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

Blog Archive


Paid Advertising

    • Site Meter

      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.:


      Related Posts with Thumbnails

      A Blue Ink Blog