About this blog:

This site was not developed with the intention of drawing a large number of visitors using trivial methods and shallowness. There is rejoicing among the angels when even one sinner repents and believes in Jesus Christ. (Luke 15:10) If, for as long as this site exists, just one sinner is led to repentance and belief in Christ with the aid of the material presented here, the purpose of this site has been served.


My photo

Married to @SueBirdChaplin, LaneCh on Youtube, Host of Rightly Divided, Reagan Conservative, J.D., Deacon at Christ Reformed of Anaheim (Rom.7:24-25a)




Google+ Followers

The Tip Jar

*Buying from any of the ads below helps support future Youtube projects.

Go Stand Speak

Thank You Cards


Follow by Email

Popular Posts

There was an error in this gadget

Blog Archive


Paid Advertising

    • Site Meter

      What is the Gospel?
      (Dr. Alan Cairns)

      Monday, December 29, 2008


      Fighting for the Faith Today... Crosstalk America Tomorrow [RESCHEDULED]

      Thursday, December 11, 2008

      Just a little note that I'll be on Fighting for the Faith with Chris Rosebrough today (12/11/08) at 3PM PST. We will be doing a "sermon" review of a "sermon" that a "church" in Florida called "Kung Fu Panda and the Christian Life" (end quotes). It should be a fun show. We also hope to stress exactly why we are concerned about "sermons" that are coming out like this in the name of "Christian."

      ***NOTE: The Crosstalk interview has been rescheduled. Then tomorrow, I'll be on Crosstalk America with Ingrid Schlueter discussing the importance of evangelism using the new technology that has just become readily available in recent years. We're going to be discussing the online stuff I do, and some of the reasons we believe that discernment is critical to Christianity. That will be at 12PM PST.

      To listen to each show, click the following pictures at the right time and follow the links to the live feeds.

      Thursday Dec. 11, 2008 at 3PM PST

      Friday Dec. 12, 2008 at 12PM PST (RESCHEDULED*)

      Also, the Apologetics.com episode that I was on with Doug Eaton last Friday should be up soon. I'll post it here as well. It was a great show, but it could be because I didn't have too much input. :) I seriously learn a lot from those guys and love the fellowship with them.

      I hope to have a video up with the winner of the "Name that Podcast!" game soon. Thanks to everyone who submitted a suggestion. They were great and it was hard to choose.

      One last thing. Please keep me in your prayers for the forthcoming week. I have finals for my first semester in law school. :O

      PS. The following law school is great. If you're thinking of going to one, allow me to highly recommend this one to you.:


      Two Upcoming Radio Appearances... I Think.

      Friday, December 5, 2008

      I will be on Apologetics.com again tonight (12/5/08) with my friend Doug Eaton to discuss the issue of Atheism and some of the misguided arguments they use. We will use this list as a general outline. It will be broadcast throughout Southern California on KKLA 99.5FM at midnight tonight PST (tune in at 11:59pm PST on 12/5/08).

      The second appearance is tentative in this respect.: Earlier this week, Chris Rosebrough asked me to be his guest on Fighting for the Faith this coming week. I'm able to do so, but we haven't set a date yet so that's still in the air. I'll keep you posted (probably using this post) when that develops further. (When you see "UPDATE", that means I probably have the day.)

      In one last bit of news, this Saturday I will be moderating a debate between Turretinfan of Alpha and Omega Ministries and his own blogging fame and William Albrecht (gnrhead on Youtube) on the subject of Latria and Dulia. It's a closed debate, but I will be recording it and will post this when it is finished. It should be a great debate.

      Ok, ok... one last thing. Here's a great piece of satire about the Purpose Driven Movement and its zany ways of trying to make everything fit into its paradigm of self-importance. It's...



      The Warden Who Wants to Execute Every Single Person Who Ever Existed and Will Ever Live

      Saturday, November 22, 2008

      I received this. I hope that some of you can help me out with this because it's caused me great turmoil and distress over the last few days. It appears to be a letter of some kind.:

      "To the inmates on death row,

      The warden is not slack concerning his duty as some count slackness, but he's righteous toward you, not willing that any should escape, but that all should be executed."

      I must admit; this note has me a bit uneasy. There is no question that it says that "The warden is... not willing that any should escape, but that all should be executed." What are we going to do, people? Clearly this means every single person on the face of the earth is going to be executed by this warden! I'm not sure what to do. I read this, and I just get hysterical at what is clearly laid out as his plan of what is going to happen. If you could all pray for me, I'd greatly appreciate it.

      ...now, what if I were to come to you with this concern? What would you tell me? Would you agree with me that this letter clearly lays forth the fact that this warden is coming to execute my family, friends, and me?! Or would you look at it and say, "Lane, I believe you're taking things out of context and acting upon them. Clearly the letter is addressed to a certain people. The warden even takes the initiative to say 'you' before he says 'not willing that any should escape, but that all should be executed.' You've taken the letter out of context and are using it in a way that is different than what the letter is meant to convey. It's obviously talking about a select group of people, namely the 'inmates on death row' whom the letter is addressed to."

      I would agree with your advice...

      ...and I would submit to you that the verse 2Peter 3:9 is abused by many people in the self same manner. Let's look at it:

      In 2Peter 1:1, we read: "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:" (2Pe 1:1) To whom? Oh, the letter is "to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:" So does that mean that it's to unbelievers, too? Well, not according to Peter. 2Peter 3:9 (of the same letter) reads: "The Lord is not slow concerning his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." (2Pe 3:9) Here we have the word "you" just like in our letter from the warden hypothetical. So let's look back to that hypothetical letter. Would you have advised me as the wise person did who told me that I was taking something out of context and reacting upon it, or would you have congratulated me for being earnest and honest with the text and the intention the author wished to convey to me? Let's now place the letter from the warden and the verses from 2Peter side by side:

      "To the inmates on death row,

      The warden is not slack concerning his duty as some count slackness, but he's righteous toward you, not willing that any should escape, but that all should be executed."

      "To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, (2Peter 1:1b)

      The Lord is not slow concerning his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2Peter 3:9)"

      What differences between the two do you see? Is there any? If not, and you would have advised me that I was acting foolhardily in the first hypothetical, why would you not hold that it is likewise foolish to take the verses in 2Peter in the self same way? If consistency matters to you, this should trouble you greatly indeed. If you hold that after all this 2Peter 3:9 is still meant to be taken in the way many do declaring that "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (meaning every single person who has ever lived and who will ever live), then you better be phoning me now seeking to console me for the imminent danger which is coming... that is if you care about being consistent, anyway.

      I'll leave you now with three videos to help you deal with this subject of 2Peter 3:9 and the various erroneous ways in which it's taken out of context and interpreted. If you take verses out of context in the Bible, hey, you can make it even say that we're supposed to "curse God and die" (Job 2:9) It's something to think about. Ponder your ways. If you can't account for your interpretation without leaving words out of Scripture and taking it out of context, it might be time to let your interpretation conform to the Bible instead of the Bible conforming itself to you.

      (This is not the same video as the first one.
      Less than halfway through, an exegesis by James White is presented.)


