct and intentional addressing of the matter is needed, though.

Don Johnson said...

d4, with respect to the FBFI, we are in a broad ranging fellowship over more than just the gospel. But as for the gospel, here is how our statement of faith defines our fellowship on that point:

Section 6. Salvation: We believe in the salvation of sinners through Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, Who is the only Savior of men by virtue of His shed blood, i.e., His substitutionary death for sinners. We believe that salvation is completely dependent on the grace of God, is a free gift of God that man cannot earn or merit in any way, and is appropriated by repentance and faith in the person and cross work of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We hold that in salvation the believer is called, regenerated, Spirit baptized into union with Christ, justified, (including the forgiveness of sin and restoration to favor with God through the merit or righteousness of Christ), adopted, sanctified, and glorified. We believe that God secures and guarantees the final salvation of every true believer, and that the genuine believer will continue in his faith and show evidence of his faith in Christ until he meets the Lord. We believe all the elect of God, once saved, are kept by God’s power and are secure in Christ forever (Jn. 14:6; Rom. 3:25; Is. 53:4-6; Eph. 2:9; Jn. 16:8-11; Acts 20:21; Eph. 2:8-10; Jn. 1:13; Rom. 6:3-5; Rom. 5:1; Rom. 8:15; Heb. 10:10, 14; Rom. 8:30; Jn. 6:39; 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 Jn. 2:19; 1 Cor. 15:2; Rom. 8:37-37).

You can find more here: http://fbfi.org/constitution/

It is not a mystery what the fellowship of the FBFI is about. We don't hide it, we publish it.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

d4v34x said...

Don,

First of all, I was very glad to see you concur with Kent's "LS for Dummies summary". Genuinely.

I had read the FBFI statement earlier today, actually. I could assent to it. Problem is so can a person who is willing to call another FBFI member's gospel a "false, non-saving interpretation of the gospel" using anathemizing scripture proofs. Seems to this onlooker to be a problem. But not my problem.

It's great that you fellowship over more than the gospel. Again, I mean that. The problem is, what good is the rest of the fellowship if the gospel is, effectively, in dispute within your number?

d4v34x said...

Don,

To hone the point further, Kent's post, the one to which you gave assent, is the post the with which the other blogger took issue, and which Lou came to the aid of anathemizing. Yet you both assented to the same confessional paragraph. I recommend you Greg's hypothetical remedy above. The Lord be with you.

Lou Martuneac said...

Kent:

You wrote, “Lordship is either included with the gospel or it isn’t.” No problem there until we learn how the advocates of Lordship Salvation define His lordship. What decisions(s) the LS preacher insists must be made by a lost man about Christ’s Lordship to be born again, justified.

The Lordship Salvation (LS) controversy revolves around the requirements for salvation, not the results of salvation. This is where the divide over the gospel is and where the FBFI should debate the issue.

A genuine conversion should evidence itself in genuine results. New believers will vary in levels of growth, but growth should be evident to some degree. The focal point of controversy is Lordship’s requirements for the reception of eternal life, i.e. how to become a Christian.

Man comes to Christ for salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) and then follows Christ in discipleship (Eph. 2:10). In his critical review of MacArthur’s TGATJ, Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote, “Salvation is free; discipleship is costly. Salvation comes by receiving the work of the cross; discipleship is evidenced by bearing the cross (daily submission to the will of God). Christ here [Luke 9:23-24; 14:26-27, 33; Mark 8:34] is not giving instructions about how to go to heaven, but how those who know they are going to heaven should follow Him.

LS teachers hold that the title “Lord,” when applied to Jesus, necessitates the lost man’s upfront submission to the rule and reign of Christ over his life, in sanctification, for both initial salvation (justification) and final salvation (glorification).

The day that the FBFI affirms LS, as defined by the likes and in terms of John MacArthur, is the day I resign from the FBFI. I trust that the FBFI leadership does not and will not cloak their actual position on LS to preserve a fellowship that should not be.


LM

PS: Long ago a pastor, whom virtually every one of you knew, now with the Lord, told me that once a Christian fellowship gets large it will become political. Recently another pastor, well known today in fundamental circles, told me that for a Christian organization to become large it has to be political. Both men, then and now, were speaking in context of the FBFI.

d4v34x said...

