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

      Being What You Are - Romans 6 and Regeneration
      (Paul Washer)

      Tuesday, April 29, 2008

      From Sermonaudio's description:

      In this very important message Paul preaches about those even in the Reformed Camp that have too LOW a view of Regeneration and its effects.

      (Thanks to Matt Haney for letting me know he posted the video on Sermonaudio.)



      Why I Didn't Go to Westminster Theological Seminary
      (Michael Oh)

      Monday, April 28, 2008

      I found this sermon earlier tonight. It's only 20 minutes long, but it's very well said. It's very convicting to hear how the faithful outside of America view what is passing itself off as "Christianity" these days here in this land. It's 20 minutes well spent.

      (I didn't post this as a knock against Westminster. I'm not familiar enough with how the school operates to give an adequate evaluation of it. I posted it because of his criticism of "Americanity" as a whole. Even Oh says that he's appreciative for Westminster during this lecture so I don't think it was his intention to dismiss the seminary, either.)

      Here's some info on Dr. Oh:

      Michael is president and founder of Christ Bible Seminary in Nagoya, Japan ( www.shingakkou.net). Born and raised in the Philadelphia area, Michael attended the University of Pennsylvania as an undergraduate where he also received his Master's degree in Education and his PhD in Leadership and Cultural Anthropology from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Michael received his seminary training at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School where he earned a Master of Divinity degree. After serving short-term in Japan in 1998-1999 and planting Chita Zion Church, Michael completed a Master's degree in East Asian Studies on a Regional Studies scholarship at Harvard University with a concentration in Japanese anthropology and sociology.

      Michael and Pearl moved back to Japan in January of 2004 with their daughters Hannah and Mikaela. Since then two more daughters Eowyn and Elliot were born in Nagoya. Michael is a PCA Teaching Elder in the Philadelphia Presbytery and is actively involved in the executive leadership of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. Michael recently gave the keynote address for the Lausanne Younger Leaders Gathering in Malaysia before 550 young Christian leaders from over 110 nations. You can learn more about this ministry at http://cbijapan.org/fonts and at Michael's blog ( http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ohfamily).



      The Erroneous Doctrines of Justification

      Sunday, April 27, 2008

      Some people think a lot when they're in the shower. Others think when they're driving. I, for some reason, tend to think about things more deeply than not when I'm playing basketball. I was playing a while back and started to think about all the erroneous doctrines of justification that people (myself included at one time) believe in. I thought it would be helpful to go through many of these here and show how they don't save anyone. At the end, I'll provide the Biblical doctrine of justification and links to resources for you to learn more about it or sharpen your understanding of it. Please comment if you're led and give ones that I haven't addressed. That's one of the main reasons for this post. It was meant to be just a few and then have more added on in the comment section. We can discuss these there. I started this list a while ago and have been slowly adding to it. I may give several updates in the near future, too, of ones that I thought of or other great ones that have been mentioned. I know there are many, many more that I haven't mentioned here.

      The Erroneous Doctrines of Justification

      1) Justification by Faith Plus Works

      This may be the most obvious one. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a person is justified by faith and works. In other words, a person receives grace, cooperates with it, and then becomes justified over a matter of time. This is erroneous because Paul the Apostle said,

      "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
      (Rom 11:5-6)

      He makes a stark contrast between grace and works. He doesn't let the two intertwine. Also note what he said in regards to why there is a remnant. Paul's words are it's because of the ἐκλογή of grace.

      The greek word ἐκλογή means:

      1) the act of picking out, choosing
      1a) of the act of God’s free will by which before the foundation of the world he decreed his blessings to certain persons
      1b) the decree made from choice by which he determined to bless certain persons through Christ by grace alone
      2) a thing or person chosen
      2a) of persons: God’s elect


      2) Justification by Athletic Ability

      This one may be one that irks me the most because I'm exposed to it so often. For example, someone will see two people. Both are known fornicators. One happens to run a copy shop, the other plays wide receiver for an NFL team. The person who holds to justification by athletic ability would say of the person in the copy shop, "Oh, goodness! What a horrible person! They are lucky God doesn't send them to hell right now! How despicable! What trash!" while they would say of the professional athlete, "Well, you know how it is in professional sports. Most everyone is doing it. Thank goodness God loves everyone. We shouldn't be judgmental. I'm sure he's a good boy." When you run across the religious hypocrite that would say these two things concerning these two people based on whether one makes copies or one is well known for catching an inflated piece of leather, you've run into an idolatrous person who holds to justification by athletic ability. These are the same people who would rather debate "what would Jesus do?" but care less about what Jesus Christ has actually done. Needless to say, this is unbiblical and the person who holds to it is actually in danger of hell fire themselves. Many athletes hold to this, as well. "If I can do well in this game, I'm justified because so and so will think I am or tell me so." It's dangerous, heretical ground that all stems from people being a respecter of persons which God in no way is.