      The Purpose Driven Movement's Two Basic Premises

      Monday, November 10, 2008

      A premise is:

      1) set forth beforehand, often as an explanation
      2) something as preexisting and given
      3) the proposition of an argument from which a conclusion is drawn; reason intended to support a conclusion

      Christianity's basic premise is this:

      We are all sinners justly condemned by God. God sent His Son to shed his blood on a tree so that everyone who believes in Him would be saved from God's wrath that is to come. Christ is the propitiation for everyone who is believing in Him.

      I'll be the first to admit that that is a rather crude summary of Christianity, but it's a basic premise that we have as believers in Christ.

      The Purpose Driven Movement's two basic premises are these:

      1) Jesus is alive so that we may have a high self-esteem.
      2) We are to share this message of high self-esteem with unbelievers. Anything that deters us from sharing this message of high self-esteem with them is not of God. This includes anything that will cause an unbeliever to look down upon us unfavorably. If you question this, you're causing division in the Body of Christ and attempting to hinder His work.

      I submit that, although I'm open to the fact that there may be more, these are the two major premises that are driving the "seeker" movement. Anything that goes against the first premise will be brought into question by the leaders of this movement. I have seen this consistently. Whenever someone questions either one, this is going against the leader's self-esteem, and, since this is a premise in the "seeker" movement, the person is labeled a troublemaker for imposing themselves upon "God's anointed with vision". I am willing to declare that if you listen to the majority of Purpose Driven "sermons" that are permeating our land, you will find that this first basic premise of self esteem can be found as an undertone throughout the duration. This is one of the reasons why there is so much talk of self in this movement by the "pastors". If your basic premise is self-esteem, the focus inevitably needs to be self. There's no way around that. Even if you do talk of Jesus, it nearly always has to be in the context of yourself. I can think of many songs that I sung while attending certain fellowships that would welcome Purpose Driven leaders in. The majority of them dealt with "This is the air I breathe...", "I worship you", or a myriad of other things that "I do". If speaking of yourself was in the context of something that you do for Jesus, it was deemed alright. If speaking of yourself was done in the context of maybe a sporting event you participated in, what car you drive, or what you had for lunch, you were deemed as "stuck on yourself" though. This, however, did not apply to all. Consistency and a lack of double standards aren't one of the movement's strongest points. Talk of sin (something that doesn't cater to self-esteem) as anything other than you not living your best life now because of Jesus is a hindrance to a high self-esteem. The emphasis on me, me, me, me, does not allow for the focus to be on anyone else, unless that person can cater to your self-esteem whether it be in even a small respect. Self-esteem, by it's very nature, despises instruction or teaching (or, as it is known Biblically: Doctrine). Think about it: If your high esteem of yourself can be thwarted by outside information even if that information is true, then you vie to keep that information from reaching you or people who are in your care if you hold that having a high self-esteem is God's priority for you. It makes complete sense. It's logical. It's a valid argument. The problem is, though, it's not Christianity. It's the premise for another religion.

      The second premise deals with acceptance from unbelievers. If you look at the "seeker" movement, they themselves admit that the central focus of their "ministry" is to be a place for the unbelievers (or "unchurched" as it's frequently being heralded). Jesus said that no man can serve two masters for he will hate one and love the other. He was referring here to God and mammon. In Christianity, if Jesus is your master, you love your enemies (unbelievers). You pray for your enemies. You do not, however, cater to their desires. Why? Because the natural man cannot receive the things of God. They are foolishness to him. In the "seeker" movement, the central aspect of their "ministry" is to cater to this foolishness. R.C. Sproul has said that the "seeker" movement is a "strategy of unbelief." Unbelief is evil so, in other words, it's a strategy for evil. There are two sovereigns that are being dealt with here. In Christianity, God is sovereign. What He says goes. There is no debating Him, and if someone contradicts what He desires and commands, they are in error; not Him. In the "seeker" movement the unregenerate unbeliever is sovereign. What he says goes. There is no debating him, and if someone contradicts what he desires and commands, they are in error, not him. Consistently, if you view the "seeker" movement and the things they argue for, you will see this is true.

      With these two basic premises lie something that is not only not found in Biblical Christianity, it is vehemently opposed to Christianity. When Isaiah saw his righteousness for what it really was, did he thank God for giving him such a high self-esteem and desire to share that message with others? No. He said that all his righteousness is as filthy rags. When Paul is discussing his struggle with sin in Romans 7, did he say, "I'm pulling this thing off! Everyone, look at my moral example and ask Jesus into your heart today while supplies last!" No. He said, "Oh, what a miserable person I am. Who shall deliver me from this body of death?" When the answers to each of those two questions are answered in the former, we're not dealing with Christianity anymore, and it's about time that we start calling another religion out for what it is. Christianity has nothing to do with a high self-esteem other than confession and the forsaking of it for Christ's sake alone. Seriously consider this: If you take the premise for a high self-esteem out of the Purpose Driven Movement, what are you left with? I submit that it is not much if anything at all. It's the central focus of the movement, and spreading that philosophy to unbelievers is the among the sole priorities of it. The Purpose Driven Movement's default position is self-esteem; Christianity's is Christ-esteem.

      *As a follow-up to this post, here is an interesting article about the decaying effects of self-esteem on society as a whole. Thanks to Doug Eaton for sending this my way.


      The Great Reformation
      [The Reformation Day Show]

      Sunday, November 9, 2008

      Here's the radio show I was on recently.

      From Apologetics.com:
      "Written by Christopher Neiswonger
      Saturday, 01 November 2008
      The Glorious Reformation: Apologetics.com's annual Reformation Day show answers the question, does the Reformation really matter after 500 years? A global shift in Christian thought began in 1517. What had at one time been a Christian worldview applied to all of life and thought had become a shifting web of marginally Christian ideas used to support pagan ideology and vacant humanism devoid of eternal significance. Martin Luther sounded an alarm loud and long with reverberations that are still felt today from the worship in our churches to the halls of justice. Is a theocentric theology still permissible in an anthropocentric world? Why the constant urge to replace the Holy Scriptures as the sole infallible rule in matters of faith and practice with the judgements of the religious community or individuals that claim prophetic authority? Is God's intent to save those that are good enough to save themselves or those that have nothing of themselves which makes them in any sense worthy? Is the grace of God merely hypothetically salvific or actually effectual to save those that are lost? Is Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone a message that has seen its day? Or one that with the Reformers we should say "semper refomanda", always reforming? Staff members Christopher Neiswonger and Lindsay Brooks are joined by special guests Pastor Kent Moorloch of Communion Prebyterian Church of Irvine http://www.communionpres.org, Doug Eaton College Pastor of the 1st Southern Baptist Church of Downey and http://christiantheology.wordpress.com, and Lane Chaplin power blogger of http://www.lanechaplin.com."

      Here are some pictures from the event:

      Chris Neiswonger

      Lindsay Brooks

      Pastor Kent Moorlach

      Doug Eaton


      The Day After the Elections of 2008
      (James White)

      Wednesday, November 5, 2008

      "The cultural shift toward Darwinian humanism was displayed in its fullest form yet in the elections of 2008 in the US. Here are my thoughts."

      - James White


      "Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism" is Not Christianity.

      Sunday, November 2, 2008

      Many of you have read the posts I've put up lately claiming that we're dealing with another religion and not Christianity in regard to what the "seeker" movement puts forth. I believe that a man named Christian Smith has finally given an accurate name to the beast: "Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism."