Lou, setting aside MacArthur, can you agree to the following language on repentance (key point bolded) from one of the confessions I affirm:

Saving repentance is an evangelical grace by which a person who is made to feel, by the Holy Spirit, the manifold evils of his sin, and being given faith in Christ, humbles himself over his sin with godly sorrow, detestation of his sin and self-abhorrency. In such repentance the person also prays for pardon and strength of grace, and has a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit's power, to walk before God and to totally please Him in all things.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi Lou,

The issue I'm writing about is not what the gospel is (as I think you know), but that men fellowship, they say, based on the gospel and yet have different gospels. You are doing it too, because you are in a fellowship (and so are in fellowship) with those who believe Lordship salvation. The doctrinal statement of the FBF as published here by Don above does not clarify this point. Do you think there are men in the FBF who believe Lordship salvation, as you would reject it? If so, are you not fellowshiping with them by being a part? Since it is a fellowship of individuals, you would be in fellowship with all these individuals, or is that not how it works in the FBF?

Lou Martuneac said...

Dave: I don't play gotcha.

Kent: The last time I showed for an FBFI event was the 2009 annual fellowship. Scene of the Kevin Bauder Q&A symposium debacle. I maintain my membership dues for FrontLine magazine and the roster.

Kind regards,


LM

Lou Martuneac said...

Don Johnson:

Does the FBFI accept, as a legitimate interpretation of the Gospel of grace, the "Lordship Salvation" message for justifcation of a lost person?


LM

d4v34x said...

Lou,

Hide it under a bushel? No!

But I'm going to let it slide.

Give the LBC2 a read sometime. Good stuff.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Brandenburg,

If you take d4's fourth comment where he says this:

"If the FBFI is a conversation, well, ok. I thought it was a fellowship of believers in a certain set of doctrines, the first of which ought to be a certain gospel, not a range of possible gospels or a "gospel in conversation," otherwise I do not see the point of it."

And then you change his use of the word "gospel" to "Bible," then you get this:

"If the FBFI is a conversation, well, ok. I thought it was a fellowship of believers in a certain set of doctrines, the first of which ought to be a certain Bible, not a range of possible Bibles or a "Bible in conversation," otherwise I do not see the point of it."

Just funny how the Gospel means so much to some people, but the Book that tells them what the Gospel is? That doesn't mean so much. Who cares what the words of the Bible are? We can have multiple Bibles, that's okay, but multiple Gospels, tsk tsk. Do they think the Multiple Bible View helps the Single Gospel View?

Anyway, sorry to interrupt.

Bob.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Bob,

I agree that the source of the two or more of everything is related directly to being uncertain on the Bible, and ultimately about all truth. The slide in our culture is mirrored by what we're talking about here. You are hitting the nail on the head. They won't admit it, but the capitulation on beauty, the gospel, etc. is all the same issue. The same.

It won't matter that I was right when everything is gone.

Thanks.

KJB1611 said...

D4,

The London Baptist Confession of Faith in the 1600s cannot possibly teach Lordship Salvation. It can't be the historic Baptist gospel, despite all the historical evidence for it. No, we all know that John MacArthur invented Lordship salvation. If the Baptists in the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s were teaching Lordship salvation, maybe there would be a good reason to reject the anti-Lordship Dallas Seminary gospel for the Baptist and Biblical gospel, because making all the Baptists anathema for centuries until Dallas Seminary came along and Chafer gave us the true gospel seems highly problematic.

I asked Lou some time ago the following question:

I would also like to know if you think only some saved people are Christians. Since the Greek of Acts 11:26 equates as identical categories "disciple" and "Christian," should someone with your view exhort saved people to become Christians by a post-conversion act of surrender?


I would still like an answer.

d4v34x said...

Thomas,

Excellent point. What was I thinking.

And good question.

David

Lou Martuneac said...

Gentlemen:

In the article and discussion thread primarily I see most of you somewhat flummoxed that Dave Doran is participating in a conference that also features Clarence Sexton. I looked over the speaker line up and found that Kevin Bauder is speaking there as well.

I do not recall any concern or consternation when both Doran and Bauder share the platform in cooperative ministry at Lansdale with non-separatist evangelical Mark Dever. No concerns were raised when Bauder spoke jointly with Al Mohler at ETS, which kent very ably discussed.

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-field-trip-to-evangelical_20.html

In AZ next year it's another cooperative ministry for Bauder and Doran, but with Sexton, just as they did with Dever and/or Mohler.

Are you witnessing the changing face of what Bauder once defined as,“limited forms of fellowship?”


LM

Don Johnson said...

For D4 - I don't quite follow your responses to my comment. I am not sure at all which post of Kent's you say I am assenting to. The limitations of blogging software, I expect.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Greg Linscott said...

I'm really not sure what Lou is getting at with that last comment. Christian Fundamentalism has involved a range of different people with contrasting beliefs coming together on issues they hold in common (one of those common issues being separation from those who deny the gospel). Read the report from the first Fundamental Baptist Congress of North America, held in Detroit in 1963:

http://www.jsbc.org/Search/jsedownloadfile.php?id=2092

Whatever else, it establishes that people with some widely variant positions (such as eschatology/hermeneutics, Calvinism/Arminianism/soteriology-related issues, methodologies) saw enough in common where they saw the value in affirming that. These are the people that preceded Sexton, Doran, Bauder, et al. You could even argue that to some degree they included some of Dever's predecessors, since the "Southern Baptist premillennial Fellowship" was included in that meeting (though they were likely pointed outward from the Convention, since this is the group from which the Southwide emerged).