      3) Justification by a Certain Amount of Money

      This is another that irks me greatly. Many people think that if they meet a certain status quo, they are justified. The thing about this one (as many others) is that it is true in one respect: people who have a certain amount of money are justified by trivial, insincere people but not by God. In other words, if your annual income meets a certain limit, then "waa-lah" friends come out as if it were magic and tell you how good you are. Lose that money, then they're off to find their next meal ticket.

      4) Justification by Death

      R.C. Sproul says that one of the concepts he runs into most frequently is this doctrine of justificaiton by death. What does that mean exactly? Well, simply this: "Everyone who dies goes to heaven." At it's core, it's universalism, but many people hold to it today.

      5) Justification by Reaching a Certain Age

      There are many who hold to this doctrine, as well. Justification by reaching a certain age means that "even though so and so did terrible things, he's old so he's alright." In other words, when a person reaches senior citizenship, for example, they're justified in whatever sinful thing they do. This isn't solely held to be senior citizens, though. We see this in our culture with young adults, as well. "Well, it wasn't alright for Debbie to get drunk when she was 18, but she's 22 now so it's perfectly justifiable." Does reaching a certain age really justify anyone, though? If so, why did Christ have to die, and why is belief on Him the only way to avoid condemnation?

      6) Justification by Membership to a Religious Denomination

      I grew up with this one. I grew up Arminian Southern Baptist and thought that because I was, there was something wrong with everyone else. "There are other churches? This cannot be!" I was justified because of my affiliation to the Southern Baptist Church... so I thought. That's what happens, though, when there isn't enough teaching from the Bible and too much talk about the football game from Friday night or where the fish are biting, etc. For a long time, I thought that to be justified before God, I had to be Southern Baptist. Needless to say, God taught me some humility since then. That's a testament to His grace. Now, think about that for a second, though. I was trusting in my church goings/membership and not Christ. Was I truly saved? Is anyone who is not trusting in Christ's finished work on the Cross alone? It's something to think about. On a side note, recent reports came out saying that the Southern Baptist denomination is on the decline in numbers. "Oh, gosh!" Here's something these people may want to consider: There has been much talk about these numbers since they've come out; I mean it's as if someone just died, but when they host Brian McLaren or some other emergent at an event, there is little said. It just kind of goes to show you where a lot of the emphasis is there. You can almost hear one of the heads saying long ago, "lol, these people don't think... just entertain them to death... give them what they want... it's about the numbers..." Now you can almost hear the same people saying "GASP! They did the unthinkable! They actually thought their convictions through!" Of course this doesn't speak of everyone in that denomination because I know of many great brothers and sisters in there (Ascol, Mohler, etc.), but this does speak of the arrogant ones who have been worshiping their Lord and "Savior" Popularity and are now having it to come back to bite them.

      "You want to grow your church? Preach the Word." - Sproul

      7) Justification by Marriage

      Here's a brief history on me. I got involved in relationships that I shouldn't have been a part of. I did things that I shouldn't have done (things that are only allowable in marriage.) I thought, in order to be justified from those things, I had to get married then all my past sins would be washed away merely because I got married. Many people think this, as well. Again, though, if this is true, then Christ didn't have to die so this is given as another example of an erroneous doctrine of justification.

      8) Justification by Waiting a Set Amount of Time

      I dated a girl who I did things with that were not faithful to God. After we broke up and I was pretty much a wreck, she told me, "Just wait a little while. Things will get better over time." Well, needless to say, without God they didn't. As Jeff Noblit says, "Time doesn't forgive sins." It's true. Many people think that if they make it a certain amount of time, everything will be ok; they will be justified. This is not the case. I was talking to someone the other day who is about 60 years old. They used to look at pornography when they were younger (about mid 20's or so). I told them that if Jesus Christ had not set them free from their sin from their 20's they still aren't free from it no matter how much they think they've gotten away with it. We got further into the conversation. Words escalated. Eventually it came to the point where they explicity said rather smugly, "Yes. I looked at them then, and I'd look at them again today." No contrition. No repentance. They have been merely living on presumption that they are justified because "they did that a long time ago." The belief of "I did that a long time ago..." never justified anyone and never will yet many are holding to that as their justification and not Christ alone.