      In the article that I'm going to link to at the bottom of this post, he lays out the basic five aspects of this religion.:

      1. A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth.
      2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
      3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
      4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when he is needed to resolve a problem.
      5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

      I believe that points 1 and 2 can be debated as to being Christian doctrine. They certainly are truths, but they are half-truths, and, as Mark Kielar says, "A half truth being presented as a whole truth is a complete untruth." I believe that God is active in the affairs of life on earth and not merely sitting back watching as indicated in point 1. I also believe that point 2 is in error in that we can be "good, nice, and fair" to each other without ever believing in Jesus Christ and "loving our neighbors as ourselves and loving God with all our hearts" as Christ commands. I know professing atheists who are very "good, nice, and fair", but obviously I don't know a professing atheist who is saved from God's wrath that is to come. Look closely at points 3, 4, and 5, though, and you will see that these points are antithetical to what Christianity is.

      Point 3: "The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself."
      This point is basically at the heart of all the fads, all the books, all the programs, all the lectures, all the legalism, and all the twisting of Scripture that is permeating much of this religion of "seekerism". The basic problem is this: An focus on self and a focus off of God unless God fits into the focus we have of ourselves. It's humanistic in its core. Sadly, though, this religion holds that this is the chief end of man (for God to glorify ourselves) whereas the great confessions of the past such as the Westminster Shorter Catechism hold that "Man's chief end is to glorify God, [a] and to enjoy him for ever. [b]"
      [a]. Ps. 86:9; Isa. 60:21; Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; Rev. 4:11
      [b]. Ps. 16:5-11; 144:15; Isa. 12:2; Luke 2:10; Phil. 4:4; Rev. 21:3-4

      Point 4: "God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when he is needed to resolve a problem."
      This is also antithetical to what the Bible plainly teaches. We need God for everything. "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." (Jas 1:17) If we hold that we need God only when bad things happen, then there is no way to get around the fact that we believe that we are capable of doing good apart from Him and His graces. This is a classical theological term known as Pelagianism. What you need to know about Pelagianism for this post is that Pelagianism teaches that man is basically good apart from God's grace, and Christianity teaches that man is wicked apart from God's grace. ("We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away." (Isa 64:6))

      Point 5: "Good people go to heaven when they die."
      In a sense, this statement is correct. If we've kept the law without offending it in even one point (James 2:10) and if there's no such thing as imputed sin from Adam (Rom. 5), we're good enough to go to heaven on our own. The problem is, though, that "all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God" (Rom. 3:23) and original sin is taught in the Bible (Rom. 5). If that wasn't proof enough that by our own "righteousness" we can't make it to heaven, you can just ask the Apostle Paul himself: Paul, is there any righteous enough to make it to heaven? "There is none righteous." Paul, are you sure? Do you hold that there's not even one person that's righteous? "No, not one." (Rom. 3:10)

      So now we've effectively proven that the 5 points of Moralistic, Therapeutic, Deism, are not only not taught in Scripture, they are the antithesis of Scripture. Yet this MTD is basically what is taught in the "seeker" movement today. For those of you that are familiar with the "seeker" movement, think for a second about the types of verses that are normally quoted by the leaders in this movement; are not the verses they usually quote, even if the verses are quoted out of context, in some sense formalizing to these 5 points that are listed above? Are not the verses that they omit quoting and actually rail against quoting often because of "their bad experience with fundamental churches as a child" opposed to the 5 points that are listed above? It's something to definitely think about, but I am convinced that Christian Smith has nailed it. It's another religion folks, and now, we have a name to call the beast.

      Here's an article by Christian Smith that deals with this subject. In this article, he addresses the subject of teenagers, but, through my experience of conversing with others within the "seeker" movement and hearing the "sermons" put forth by their leaders, I believe the conclusions presented in the following can be as aptly applied to older people and this movement as a whole as well. I highly, highly recommend it.:

      Moralistic Therapeutic Deism by Christian Smith
      Get your own at Scribd or explore others:

      HT: White Horse Inn (otherwise, I may not have heard of Christian Smith's study)


      The Tale of Two Crumbs
      (Perry Noble's "Preaching" vs. Jeff Noblit's - Which is Biblical?)

      Tuesday, October 28, 2008

      Many of you know my disdain for what is being called "Christianity" these days. I say emphatically that the "seeker" movement is akin to a narccistic, legalistitc cult at best, but I always like to substantiate what I say so I provide specific examples for you to make that decision for yourself. Today, I got to hear my friend, Chris Rosebrough of Fighting for the Faith, critique a sermon by a cowardly crumb in self-denial named Perry Noble. I say "cowardly" in the sense that he refuses to tell his populous the truth about the Gospel, their sin state, etc. but instead, caters to their egos. I say "in self-denial" because he doesn't view himself or other Christians as being fortunate enough to eat the crumbs that fall from the table of our Lord as the woman who told Jesus just that (Matt. 15:27), but instead, he believes that we deserve more.  I say "crumb" because, as you'll hear in this "sermon", Perry has no trouble calling people who have trouble dealing with members of the opposite sex "crumbs", but he doesn't believe this title applies to those who parade themselves as being "daring and dangerous" for Christ but refuse to preach much other than themselves so I figured I'd help him understand what exactly the definition of a crumb is since he chose to use the word.  The ironic part is that he's very vocal about how "daring and dangerous" he is, but he's only "daring and dangerous" when he's handling God's Word because he does it so poorly. The rest of the time, he's not "daring and dangerous" just obnoxious and reminds me of that kid that tried really, really hard to be cool at school and you'd be nice to because you felt sorry for him, but on the whole, you made it a point not to get too close to because you knew he doesn't listen to reason. Oh, the irony, little Noble. Considering this sermon that Chris critiqued today, I think I would be hard pressed to find a better example of the exact method of feeding people's narcissitc states of self-love than what Perry Noble "preached" here. It's hard to listen to. To know that I actually attended Perry's synagogue of self-esteem for a while years ago just goes to prove what the Lord can do with a miserable self-lover such as I.

      (The audio for "Paul Washer v. Perry Noble" starts at 39:00.
      The audio of Noble's "sermon" starts at 54:50.)
      (Thanks to Chris Rosebrough for providing this audio.)

      Now you may be asking, "What's with the title? I thought it was a tale of two crumbs." Ah, but it is. A while back, I was given permission to post a sermon by a preacher who pastors Paul Washer and his family named Jeff Noblit. The sermon was called, "Dogs, CRUMBS, and a Faith to Emulate." I kid you not. Examine the contrast of what we heard the instigator of ignorance, Perry Noble, say in the first life-talk with the sermon that follows. I believe you will see more and more how we are dealing with a legalistic, narcissitic cult in terms of the way they use Christ in different mediums and attribute different meanings to what His life and death actually mean.

      Dogs, Crumbs, and a Faith to Emulate (Jeff Noblit)

      Now, both of these people profess to be preachers, but which gave a sermon that was biblical and which gave a talk that's about as spiritually edifying as the advice you could get on Saved by the Bell back in the day?


      Regeneration v. The Idolatry of Decisional "Evangelism"
      (Paul Washer @ the Deeper Conference 2008 [Living Waters & Way of the Master])

      Friday, October 24, 2008

      Here is more from Paul Washer speaking against the idolatry that many professing believers are calling "evangelism" these days. I also highy, highly recommend this sermon. It was given at Way of the Master's Deeper Conference this year.