I agree that there is a need for separation with evangelicals... a recognition of different categories, if you will. At the same time, I don't see that it has to be as simple as the binary thinking that often seems to be present in these conversations. There is a difference between how we see a conservative in the SBC and how we see the Pope or Joel Osteen. There is a difference between an evangelical who preaches the gospel, holds to a cessationist position, preaches expositionally, and the typical charismatic today (and not all charismatics can be broad-brushed, either).

d4v34x said...

Don,

This one-

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2014/03/lordship-salvation-for-dummies.html

The same one that Lou and others attacked as a containing or defending a false gospel.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Lou,

Just for full disclosure. I mentioned the event at Calvary more than once here in a negative way, but right now we're talking about the gospel, not amillennialism or being a southern baptist or covenant theology or not being a separatist. I'm sticking almost exclusively to this very narrow subject as it relates to separation.

I would be interested in your answer to Thomas Ross's question if you've got the time.

KJB1611 said...

The question, and the ones here:

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2014/03/sad-strawman-critique-of-david-clouds.html

that Lou never answered, should be easy to answer for someone who has written what is supposed to be a good book refuting Lordship salvation.

Lou Martuneac said...

Kent:

I’ve been quite busy at work. I’d be pleased to honor your request regarding the question asked above by (Tom Ross, (KJB1611?). What does the text say?

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch,” (Acts 11:26).

My answer: The Bible says, “were called Christians,” NOT became Christians.

The question was asked based upon how the advocates of LS come to the Bible. They commonly force into or extract from the Scriptures what is not there to legitimize the LS interpretation of the Gospel. Treating the doctrines of salvation and discipleship as one and the same is a classic examples of the misuse and misinterpretation of Scripture to arrive at LS. LS justification calls for front-loading faith (Eph. 2:8-9) with an upfront commitment to perform the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again disciple of Christ to become a born again Christian.

In 1988 Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote a critical review of John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus. An excerpt from his review, which spoke to John MacArthur then is as applicable to you men today, who like JMac believe, preach and defend Lordship Salvation. Dr. Pickering said,

John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt.... We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same.... But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel.” (Lordship Salvation: An Examination of John MacArthur’s Book, The Gospel According to Jesus.)


LM

Lou Martuneac said...

Now, I’d like to offer this question to Tom Ross (KJB1611?) or whoever would like to address it. The Bible says, “Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God,” (John 12:42-43).

The Bible says they were not open about, and would “not confess Him,” Christ. Did they biblically repent; were they believers?

Lou Martuneac said...

Kent:

Yesterday you wrote to me, “…right now we’re talking about the gospel.” That’s fair, and because you asked me I did take a stab at the gospel related question posed to me above.

Earlier in this thread I asked Don Johnson a question based on his having posted a portion of the FBFI statement of faith on Salvation, Section 6. I asked Don,

Does the FBFI accept, as a legitimate interpretation of the Gospel of grace, the ‘Lordship Salvation’ message for justification of a lost person?”

Would you be so kind as to encourage Don to answer that question?

Kind regards,


LM

KJB1611 said...

Dear Lou,

Thanks for answering the question. So are you saying that even some disciples are not Christians, but are only "called Christians"? Why is it that every single person who was called a Christian is a disciple? Weren't there a lot of people--or at least a handful--that hadn't taken the second step of post-conversion surrender to God? Weren't they Christians too?

To answer your question, the people in John 12 were not born again. The Apostle John uses the aorist of pisteuo, to believe, of what falls short of saving faith (cf. John 2:22-3:3). Note pgs. 28ff of my study here:

http://faithsaves.net/the-just-shall-live-by-faith/

for an analysis of how John uses the different tenses of pisteuo.

KJB1611 said...

I would also like to know, Lou, if you follow Acts 11:26 and only call disciples Christians.

Furthermore, a study of the word "call" in Acts 11:26 (chrematidzo) reveals that there are no instances where what is "called" is not the case, at least in the NT and LXX. Cf. Romans 7:3, "she shall be CALLED an adulteress" if she remarries; it is the case.

Thus, Acts 11:26 teaches that disciples=Christians.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Brandenburg,

The d4 scenario is kind of absurd maybe. You and him claiming the same Lord, same Master, but two different Bibles, two different authorities, to the point that you would call his corrupt and he would be ashamed of yours, unwilling to preach certain passages as being "of the Lord."