      9) Justification by Popularity

      I also grew up with this one. I got involved in some sin that no one ever knew about, but I figured if I got in with the "right" crowd, I'd be justified because "bygones would be bygones."

      10) Justification by Unbelief in Christ

      This one may sound strange until you think it through. Professing atheists use this one often. "I don't believe in Jesus Christ so I don't have to worry about sin, hell, judgment, wrath, etc." In essence, they are saying that because they don't believe in God, then they are righteous or justified. "If God doesn't exist, then the law he gave isn't valid so I'm justified by whatever I want to do." It doesn't make any sense, does it? Well not much that I've heard from professing atheists do.

      This is just a short list, as I've said, and I've left out many that I know I could have expounded upon purposely so people can expound on them in the comment section. "Justification by Being Culturally Relevant" is one that I willfully omitted that someone may want to touch on.

      True Justification is by faith in Jesus the Christ alone. There is no other way to have remission for your sins. His righteousness imputed to you and your sin imputed to Him is the only way a person can have the righteousness God demands. It's a gift of God, not of works. If it was, then we all could boast ourselves.

      Here are two sermons by C.H. Spurgeon that I listened to when I was first understanding what it means to be justified before God. I pray they provide the same blessing to you that they have to me if not more so.



      The King's Battle II
      (Mark Kielar)

      Saturday, April 26, 2008



      Paul Washer Preaching to Reformed Rappers
      (2007 Legacy Conference)

      Thursday, April 24, 2008

      Before you watch this, I believe I should state my position on Reformed Rap music. I view the listening of it to be a matter of Christian liberty. As far as me, I used to listen to secular rap music a lot growing up. The more the Lord drew me, the more I started listening to people like Trip Lee and Lecrae and less to people like A Tribe Called Quest and Atmosphere though. For me, this type of music (namely the more "krunk" type) has a tendency to bring out my flesh. I know many dear brothers and sisters who listen to it that say they are are not affected by it, and I take them at their word. I may be the weaker brother in this sense. I have a friend who used to be a Christian rapper, but they, too, can't bring their self to do it anymore because it has a tendency to bring out the flesh in them, as well. I can read the lyrics to these songs and be in total agreement to what they present the majority of the time, but, again, it comes down to it being a stumbling block for me at this present time so it's a matter of subjectivity. I wanted to state this so I'm clear that it's not a matter of me condemning or promoting the listening of it in regards to others as a whole, but rather sharing how it affects me and whether or not I endorse it in regards to myself. I hold Reformed Rappers like Lecrae and Trip Lee to be dear brothers in Christ even though I find their music entices my flesh at times. I believe this may be in a large part due to the secular and gangster rap I used to listen to growing up and not a product of their music directly.  There are other rappers such as Shai Linne that I don't find myself having trouble with, however.  I think my friend, Eddie, at Recover the Gospel (a site I post on regularly) provides great thoughts on this subject, too. Again, I just wanted to share my stance on this issue. Here's the sermon by Paul Washer. I share many of his sentiments:



      lanechaplin.blogspot.com is Now lanechaplin.com

      Frequent Readers and Visitors,

      This is just a quick "head's-up" for anyone who might be wondering why the banner link and Youtube links are different now. Earlier today, I changed the domain name from lanechaplin.blogspot.com to lanechaplin.com . You can still access the site using the old url, but the new one is where I will direct my links to in the future. One of the reasons I did this was because of the features Blogger adds for people who register an account with GoDaddy! through the publishing tab in the options for admins. I hope to add custom pages in the future that I can just put select material on for those who have specific questions and would like to find all the information in one concise place. For a great example of this, see Philip @ Reformed Voices' page about "Is Calvinism Dangerous?" It's something that I'd like to explore doing in the future and this feature makes it that much easier. So, in short, if all of you gracious people who have linked here would change your link to lanechaplin.com instead of the blogspot url, that would help in the switchover. Blogger says after about 3 days, they will redirect all urls that go to the blogspot url to the new one. If you haven't linked here before and decided to now, please be sure to let me know if you do in the comment section, and if I find your site edifying (ie not emergent/atheistic or seeker-sensitive) I will provide a link to it in my list of great sites, too. I'm thankful that God has used this little site in ways that I didn't realize He would, and pray that He continues to in the future if it's His will.