      Ten Indictments Against the Modern "Church"
      {A 21st Century Message}
      [Against Decisional "Evangelism" Once and for All]
      (Paul Washer)

      Wednesday, October 22, 2008

      "If there's one thing I've gone to war against, it's this (decisional "evangelism")."

      - Paul Washer
      (2008 Sermonindex Revival Conference - 10.22.08)

      Ok, I've heard many, many sermons by Paul Washer. Many of them have been basically the same because he preaches to different groups, but they all need to hear the same message (which means that he isn't preaching the same message to the same people on a regular basis). This sermon may be the one that ends up being the 95 theses of our time in history. In this sermon that was preached earlier tonight at Sermonindex's Revival Conference, Paul explicitly declares that our biggest enemy today in the Church is decisional "evangelism". It's a sentiment that I've been thinking about for a long time now. I've told others that I've been close to writing a blog post on here denouncing any place that is calling itself "Christian" but incorporating these unbiblical methods. I lament with Washer about the state of what some call "Christendom" today, but it's because I agree that we need to get as far away from this unbiblical practice of decisional "evangelism" as much as possible. It has wrecked more lives and caused more people to worship an idol called "God" that is just a trivial form of your dude "Bob" from high school. "If it's cool with 'Bob,' it's cool with God." I'm sick of this and if anyone wants to continue in this line of "worship" then they can have their religion because, as far as I'm concerned, it's another one, not Christianity. They use the same words, but change the definitions like the Mormons do. Atonement biblically means that Jesus, for believers, came as the propitiation of God's wrath against sinners who are justly condemned already for not believing in Jesus Christ. Atonement in the "seeker" movement is Christ came to save you from low self-esteem, being unpopular among unbelievers, and your little mistakes that don't allow you to live "your best life now" with "purpose". Sin in the Bible is transgression of God's holy, righteous law. Sin in the "seeker" movement are little mistakes... little boo-boos... but God loves you anyway as long as you try harder and don't argue against Rick Warren and his fans. The Christian authority is the Word of God (the 66 books of the Bible); what it says has the final authority in our lives and dictates what course of action we should take. The authority in the "seeker" movement is the unregenerate unbeliever; what it says has the final authority in their lives and dictates what course of action they take. Justification, biblically, is being put in right standing with God based on belief in the finished work of Christ alone. Justification in the "seeker" movement is making your decision to be a Christian by joining a popular "seeker" church (the more "seeker-friendly" the "church" is, the more you're justified, of course) then whether you stay justified is based primarily on five things (possibly more): 1) The positive opinion the "leadership" or those popular with the leadership have of you. 2) how hard you try 3) your works that build the congregations numbers (only if it helps the particular seeker-church in some way, though. If you do good works that don't bring a good light to the particular "seeker church", you need to get with the program because you're all about doctrine and not deeds.) 4) your disdain for biblical doctrine 5) and the amount of narcissism you exude (the more narcissistic you are, the more justified before God you must be).

      Tell me I'm wrong. Please, tell me I'm wrong. I would love to be wrong about this because it would mean that things aren't as bad as they are now, but sadly, after studying this movement for years now, I have no other name to call it and still be honest before God.: it's another religion at worst and a cult at best, folks. As Washer says in this sermon, there's no Holy Ghost present in these things because one of the chief aspects of the Holy Spirit is that He will convict men of their sin, and "anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him (Christ)." (Rom. 8:9b) When a "Christian" is promoting such Satanic doctrines as "the carnal Christian", it's a cult at best, and these "seeker" guys can have it if the idol of unregenerate popularity is the idol they continue to choose to serve. I wash my hands clean of the inane things that are being done in Christ's name.

      This sermon by Paul Washer is a must hear. I encourage all of you to listen to it. You can find the mp3 by going to the following link by clicking on Paul Washer's picture, or you can watch the sermon in the following video. (NOTE: The sermon is a little longer than the mp3.):


      Sexual Sins with Pastor Peter Bender
      (Issues Etc.)

      Sunday, October 19, 2008

      Here's a great program on sexual sins including pornography from Issues Etc. It's between 30-40 minutes long, but it's very helpful.


      Does God Predestine Some Men to Hell?
      (Double Predestination)

      Thursday, October 16, 2008

      There are two streams both flowing the same way. There are two boys, one on each stream, each with a toy boat. One boy (boy A) grabs his boat and forces it upstream keeping his hand on it the entire way while the other (boy B) simply releases his boat and allows for the stream to take it to its final destination. Did both boys predetermine what they wanted the boat to do and where they wanted it to end up? Yes. Did the boy who let the boat go need to add anything of his effort to the boat to ensure that it went where it was already heading? No. He simply took his hand off and allowed for nature to take its course. This latter boy is an example of what is known as reprobation in double predestination. Both boats are going to a destination, but the boy who kept his hand on the boat and pushed it up the river was actively involved in the task against the natural course of things while the boy who simply let it go was passively allowing for what he predestined to come to pass (the natural course of things). Many people argue against double predestination while using boy A as the metaphor for what God does. (Boy A [God] pushing the boat [man] up river [toward sin] while the river in Boy A's situation [man's inclination to being born good and doing good, wanting to be saved] is trying to get the boy to do what's right while the boy A [God] is not letting that happen.) This, in logic, is called a straw man fallacy. That means that they're arguing a position that isn't advocated by the person they're arguing against, destroying that argument, then going off to claim victory for themselves. The correct position is that boy B [God] is restraining the boat [man] from going downstream to its fatal end off a cliff [reprobation]. Boy B then lets his hand off the boat and allows it to go get what will naturally happen. Note that in the first example man's condition is seen as pretty much good while in the latter, man's condition is seen as sinful and "condemned already for not believing on the only begotten son of God. (John 3:18).

      This is one of the most complete answers to what exactly the doctrine of double predestination is. Mark Kielar was gracious enough to allow me to post the entire clip from this Word Picture series because, as his email said, "Dear Lane; You are welcome to use the clips in any way that can advance the Kingdom. May our Lord richly bless your efforts." Kielar is a man who's priority is to get the message of the Gospel out to as many people as possible. I can honestly say that of all the preachers I know of, he is one of the most biblically sound pastors that is alive today. The wisdom that I've learned from this man cannot be measured in my opinion. If you enjoyed this clip, you can buy the next 16-16 1/2 hours of this dvd series by going to their website http://www.crosstv.com and purchase it there. It's 16 DVDs long and is called "The Sovereignty of God". In it, he tackles many of the hard questions like this that Calvinists receive from those who are curious about the faith. I highly recommend the series. A huge thanks goes to Pastor Mark for allowing me to post this.


      Barack Obama's Socialist Plan (Proof)

      Tuesday, October 14, 2008

      Someone sent this to me today, and I had to post it here. Here we have words from Obama's own mouth that he intends to promote and promulgate socialism. If there was any question at all as to Obama's intentions, this video should erase all doubt.

      Here's an interview with the plumber after the talk with Obama. Thankfully, not everyone is starstruck by Obama and tells it like it is. (HT: Camp On This)


      Punished with a Baby?
      (Barack Obama and Abortion)

      Thursday, October 9, 2008


      Christian, You Are Known by Name
      (Apprising Ministries Link)

      Tuesday, October 7, 2008

      I found a very encouraging post by Pastor Ken Silva today. Here's an excerpt from it.:

      Yes, beloved of God we do live in troubling times. But no matter how difficult your current trial may be, or whatever you may have done since you were born again, you can trust that God still knows thee by name; and if you will but turn from your sin, it’s not too late for you to begin all over again (see—1 John 1:9). And don’t you ever forget how precious you are to the Lord; so much so dear Christian, that He wrote your name on His palms at his crucifixion (see—Isaiah 49:16) and those nail-scarred hands of Christ Jesus are vivid proof of His love for all eternity!
      Click here to read the entire article.