I've wondered how the Lordship position handles the person who lives their whole life in disharmony to the Bible's teaching on the Word of God, regardless of whether that teaching is One Bible or Multiple Bibles only.

Funny also to see Greg Linscott say twice that the Lord "sets the agenda," "establishes the agenda" for the believer's life. But where is that agenda for the believer exactly? Oh, you know, it's out there somewhere in those multiple Bibles that contradict one another. But text criticism is working on it.

Thanks for your time.

Bob

Lou Martuneac said...

KJB1611:

We exchanged a cordial Q & A. That's enough for the discussion here as far as I'm concerned.


LM

Anonymous said...

John Mark IB

Dear d4v34x,

Hope you and yours are doing well, I'm the slow one in the room lowly on the theological scale but is LBC2 the 2nd London Baptist Confession? and is this site good for reading it? www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html
and or maybe Pastor Brandenburg or Dr. Ross can steer me in the correct direction? Thanks sorry I'm the slow one haha but I enjoy sitting at the feet of the Masters and learning! :) may THE LORD bless you with health love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen have a blessed day and week

KJB1611 said...

Dear Lou,

I'm glad that you want to be cordial, but I confess I would rather get a explanation of what the passages of Scripture say so that I can see that your position is not the eisegetical imposition of Dallas presuppositions upon the Bible that it looks like to me, or an admission that you have no explanation or answer, and will either change your position or search the Scripture until you come up with one that is actually there. Thanks.

To those who are reading this comment section:

I would like to know if the conclusion below is simply a result of my bias in favor of what I passionately believe is the true gospel, or if it also appears this way to others.

When I read Lou's explanation (?) of Acts 11:26, I think it is just bizarre and I can't even wrap my brain around it. When he doesn't respond to what looks to me like a devastating response that utterly destroys his attempts to explain away the biblical fact that all Christians are disciples, it looks to me like he has no explanation and his position is utterly untenable, but he isn't willing to reject it. These are the same thoughts that I come to when reading the comment section on posts such as:


http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2014/03/sad-strawman-critique-of-david-clouds.html

where he repeatedly avoided, again and again, plain problems for his position in the biblical text and simply quoted people associated with Dallas Seminary instead.

Is it just my commitment to a gospel where Christ is received as both Lord and Savior, or do you all think his arguments would not convince anybody who is willing to grapple with the biblical text?

Greg Linscott said...

--------------
Funny also to see Greg Linscott say twice that the Lord "sets the agenda," "establishes the agenda" for the believer's life. But where is that agenda for the believer exactly? Oh, you know, it's out there somewhere in those multiple Bibles that contradict one another.
--------------

Bob,

I understand the Bible Version issue is an important one, though I am NOT going to get involved in a version debate. But here's the thing... as important as it is, exactly what would you understand the differences in the "agendas set" for a believer's way of life between a KJV and the "multiple versions"? Because I see the same kind of expectations for living expressed and communicated, and I have known people who have a wide variety of positions on issues who are KJV men, and the same with MV men. I'm not saying this is a conversation that doesn't matter, but I don't understand your dig. It's not like the KJV forbids adultery, and the ESV endorses philandering. "Thou shalt not kill" is in the KJV, but last I looked, the NASBu doesn't say "murder recklessly without consequence."

Lou Martuneac said...

KJB1611:

There is a 300+ page explanation of my position on LS touching on virtually every key verse and passage in the debate. You'll save going with Kindle. In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation. Or you might peruse my blog with scores of articles on the subject.


LM

d4v34x said...

John Mark,

Yes, the VOR site is one place to read it. You should be told ahead of time that the London Baptist Confession was has a 5 pt Calvinist viewpoint and covenant theology presuppositions. I'm sure you'll still find much to appreciate in it.

Be well.

Anonymous said...

John Mark IB

Dear Pastor Brandenburg, & Dr. Ross, & d4v34x,
Hope you're doing great, maybe you can tell me if this site is a bit better than the one above since the one above seems to be reformed? I'm kind of new to this stuff so thanks for your help and guidance and time, here's the link I found from search on Google for The 2nd London Baptist Confession unless you have a better one? Thanks a million for your kind tolerance of me, :) http://www.1689.com/confession.html
This site seems to be more "independent Baptist"? May The LORD bless you with health love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen have a blessed day and weekend

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi John Mark,

I don't want you to be reformed or covenant theology or even Calvinist, especially thinking of the meaning of foreknowledge and predestination, not to be the typical Calvinist view of foreknowledge or regeneration preceding faith or that Jesus didn't die for everyone. The way I would express that London Baptist Confession is that it does represent historical theology, this theology was believed then, but Baptists did differ on these things. The point of talking about the London Baptist Confession in this conversation is that Lordship salvation did not arise in the last 40 years, but is the historical and biblical doctrine. I would just read Thomas Ross's stuff at his site. It's good enough. If you read that, generally you won't need the London Baptist Confession, because he has that base covered.