      Also, Apprising Ministries has been one of the most outspoken ministries against the errors that are now plaguing Christendom. Over time, I have come to know Pastor Ken Silva personally as an honorable and very knowledgeable man who's writing and speaking contributions have edified me greatly. Like most ministries, his relies on the financial support of donors who are blessed by his ministry and would like his efforts extended to others who need godly wisdom. If you are led to donate, please use the link below (click picture) to donate monetarily to Apprising Ministries. If you can only support him in prayer, I'm sure he would appreciate that, too. Let's remember our pastors as they make it a point to remember us.



      "My Law School Asks Inmates What They Want to be Taught and Teaches That."

      Friday, October 3, 2008

      My law school asks inmates in prisons about what they want taught, and that's what they teach. One of my classes, criminal law, was very helpful and informative before they dropped it after asking several inmates what they thought about the subject material. It turns out that there were a few of them who had been convicted of crimes, so they didn't really like the idea that what they had been justly accused and convicted of was being taught to others. The administration listened to their complaints, realized that it would offend the inmates to keep teaching on criminal law, and dropped it from the curriculum. Well, I guess that's great for the inmates, but what about me? What about people who've been the victims of criminal behavior and needs people to defend them from error? I really needed to know what that subject material was if I was ever going to be an effective lawyer and/or judge, but obviously the inmates complained so it's gone. The school felt that those unconcerned about the law were the most important ones; not my classmates and I at the law school. I just hope no one needs me to know what exactly criminal law is in case they ever get in a situation where a criminal act has been committed on them. Oh, well.
      The situation above is a hypothetical situation. My great law school, Trinity Law, did no such thing and will never. My experience here so far has been nothing but the best, and I highly recommend the school to anyone who is thinking about pursuing a career in law. If they did do what was mentioned in the above hypothetical, though, what would be your advice? "Get out of there, Lane! That isn't a law school, it's aiding criminals! That's a dangerous place to be, and they're lying to you!" I wholeheartedly agree with the advice. If this is what my law school did, I would be making every effort to get as far away from that "law school" as quickly as possible. Would you not agree that that should be my course of action? If I was at a law school that was letting convicted inmates decide what is taught and what isn't, would you not agree that I should take every precaution I could possibly take to get out of there and not let the administration manipulate me into staying whether it be by feelings of guilt, false claims, etc.? Would you even hold that a law school that flatly refused to teach law was even a law school? Let's carry this out to it's logical conclusion. If the inmates call the shots, and the law eventually doesn't even matter, when the time finally comes that the inmates do take over the school, who is there to stop them? If no one has been taught the law because the administration has catered to the inmates, who will know the law in order to say, "No, this is wrong." when that eventually happens? Of course, there are always exceptions. Given, there will be some who got the books, read them, and had to teach themselves the law, but when they come to call the administration and the inmates out on their errors, how do you think the crowd will treat them?

      I submit to you that the "seeker-sensitive" movement is not one iota different from the law school example above when used in metaphor. Here we have a movement where there are Christians who seriously want to know what the truth is about a particular subject. They desire to be fed what is true not only for themselves, but also to help others. They go to the leadership to tell them that they don't believe the teaching is deep enough and that things are too trivial. The leadership retorts with the assertion that they are not going to teach on certain things because they've asked the unbelievers what they want taught, and, since preaching the very things that unbelievers are already convicted and sentenced of (John 3:18) would make the unbeliever offended, the leadership dismisses the claims of the real truth seeker and settles to cater to the "seeker" even to the extent of calling the Christian who desires to go deeper a troublemaker.

      Considering what your advice would have been to me in the first hypothetical, what advice would you give to the people who are being manipulated by a crooked "administration" in these "seeker churches"? Would it be the same? If not, why? You need a better argument than, "Well, it's two different situations." The facts hold that they're almost identical aside from the details of each. I heard not too long ago that arguing points proficiently used to be regarded as a sign of virtue in a person. I disagree. Arguing points proficiently is still regarded as a sign of virtue in a person, it's just that all the narcissistic people who are running these inmate shows don't agree. Oh, well. I'm not led by these "leaders" by anything else, why should I start taking their advice and heeding their opinion on this? Perhaps if they could get over themselves long enough to not share with everyone trivialities like what their favorite pastry dish is, they would understand that what they are doing is akin to killing a person's soul. I submit that the reason they don't care is because their own soul is in such shambles that they know that exposing sin in others would inherently cause their own sin to be exposed as well. So if you're a Christian who feels guilty about leaving "churches" that would rather cater to "the inmates" than to the "law students", here's encouragement that you shouldn't feel guilty at all. In fact, you should be encouraged because you realizing this is the first step to overcoming error. Lies keep us in bondage, and when it's so called "leaders" that want to promote those lies, what does one do? ....according to them, it's "ask the inmates." According to the Holy Spirit, though, it's "come out from among them and you be separate... then (God) will receive you." (2Cor 6:17)


      Are You Judging my Judging?

      Doug Eaton weighs in on what is probably the most misquoted verse of Scripture (Matthew 7:1) here:

      For more on this subject, here's a classic from the video archive:

      ...and here's one last video from my friend, Mark, from Proclaim His Word.:


      "...it's the result of a work, so that one may boast."
      (Is that Eph. 2:9?)

      Monday, September 29, 2008

      Two days ago, I arrived late into James White's chatroom where I stumbled upon a debate that was already in progress. Later, I got the record of the debate and read it through. I thought it would be helpful to post here because I believe it clearly shows the problem with the non-predestinarian view of salvation. To remain consistent in a non-predestinarian/free-will view, it never fails that one has to ultimately give credit to themselves in order to remain consistent with their belief. Read this little debate through, and notice how, when asked the deciding question directly, the free-will proponent had to dodge it relentlessly until he involuntarily has to concede the point at the end. I believe this is one of the clearest examples of why the predestinarian has no room to boast while the free-willer does.

      [Apollos] lovetruth: I assume from your comments that you don't believe that God elects those whom he will save, prior to time ?
      [lovetruth] There is no elect group in the bible [ordained to salvation)
      [Apollos] Lovetruth: are you a christian ?
      [lovetruth] Definitely a Christian: Jesus is my Lord and Saviour
      [Apollos] Ok
      [Apollos] lovetruth: and how are you saved as a Christian ?
      [lovetruth] Jesus pais for all by his blood
      [lovetruth] paid*
      [Apollos] but I mean
      [Apollos] what did you contribute ?
      [lovetruth] nothing I do can pay for my salvation: Jesus did it all
      [Apollos] lovetruth: do you have any friends or family members who are not saved ?
      [lovetruth] Apollos, Yes I have family members who do not know the Lord
      [Apollos] lovetruth: can you give me the first name of one of them who is not saved, for the sake of clarity ?
      [Apollos] lovetruth: can you tell me the first name of one of your unsaved family members ?
      [lovetruth] Apollos: Jean
      [Apollos] lovetruth: thanks. Now can you tell me why you are saved and Jean is not ?
      [lovetruth] I received Him as per John 1:12
      [Apollos] lovetruth: OK. But why are you saved, and Jean is not ?
      [lovetruth] Becos God has paid for it all
      [Apollos] I am not understanding
      [Apollos] If God paid for it all, then wouldn't Jean be saved as well ?
      [lovetruth] And I received the light as per John 1:9
      [Apollos] So why is Jean not saved ?
      [lovetruth] No, becos he has not receive Him yet
      [Apollos] Ok. So why have you received Jesus, and Jean has not ?
      [lovetruth] Note the cause and effect in John 1:12
      [lovetruth] the receiving comes before the authority to become children of God
      [lovetruth] Calvis believe the authrority came 1st
      [lovetruth] I am
      [Apollos] Lovetruth: I am asking you very simply, why have you recieved Jesus, but Jean has not ]?
      [lovetruth] :)
      [lovetruth] Becos the life in me from God enabled me to decide: to say yes
      [Apollos] Okl
      [lovetruth] and this life [extent) is in all as per the Ss
      [Apollos] So why did the life from God enable you to decide to say yes, but it did not do the same for Jean ?
      [lovetruth] See Eccl 12:7 [I think)
      [lovetruth] Becos he is not using it for that
      [Apollos] Why not ?
      [Apollos] Why are you using it for that, but Jean is not ?
      [lovetruth] As per Matthew 13:12
      [lovetruth] We all have
      [Apollos] ~nas Matt 13:12
      [@Gutenberg^] Matthew 13:12 "For whoever has, to him [more] shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. [NASB)
      [lovetruth] but I use my have
      [lovetruth] he does not
      [Apollos] So are you saying that Jean has not been given ?
      [lovetruth] I have just said he has and we all have
      [Apollos] So why are you using it and Jean is not ?
      [lovetruth] but he has not used his to have more
      [Apollos] that is what I am asking
      [Apollos] I understand that he hasn't
      [Apollos] the question is Why ?
      [lovetruth] No, he has
      [lovetruth] otherwise it could nto be taken from him
      [Apollos] Why are you using what you have been given, but Jean is not ?
      [lovetruth] becos I want righteousness
      [Apollos] Ok
      [Apollos] So you are morally superior to Jean ?
      [Apollos] that is why you are saved ?
      [lovetruth] becos we all can, but we don't all want to
      [lovetruth] nope not superior
      [Apollos] So you are saying that you were saved because you are morally superior ?
      [lovetruth] since we all have
      [Apollos] Well you say that you desire righteousness
      [Apollos] and he does not
      [Apollos] doesn't that make you morally superior ?
      [lovetruth] as testified by thefruit
      [Apollos] we need not go there
      [lovetruth] Jesus' righteousness makes me clean
      [Apollos] I am simply asking why you are saved
      [Apollos] and you are saying that it is because you desire righteousness
      [Apollos] and Jean does not
      [Apollos] so you are essentially morally superior to Jean
      [Apollos] that is why you are saved and Jean is not
      [Apollos] correct?
      [Apollos] Because you have the moral drive and he does not ?
      [lovetruth] Is desiring righteousness morally superior than desiring sin?
      [lovetruth] or just a choice
      [lovetruth] with no superior element in the making?
      [Apollos] what do you thinl ?
      [Apollos] is it better to desire sin or righteousness ?
      [Apollos] think
      [lovetruth] I think it is better, of course
      [lovetruth] Jean does not, at this time
      [Apollos] beacuse ?
      [Apollos] you are just morally ahead of him ?
      [Apollos] you are smarter than him ?
      [Apollos] why is it ?
      [lovetruth] neither
      [lovetruth] a choice is neutral
      [lovetruth] its effects are not
      [Apollos] I am trying to understand what it is about you that Christ chose
      [Apollos] that Jean doesn't have
      [Apollos] what is it that makes you a more desireable choice to Christ ?
      [lovetruth] that's the deal Christ desires all and paid for all
      [Apollos] So why isn't Jean saved ?
      [lovetruth] beocs he loves sin
      [Apollos] I understand that
      [Apollos] You have said that
      [lovetruth] as per John 3:18
      [lovetruth] is it what the bible says
      [Apollos] yes
      [lovetruth] Calvis say no it is God
      [Apollos] but the question again is
      [Apollos] Why do you not love sin, and Jean does ?
      [Apollos] I am just trying to get to the root
      [lovetruth] My flesh loves sin
      [Apollos] yes
      [lovetruth] but I do not want sin
      [Apollos] ok
      [Apollos] but Jean does
      [lovetruth] I want life
      [Apollos] and the question is why ?
      [Apollos] why the difference between you
      [Apollos] you don't seem to want to answer that
      [lovetruth] choice
      [Apollos] Ok so its not by grace
      [lovetruth] you don't seem to hear that
      [Apollos] its by choice
      [lovetruth] yes, Jesus' grace
      [Apollos] You told me earlier you were saved by grace
      [lovetruth] and payment
      [lovetruth] is what pays for all
      [Apollos] now you are saying that you are saved because you made a choice
      [Apollos] a choice that Jean did not make
      [Apollos] and I am trying to understand from you
      [Apollos] Why it is that you made that choice and Jean did not
      [lovetruth] I made choice that Jesus paid for by God's grace
      [Apollos] You keep saying the same thing
      [Apollos] without answering the question
      [Apollos] let me clarify
      [Apollos] I understand that
      [Apollos] 1) You chose Jesus and Jea did not
      [Apollos] 2) You love righteousness and Jean does not
      [lovetruth] Where does the bible say that God makes that decidion for me?
      [lovetruth] decision*
      [Apollos] 3) You want life, Jean does not
      [Apollos] the question is
      [Apollos] Why ?
      [Apollos] Why the diference
      [lovetruth] please answer my question
      [Apollos] I understand there is a difference, you have been very clear about that
      [Apollos] but what you have not answered
      [Apollos] is why the difference
      [Apollos] You indicated that you were more moral
      [Apollos] than Jean
      [lovetruth] No, you indoacted I was more moral
      [Apollos] Ok
      [Apollos] So please explain why the differences
      [lovetruth] I inidcated that the choice was neutral
      [lovetruth] its effects were not
      [Apollos] why the differences ?
      [Apollos] Why have you chosen a path, with all that entails
      [Apollos] that Jean has not
      [Apollos] Why have you made a decision that Jean has not ?
      [Apollos] with all that entails
      [lovetruth] Apllos: becos God saw the love I had for Him in my hear and I did not know it
      [lovetruth] heart*
      [lovetruth] So he set me up
      [lovetruth] to a call
      [Apollos] again Love truth
      [lovetruth] And I then prayed to Jesus
      [Apollos] your are going back to what is entailed
      [Apollos] You love God , Jean does not
      [Apollos] You prayed to Jesus, Jean did not
      [Apollos] WHY ?
      [lovetruth] I think [I know?) you misunderstand
      [Apollos] I don't misunderstand
      [Apollos] You are simply giving me a list of distinctions between a believer and an unbeliever
      [Apollos] I understand that these distinctions exist
      [Apollos] the question is Why you and not Jean ?
      [Apollos] Is it something that you conjured up within yourself that Jean did not ?
      [Apollos] something you did that made you more fitting to be saved than Jean
      [Apollos] what is it ?
      [lovetruth] Apollos, u misunderstand, as per Romans 8:27 I did not know what I wanted
      [lovetruth] But God saw I love him in my heart of hearts
      [lovetruth] ansd set me up to hear about Jesus as a consequence
      [lovetruth] that is the conditional predestination Paul teaches
      [Apollos] I see
      [Apollos] so you had love for God in your heart, without knowing it
      [Apollos] kind of an involuntary love
      [Apollos] and Jean didn't have that involuntary love
      [Apollos] So where did this involuntary love come from
      [lovetruth] It is as per John 1:12 not a wholly conscious deal
      [Apollos] since it did not originate with you ?
      [lovetruth] as per JOhn 3:8
      [lovetruth] being obrn of the SPirt is not a wholly conscious evetm
      [Apollos] So you were born of the Spirit without knowing it ?
      [lovetruth] becos it is like the wind Jesus aid
      [Apollos] ok
      [Apollos] I agree
      [lovetruth] remember?
      [Apollos] So really
      [Apollos] The Spirit chose you
      [Apollos] and you did not even know it
      [lovetruth] God chose no one to be lost, so no
      [Apollos] So
      [Apollos] The Spirit of God chose you
      [Apollos] But did not choose Jean
      [Apollos] at least not yet
      [Apollos] Which is why you are saved now
      [Apollos] and he is not
      [Apollos] right ?
      [lovetruth] if u read me, u would know the answer
      [Apollos] I just read you
      [lovetruth] but u are fixed in your ways
      [Apollos] You have no response
      [lovetruth] and carry on irrespective
      [Apollos] as to why you are saved and Jean is not
      [Apollos] you can name off a dozen difference
      [Apollos] but the only answer you have
      [Apollos] is actually biblical
      [Apollos] the Spirit goes where it pleases
      [Apollos] and the Spirit regenerated your heart
      [lovetruth] I choose for life becos God enalbes us all to choose
      [lovetruth] the choice is neutral
      [lovetruth] I have said that
      [Apollos] but did not regenerate Genes
      [Apollos] Jeans
      [lovetruth] now please read me
      [Apollos] I have been reading you
      [lovetruth] but not hearing
      [Apollos] you are now going back on what you said about the passage in John 3
      [Apollos] Either the Spirit goes where it wishes
      [Apollos] or it does not
      [Apollos] You have been unable to provide any reason that You were saved and Jean is not
      [Apollos] other than that God chose you
      [Apollos] and with that, I must go to sleep as well
      [Apollos] goodnight lovetruth
      [lovetruth] Apollos, where does it say the Spirit goes where ti wishes?
      [lovetruth] Good night Apollos