Thanks.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi John Mark,

I don't want you to be reformed or covenant theology or even Calvinist, especially thinking of the meaning of foreknowledge and predestination, not to be the typical Calvinist view of foreknowledge or regeneration preceding faith or that Jesus didn't die for everyone. The way I would express that London Baptist Confession is that it does represent historical theology, this theology was believed then, but Baptists did differ on these things. The point of talking about the London Baptist Confession in this conversation is that Lordship salvation did not arise in the last 40 years, but is the historical and biblical doctrine. I would just read Thomas Ross's stuff at his site. It's good enough. If you read that, generally you won't need the London Baptist Confession, because he has that base covered.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Linscott,

I don't mean any disrespect, but, come on, even you must see the humor in this intersection of Lordship and Bibliology.

A spokesman for the Lord and Master of the universe announces: "The Lord and Master of our kingdom has "set" and "established" an agenda for we citizens to follow. And the people say, "Okay give it to us." And the spokesman says, "Okay, well, start over there on that table where you'll find hundreds of versions of the agenda. While you're doing that, our team of experts (many of whom would tell you straight up that they doubt what they're doing and many who would tell you that they don't even revere His agenda as we do) is continuing to work on getting the agenda right. Now carry on loyal subjects!"

It's just funny, like self-parody or something.

And yes, this is not even about versions, just asking about Lordship.

And yes, the murder example you give; I'm guessing even our Enlightened society would aver the Thou Shalt Not Kill thing, even if you tried to corner them on their inconsistencies. So you got me on that one.

Bob

d4v34x said...

Another reason for bringing in the LBC2 is to highlight the level of doctrinal detail the historic confessions would include and the importance church leaders placed on their helping their people understand what the Bible taught on things like repentance.

John Mark IB said...

Dear d4v34x,
Thanks a million for your help, got it, I think like Pastor Brandenburg says though too, I'll keep hitting the well at Dr. Ross' awesome site faithsaves.net, thanks again and May The LORD bless you and yours with health love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen have a blessed day and weekend from the slow one in the room haha : )

John Mark IB said...

Dear Pastor Brandenburg,

Hope you're doing great, wow, ok, thanks, and yes, I definitely do not want to be or go anywhere near Calvinism! I agree, I mean didn't he kill those who disagreed with him on his erroneous doctrines? and thanks so much, for your time and patience in allowing my posts, and for teaching me, you're 1000% right there's treasures galore at Dr. Ross' site faithsaves.net thanks for simplifying the higher level stuff haha but it's truly neat to watch the theological debate going on of course for what it's worth I definitely am standing with Dr. Ross and his more than capable exegesis of The Word!! Yours as well! Thanks a million May The LORD bless you and yours with health love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen. have a blessed night and weekend. I keep forgetting you're on CA time hope the water issue is better?

John Mark IB said...

Dear d4v34x,
Hope you're doing great, thanks for the helps! I can't hang with the higher level in here but it gets very deep and intense at times I'm enjoying the learning though I guess I'm just a cheering section for folks like Pastor Brandenburg and Dr. Ross etc., haha oh well thanks again,
may The LORD bless you and yours with health love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen. have a blessed night and weekend

KJB1611 said...

Dear Lou,

Could you reproduce below your explanation of Acts 11:26 from your blog or your book? Your explanation here was, at least to me, to concise to be credible. I don't even understand how it make sense, actually, but that could be my fault, not yours, I suppose. I look forward to seeing where you have answered the questions I asked you above in your book.


I trust that in your book you also classified all the uses of the pisteuo/pistis word group (believe/faith) and showed that they do not involve surrender or committment, although pisteuo is even translated "to commit" along with "to believe" in the KJV. If you could reproduce your analysis of the pisteuo/pistis word group below, or link to it from your blog, showing that it is compatible with the anti-Lordship view, that would be great.

If you refuted Dana & Mantey's standard Greek grammar on the fact that belief involves surrender on your blog or in your book, if you could reference the page #s or reproduce the refutation on this blog, that would also be great. Here is what Greek grammar says:

Deissmann in Light From the Ancient East gives several convincing quotations from the papyri to prove that pisteuiein eis auton meant surrender or submission to. A slave was sold into the name of the god of a temple; i. e., to be a temple servant. G. Milligan agrees with Deissmann that this papyri usage of eis auton is also found regularly in the New Testament. Thus to believe on or . . . into the name of Jesus means to renounce self and to consider oneself the life-time servant of Jesus. (pg. 105, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, H. E. Dana & Julius R. Mantey. New York, NY: MacMillan, 1955. Greek characters have been transliterated.)

Thanks. Pastor Brandenburg, many other readers of this blog, and I are passionate about preaching a pure gospel, so if we are preaching one that falls under the curse of Gal 1:8-9, we would love to be enlightened.

Dear John Mark IB,

Thanks. I'm glad its a blessing.

John Mark IB said...

Dear Pastor Brandenburg and Dr. Ross,

Even on my lowly uneducated seminary wise and non theologically, non language trained position, from my reading even in simple KJV English, it's pretty obvious from all the Gospels to me at least, that our LORD Jesus did not simply tell people "hey guys check it out I'm the Savior all you gotta do is just believe in me and it's all good your in the kingdom?" I do believe, from my lowly perspective at least, He called us and people in general, in His earthly ministry days, to not simply believe but really to live and die for Him? Come follow me, let the dead bury the dead? The rich young ruler to me also means the guy not only just didn't want to forsake his riches but he chose not to follow Christ as Jesus told him to? So I can see it that the so called LS is just Gospel 101Jesus is either LORD and Savior! But the option of or just one or the other He's Savior but not LORD doesn't cut it? So yes I can see it too as well the dreaded LS that oppose credit falsely to J McArthur is just going back to the basic Gospel message we either follow with the whole life even if have to be killed for it or else we're none of His? It's not faith plus grace plus works but godly repentance leading to change of life that honors Christ in all areas and facets? Oh well sorry for my much rambling, Just my low humble opinions on it, let me know if I'm at least sort of close? :) thanks a million times a million! for the awesome depths of your wisdom being shared here, to me is like free seminary college level courses, that Dr Ross actually gives us on his site faithsaves.net! And Pastor Brandenburg has on his site pillarandground.org! Love you guys! Dr. Ross I wish I had a couple million to get you a decent church building and paying salary as Pastor or even brother Marlowe to come out here to start up a true IB! we so desperately need one or someone to start one! Thanks for having me, hope you're doing well May The LORD bless you with health love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen! Have a blessed day and weekend again you guys are my favorite trinity, after the real Trinity that is, haha is Dr. Strouse, Dr. Ross, and Pastor Brandenburg, not necessarily in that order! Haha :)

John Mark IB said...

Dear Pastor Brandenburg,

Very quickly on your statement "I don't want you to be reformed or covenant theology or even Calvinist, especially thinking of the meaning of foreknowledge and predestination, not to be the typical Calvinist view of foreknowledge or regeneration preceding faith or that Jesus didn't die for everyone."
I can't thank you enough or tell you what it means to me that your pastoral care and concern sticks out, thanks I'll definitely take heed to the great advice and pastoral counsel, yeah reformed and calvinist&submit &submit scares me too much as just being plain unbiblical! And the other stuff as well which is why I am also in the IB persuasion, thanks for the great words of wisdom and I'm very humbled at your consideration and mentorship, very much needed and appreciated! your humble servant always in Christ, May The LORD bless you and yours with health love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen! May He give you many many more years of fruitful service! Have a blessed day and weekend

d4v34x said...

Thomas, et al-

I actually have Lou's (autographed!) book on my shelf. I admit I never made it all the way through. I may pull it down and peruse again to see if I can gain any light on some of the more opaque things he's said here.

Be well, all.

Greg Linscott said...

--------
And yes, the murder example you give; I'm guessing even our Enlightened society would aver the Thou Shalt Not Kill thing, even if you tried to corner them on their inconsistencies. So you got me on that one.
-------

Bob,

I'm all for humor, and again, I understand the importance of the issue you are raising. But again, I don't understand the dig, because I chose the language intentionally. "Agenda" is general enough where again, I don't understand what expectations for Christian living are different in one English translation or manuscript vs another. The nature of the differences (the "Wicked Bible" aside) do not center around difference on what God establishes for his followers to live by. The issues that are disagreed on (say, whether or not a Christian may consume alcohol) are not to my knowledge more clearly required in one translation than another. Someone unaware of the controversy, but desirous of follow Christ to the best of their knowledge and ability, is going to draw the same conclusions for what God expects them to do reading the NIV or the Bishop's Bible, generally speaking.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Greg,

I'm not accepting or agreeing with what Bob writes to get under your skin or to elevate something above what it is. I think he's right. All this interconnected. I believe acceptance of multiple doctrines is a later iteration of multiple Bibles.

You say they both contain the same doctrine, critical text and textus receptus, modern versions and KJV, but the doctrines change, a point we made in two whole chapters of TSKT, both in OT and NT. An example, the practice of church discipline changes depending upon which edition you use of Matthew 18:15-17, because the modern versions, critical text, change words enough to alter practice. Are both obedient? Sufficiently so for multiple version people, because they seem to put on a sliding scale in numerous ways.