      Thanks to Josh Whipps for editing this for content.

      Here's a video I posted recently that can be a followup to this discussion.


      There's No Such Thing as an Open Minded Person.

      Monday, September 22, 2008

      Many who stand for the notion that God has objectively spoken and established moral laws against such things as lying, stealing, adultery, and, yes, homosexuality are often met with this command from the objector:

      "Be open minded."

      The following argument that I wish to set forth as being not only valid but also sound is that there is no such thing as an open minded person. Yes, this means that everyone is close minded including those who wish to express their intent for others to be open minded.

      What makes one close minded? Well, in order to be close minded about a particular subject, one only needs to find a point at which they agree with one position because that agreement with one position will necessitate their disagreement of the opposite position. The person who believes that homosexuality is wrong is close minded toward the notion that homosexuality is right, but on the same token, the person who believes that homosexuality is right is close minded toward the notion that homosexuality is wrong. Do you see the dilemma? What's ironic, though, is that the person who is in favor of such things as homosexuality, fornication, blackmail, hypocrisy, etc, will very often use the argument "be open minded" to the person who is against those things even though this same individual is just as close minded as the one they are instructing. That's the dilemma in a nutshell.

      To refute all aspects of this notion of "open mindedness", though, let's take the strongest argument that the person who opposes what I've stated could use. Let's say hypothetically that there is a person who is truly open minded. They truly have their mind open to any and everything that has come and will come their way. How could this person be close minded? First we must realize that there are two views here: a) open mindedness and b) close mindedness. This is where it may get a little tricky for some, but keep up with it, and you should get the gist of the argument.: If a person is truly open minded (postion a) ), they have closed their mind off to the possibility that close mindedness (position b) ) is a viable option therefore the hypothetical "open minded" person is completely close minded to a certain position and that being the opposite one. Hence we have yet another case of the self-refuting argument.

      What's the point of this little endeavor? The next time someone tries to bully you with this notion of "being open minded" whether it be in regard to homosexuality, fornicating with them, being "Purpose Driven", and/or the practice of appealing to man's fallen nature to bring people into your local church-business, you can expose them of their hypocrisy and instruct them to repent accordingly.


      Lane's Blog on Facebook... Again
      (...and a thanks to JM Vergara.)

      Since Ingrid reported people having trouble finding Slice using the Blog Application on Facebook, I decided to make her a page. This makes it significantly easier to find on that ever evolving site. After that I started wondering if anyone else may have the same trouble with my blog, so I made a page for here, too. You may now access it by clicking the picture below:

      On another note, thanks to JM Vergara for installing on here the feature you will see if you click...

      ...that "Read More..." button you just clicked. Be sure to check out his great site which you can go to by clicking the following picture.:


      Why I Am Not a "Purpose Driven" Pastor
      with guest Pastor Larry DeBruyn
      (Crosstalk America)

      Friday, September 19, 2008

      To continue listening to this program, click here.

      From Crosstalkamerica.com:

      "Purpose Driven" author Rick Warren has disseminated teachings that need to come under biblical scrutiny. As pastors are placed in a position of serious responsibility, it is critical that they protect their flocks by evaluating Warren's teachings in light of God's Word.

      This Crosstalk featured just such a pastor. His name is Larry DeBruyn and he's the Senior Pastor of Franklin Road Baptist Church of Indianapolis, Indiana. He's also the author of the book, Church on the Rise: Why I Am Not a "Purpose-Driven" Pastor.

      Pastor DeBruyn sensed the urgency for the book in November 2006 when he was teaching in Hungary and suffered a massive coronary. After getting back to the U.S. he decided to make it a priority to examine this subject and tell his congregation why he doesn't identify with the "purpose-driven" philosophy of local church ministry.

      On this program you will hear discussion about ministry becoming industry, how human knowledge is in conflict with God's Word, the doctrinal vacuum of evangelicalism that's pointing back to medieval mysticism, and more.

      This is a video I did for my job with Crosstalk America. You can find more clips at Crosstalk's Official Youtube Channel.



      To the Thoughtless,
      (C.H. Spurgeon)

      Wednesday, September 17, 2008

      Of course I cannot tell what has been the history of all of you, but I may be addressing someone this morning whose life of late has been a series of sorrows. You have plunged from one calamity to another. You have sailed over every known sea of affliction. You know what sickness means—there are in your body the scars of old diseases. You have known what perils mean on the waters and perils on land. Perhaps you have been brought down from competence to poverty. Perhaps you have been deserted, too, by those who should have comforted you—you know almost all the pangs which wring the human heart with anguish.