This results in lots of space of differences to men, as God didn't ever permit this. This is humanistic and it comes out of two truths.

People won't admit two gospels who say, yes, there is something that divides, but why would we not get here if we're going to be two Bibles, and two beauties, water long under the bridge. The ship of beauty sailed long ago. No wonder we have two marriages. These are all related to a shift of truth into the subjective, relative category, and an acceptance of that.

Part of letting it continue is not admitting it. I don't expect it. Sort of like Social Security is in a lock box.

Lou Martuneac said...

D4v:

Which edition of my book do you have, 1st (blue cover) or second edition? If you have the first, I'd be happy to send you (comp) the second edition. Portions of the 2nd are highly revised and updated. Let me know if you need/want the 2nd we'll make the arrangement via email.


Lou

Lou Martuneac said...

On offering d4v the second, revised and expanded edition, let me share a thought that many of us can relate to.

If you have been in and/or around ministry a good long while, you have likely thought back to a sermon and said to yourself, "I wish I could buy back all the cassette tapes of that one."

Well, we 50+ guys had cassettes, the rest of you cds, or more recent high tech electronic Internet things that I have used, but don't know what they're called.

Anyway, because I believe the polemic in the 2nd edition of my book is much more compelling and persuasive, I sometimes think, "To bad I can't buy back, and replace the originals ."

Let me head off at the pass what I know some of you are already thinking by saying: "All sales are final."  :^)


LM

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hello Everyone,

I would have gladly reviewed Lou's book, but it would have required a separate book longer than Lou's book, and if I were going to do that, I'd just write a book on the gospel. I don't have it in for Lou, not in the least way. For a long time, I left it alone, because there are things Lou says about the condition of fundamentalism that are right, but I have to say that a bigger problem is what he writes and teaches.

It's going to sound like a very tough statement, but there exegetical fallacies on every page. What I am accustomed to in the practice of exegesis is missing. How the book reads is a presupposed position in which passages are adapted to fit the position. It doesn't read like exegesis. I know this sounds rough, but it is how it reads. It's bad enough that it misses Who Jesus is, as if the book doesn't like Who the gospels say Jesus is. It makes Jesus who or what Lou wants Him to be instead of how the gospels and the epistles present Jesus.

I wish I could say better.

John Mark IB said...

Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
Hope you're doing great, and getting some water out there, or relief from the drought,
Sorry for my crazy typo errors above, I must've been half asleep in my error, but what I meant to say was "yeah Calvinist and reformed doctrines scare me as un- Biblical" , not the bizarre gibberish that came out of course, haha
sorry, I'm also using cell phone to text with, so I need to be better at my proof reading before hitting the send button, thanks for putting up with me haha :) sorry to be a pain,
May The LORD bless you and yours with health love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen! Have a blessed day and weekend!

KJB1611 said...

Dear Lou,

If you have biblical, exegetical answers to the questions that I asked, please share them with us. We think that the idea of standing before God being accountable for having preached a corrupted gospel is terrible.

If you do not, I trust that you are willing to change like we are, for we will all have to stand before God.

Lou Martuneac said...

Kent, KJB1611, et. al:

"Willing to change? Change can be a terrible thing. Earlier I cited Dr. Ernest Pickering, who in his critical review of John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation TGATJ wrote,

John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt.... We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same.... But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel.

Dr. Charles Ryrie wrote, “The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), and this is a very serious matter.

My hope for those who have fallen into the trap of Lordship Salvation’s corruption of the gospel of grace (2 Cor. 11:3; Gal. 2:21) is that he/she will be recovered from and biblically repent of having sown Lordship’s egregious errors.


LM

Anonymous said...

Mr. Linscott,

Sorry you don't get it. It might be because I'm talking more about Lordship than about versions.

You say, "I don't understand what expectations for Christian living are different."

The "what difference does it make" argument that you're employing is man-centered, wouldn't you say? I'm just asking you. Aren't you asking, "How does it affect me?" And isn't your answer: "It doesn't affect me." ? "The agenda is close enough."

You're not asking, "How does it affect the Lord? How does it reflect upon His Lordship?"

And all I was trying to say with my little absurd story earlier was: it makes the Lord look lame. There's confusion. Lordship is undermined.

People that don't like the Lord get this. If you don't believe me you could ask the Muslims and Black Israelites and Nation of Islam street preachers who use the Multiple Bibles confusion to disparage Christ and Jehovah. Have you really never been speaking to someone about your faith and they respond to you by saying, "Oh but there's so many versions of the Bible / truth." ?

As Mr. Brandenburg alluded, the "what difference does it make to me?" argument is being used by the Multiple Definition of Marriage people today. Isn't it? "As long as we've got the basics of love, commitment, monogamy, matrimony, then we've got marriage."

It's like, "Good enough for us is good enough for God." In marriage, Bibles, whatever.

I just brought this up initially because the D4 comments about one Gospel ring hollow in light of Multiple Bibles.

A further irony in this conversation would be a Multiple Bible person getting on Lou Martuneac for poor exegesis when in fact there are exactly zero verses in the Bible to exegete that speak of text criticism, recovering the reading through science, multiple Bibles, etc.

So the reason for the dig, Mr. Linscott, is that the Lord of the multiple Bibles seems weak.

Bob

KJB1611 said...

Dear Lou,

When I deal with people house to house or in other settings who believe a false gospel, I use God's Word to show them that they are wrong and answer their objections with the Bible.

You affirm, agreeing with Ryrie, that we teach a "false gospel and com[e] under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9)."

If that is the case, why don't you answer our questions from the Bible instead of just quoting people associated with Dallas Seminary? When you talk to lost people (which I trust that you do) and they try to support their false gospels with biblical evidence, do you ignore what they say and quote people from Dallas Seminary to show that they are wrong?

KJB1611 said...

By the way, the Ryrie quote assumes what needs to be proved – namely, that faith does not involve surrender to Christ or desire to be delivered from the power of sin. This assumption runs contrary to what standard Greek grammars, such as the one I quoted above, affirm, and also runs contrary to the evidence of a word study of the belief/faith word groups in the Old and New Testament. Salvation is by faith alone, but when one trusts Christ he trusts in one delivers from both the power and penalty of sin.

If we are really under the curse of Galatians 1:6-9, proving it from the Bible would be much more effective than employing biased quotes from Ryrie.

Lou Martuneac said...

KJB1611:

You seem to have a problem with my citing, in this thread, well-known theologians who reject, as a false interpretation of the gospel, Lordship Salvation (LS). I cite them for a specific reason, which I noted early on in my book.

You will also find that I often quote from well-known commentators who reject Lordship theology. This I have done because I am not well known and I want my readers to realize there are many godly, highly trained and recognizable preachers who have for decades taken a stand against the doctrinal errors in Lordship’s theology.”

Conversely, who knows Tom Ross? Until this thread I never heard of you. So, why would someone wanting to know what LS is look for or cite Tom Ross as a source?

That is why, in the same sub-section that I cite from above, you will find this excerpt.

Throughout this book I quote liberally from some of Lordship Salvation’s best-known advocates. I quote them for a simple reason: I want them to speak for themselves. This way there is no possibility for misrepresenting what they believe. You can read from their own books and sermons what they believe, how they articulate what they believe and how they arrive at their conclusions. Through this approach any charges of ‘misrepresentation’ or creating a ‘straw man’ have no merit.”

And finally you ask, “…why don’t you answer our questions from the Bible…” To that I will reiterate what I’ve shared above. My book is just over 300 pages. The title is, “In Defense of the Gospel.” The sub-title is, “Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.” In it you will find this excerpt, “In the pages to follow we will consider many things both doctrinally and practically. My final authority, however, is the Word of God.”

I answer the errors of Lordship Salvation (LS) from the Bible. I cite other men who, from their study of the Scriptures, find LS is be anti-thetical to the Scriptures, who found LS to be a message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3) and (frustrates grace).

You had another problem stating “…biased quotes from Ryrie.” And John MacArthur isn’t biased?

To Kent: Thank you for hosting me here at your blog.


LM

KJB1611 said...

Dear Lou,

Thanks for the comments.

I don't care if you have ever heard of Thomas Ross – he is not important. He is an earthen vessel to whom the Gospel has been committed as a priceless treasure.

Could you please tell me what pages of your book answers the questions I asked above, if you are not going to answer them here?

I cannot imagine speaking to somebody who held a false gospel at his door and, when he asked me questions from the Bible, refusing to answer them but telling him that I wrote a book, and then quoting theologians from Dallas Seminary.

I have never read a book by John MacArthur in my life, so I have no intention and no ability to compare quotes from MacArthur with quotes from Ryrie.

Since you have written such a big book, it should be very easy to answer the short, simple questions that I asked above from the Bible if your position is really true. Please show us how we are preaching an accursed false gospel if we are really doing so.

Thanks.

KJB1611 said...

By the way, I do agree with your quote that opposition to Lordship in salvation has been present for "decades." Baptists have been preaching Lordship for century after century from the time of Christ their founder until today, but your position has only been around for decades. That is why your anti-Lordship position does not appear in any historic Baptist confessional document. The Dallas anti-Lordship people who do not call themselves Baptists but Community Churches, etc. are more consistent than people who call themselves Baptists but reject the statement of the gospel found in every major Baptist confession.

d4v34x said...

Lou, I think I have the reviesed edition. The cover is tan.