      Don’t you know that all these are sent to wean you from the world? Will you still cling to it? All these are calls from Heaven, like the voice of hunger in the prodigal when he could not fill his belly with the husks and therefore said, “I will arise and go to my father.” Will you never say the same? How shall God afflict you, now? Is your wife dead? Would you like to lose your child? Is one child gone? Shall death take away the other? Shall the last darling be taken from you?

      What stroke would touch your hard heart? Must the Lord strike again and again, and again and again before you will hear Him? If He is resolved to save you, depend upon it, He will not spare you! He will bring you, somehow or other, to Himself if He means to bless you. Be you not as the horse and the mule which have no understanding—whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle—but yield now to the afflictions you have already suffered, or else you will certainly enhance your guilt by despising the chastening of the Lord!



      This Kid is So Lame.

      Monday, September 15, 2008

      Let's say we're back in high school (if you're not now already). Let's say there is this kid who everyone knows craves attention and wants to be popular, but doesn't quite have that popularity and acceptance from his peers that he craves so. I'm sure we all have a mental picture at this point. Let's say that this person desires so much to be in the "in crowd" that he calls one of the people who he considers to be in it and asks them to call him back. Let's say that when the person in the "in crowd" does call back the kid, the kid goes around telling everyone that "so and so called HIM personally!" If you knew the truth about the reason why this person called him (returning a call) what would you think about this kid? Would you not think someone who called a certain person, had them return his phone call, then bragged to everyone that the person actually called them making it sound like the other person took the initiative was one of the lamest people you have ever met? I know I certainly would. If someone's desire to "be somebody" and "be accepted with a certain crowd" was that evident that they would be as lame to do such a thing, I think it would actually reveal how much of a nobody they actually are. With all that in mind, read this.

      and after you read that, watch this:



      "Curse God and Die." is in the Bible.

      Wednesday, September 10, 2008

      A text out of context becomes a pretext leading to ridiculous interpretation. Many people use the Bible as if it is a fortune cookie - when you crack it open, it tells you something you should do no matter what the context is. If we were to open the Bible looking for some kind of instant-instruction, and take the verse in the title of this post (Job 2:9) out of context, we would be influenced to do what the text says, "Curse God and die." When we read the verse in context, though, we realize that it is actually a quote that Job's wife made to him when things started not to go favorably (in human terms) for him, and afterward he rebukes her. The following video expounds on the importance of reading the Bible, and everything for that matter, in the context of which it is written.



      Reflections: Family Friendly Christian Apparel and Giftware

      Sunday, September 7, 2008

      My sister in the Lord, Carla Rolfe, runs an online store called Reflections where she carries merchandise from Alpha and Omega Ministries and Iron Sharpens Iron among other fine things. (I actually purchased a Radio Free Geneva t-shirt from there just prior to posting this.) Here's the link to the store (click the picture). You might even recognize a "model" on there or two. :)




      James White in Three Islam Debates in Southern California End of September 2008

      Saturday, September 6, 2008

      James White is debating three times on Islam in a matter of two days. These debates will be hosted at two different locations. Here's the information on them. CRN highly recommends attending these if you can. A while back Dr. White changed his emphasis to Islam and even set out to learn Arabic. These debates should be quite helpful. Lord willing, I will be at the first one in Bellflower. (Click the link to zoom in.)



      Faith in God
      (J. Gresham Machen)

      Friday, September 5, 2008

      What is faith in God? J. Gresham Machen explained:

      Read this document on Scribd: Faith in God (J. Gresham Machen)


      Some Thoughts on Limited Atonement and "What Did Jesus Accomplish on the Cross?" by Jim McClarty

      Sunday, August 31, 2008

      Limited (or definite) atonement has to be one of the most hated and most caricatured positions of all that's taught in the systematic theology known as Calvinism. I personally believe that this is due to people not believing that they are rightly condemned before God already for not believing in Christ (John 3:18). Also, I believe that when those who oppose are believers in Christ, this is due to the fact that they don't understand that they don't deserve to believe in Christ. That last statement might sound strange at first, but think about this: Does anyone deserve grace? Is anyone saved apart from grace? If grace is therefore necessary, do our works merit us any salvation or was it Christ alone? Is grace necessary and sufficient or just necessary and not sufficient? I believe this is where the crux of the dispute is. If a person believes that they are saved because of God's grace alone, the idea that God can show mercy to whoever He wants to show mercy to (definite atonement) makes sense. If someone believes they are saved by faith plus any work whatsover whether that work be attending mass, "praying a prayer to ask Jesus into your heart", taking the lonely trip down the aisle called an altar-call, or any of a number of the other things that people think merit them salvation, I'm convinced that the concept of limited atonement will never make sense to them. How could it? If salvation does not rest solely in God's hands but rests in ours, how could someone possibly accept the fact that God doesn't have to save anyone who does whatever work it is that person believes is meritorious? Certain people even turn faith itself into a work when Scripture teaches plainly that it's a gift. (Eph. 2:8-9; Php. 1:29) I believe that the doctrine of definite atonement is a sort of litmus test to a person's humilty although it isn't a foolproof test. If a person realizes that they did nothing but sin against God their entire life, that even their righteousness was as filthy rags, and they do not deserve salvation in any sense, naturally limited atonement will make sense to them, and they'll find themselves agreeing with the doctrine.

      Many disputes arise about it because people just can't bring themselves to believe that Christ came and died with a specific purpose; that purpose being to save His sheep. They hold that Christ must have died for every single person who ever lived in existence. Perhaps the best argument I've heard against this came from the great Puritan John Owen.

      Owen put it like this:

      "The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

      1) All the sins of all men.
      2) All the sins of some men, or
      3) Some of the sins of all men.

      In which case it may be said:

      That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
      That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
      But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
      You answer, "Because of unbelief."

      I ask, "Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it is, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

      (The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Book 3, Ch. 3)

      This analysis by Owen makes perfect sense logically. If there's a sin that Jesus didn't die for on my behalf, I still have to pay for that sin. Also, if I've transgressed one law (sin) I've transgressed them all, (Jms. 2:10) If all these factors are true, how could I not stand condemned before God? The only way is if I had a substitute who kept the law perfectly in my place; so perfectly that not one jot nor tittle passed away but was fulfilled in Him. This is what Jesus did. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom 10:4) If He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (as He said in Matt. 5:17) then who did He fulfill it for? On who's behalf was the law fulfilled? It was fulfilled on the behalf of everyone who has broken at least one of God's laws and is guilty of all AND who also believe on Him. The question must arise then, "Did he do this for everyone?" If so, why does the Bible speak so forthcoming about hell? Obviously He didn't substitute himself for everyone. Why are there unbelievers? It is because faith is a gift, and if faith is a gift, then God is not obligated to give everyone His gift. If he were obligated to give this saving grace to everyone, it would no longer be a gift, but a wage; a compensation for some sort of work the person did to merit saving grace. As Romans 11:6 states, though, if (salvation) is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

      I said all that to basically prime the following video. Jim McClarty is a brother who leads a Sovereign Grace fellowship in Smyrna, Tennessee. He goes further into the teaching of limited atonement, and I believe the following hour will be well worth your time. I don't think I truly had love and understanding for Christ and what He's done until I understood "that dreaded L" that so many of us have had problems with or may even still have. This video should alleviate some of those concerns.


      Jesus Christ's Limited Atonement?



      Related Posts with Thumbnails

      A Blue Ink Blog