      Thanks again,

      Also, here is a channel banner for anyone who would like to include it in their sidebar. Thanks to Ben Davis from Symphony of Scripture for developing this. It is 280x48, but if anyone would like another size, just let me know. I'll send you the html code, then:



      Homosexual Marriage Debate 4/22/08
      (James White vs. Michael Schutz)

      Wednesday, April 23, 2008

      Here is the entire, brief debate on homosexual marriage between James White and Michael Schutz that occurred April 22, 2008. It's a little longer than 50 minutes and 5 videos long.



      Three Views on the Millennial Reign of Christ [UPDATE 4/24/08]
      (Video of the Basics - Doug Eaton)

      Talk about providence... A friend of mine and I started talking about wanting to learn more about eschatology about a week ago. Her Pastor and friend are both hold the dispensational view. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue because I haven't studied eschatology enough to feel comfortable to give a definitive answer as to this so we both decided to study more into it. I listened to one of Kim Riddlebarger's mp3s about amillennialism earlier this week so I'm trying to understand the basics of what each teach then go from there. I have several friends who are amil and several who are premil. Lo and behold, Doug Eaton, who I've posted material from several times before, posted a quick video earlier today to give the basic definitions of what three different views teach: amillennial, postmillennial, and premillennial. Here is that video for anyone who may be an eschatological rookie such as myself.

      PS. Don't worry - I know to stay away from full Preterism. :)

      UPDATE (4/24/08):

      Here is a post written by Doug Eaton looking at the subject of eschatology more closely.



      Judge Not?

      Monday, April 21, 2008

      "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

      - Jesus the Christ
      (John 7:24)

      (This is a clip from the great documentary Hell's Bells 2.)



      Does Not God Count My Steps?
      (John Calvin)

      "I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid? For what portion of God is there from above? and what inheritance of the Almighty from on high? Is not destruction to the wicked? and a strange punishment to the workers of iniquity? Doth not he see my ways, and count all my steps?"

      (Job 31:1-4)

      This is a great sermon for those who struggle with lust, adultery in the heart, pornography, etc.



      The King's Battle
      (Mark Kielar)

      Sunday, April 20, 2008


      Limited Atonement and Evangelism
      (Paul Washer)

      Saturday, April 19, 2008

      I don't really like the term "limited atonement". Even Arminians believe in limited atonement in a sense. The term is kind of vague, and I believe it doesn't adequately represent the doctrine of God completely saving certain people and not just merely making a plan or salvation a hypothetical possibility unless a person does whatever is in "the list." I prefer "definite atonement" or "particular redemption", but I put the title of this post as is because there is so much confusion surrounding that term. I also don't know how many times I've heard "Well, Paul Washer doesn't believe in all that Calvinistic stuff..." This sermon sheds light on both matters.



      Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Opens Tomorrow
      (April 18th, 2008) [Update 4/18/08]

      Thursday, April 17, 2008

      Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is opening tomorrow, April 18th, 2008. I am very excited about this movie. I used to go to the movies a lot in times past, but don't as much anymore. This is mainly because the more God sanctifies me, the less entertainment I desire. Ravenhill used to say that "Entertainment is the devil's substitute for joy." I believe he is right in many respects. This movie, however, is something that I believe is going to benefit people who see it. It will not be mindless entertainment. The clips I've seen of it are very intriguing, and I've heard Ray Comfort say that the "showdown" with Dawkins at the end is worth the price of admission alone in so many words. I wasn't really interested in the movie until I saw the "Super Trailer". After that, Expelled added one more person to their viewership, Lord willing. Here it is now for those of you who haven't seen it.

      Here is the new trailer for the movie:

      And here is an interview R.C. Sproul had with Ben Stein that I posted a while back.

      UPDATE 4/18/08:

      Here's an interesting article about pro-evolutionists trying to stop free-speech by taking Expelled to court. The show's Executive Producer, Walt Ruloff said,
      "It is interesting that these efforts are made less than 10 days before the movie debuts and involve those who continually seek to thwart open debate. While bullying tactics may work against some individuals who are trying to explore the origins of life, it will not work against us. We certainly will not allow a small group of self-appointed gatekeepers to infringe our rights of free speech and our obligation to expose them for what they are -- namely, intellectual thugs unwilling to accept any dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy."



      Swordofthelord.us - A Great Resource

      Wednesday, April 16, 2008

      Sword Of The Lord.us

      I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with Swordofthelord.us. I've known about it for about two years now, and it has been very beneficial. I have been reading Edward's Freedom of the Will from it by pdf recently. They have so many works online that you can download or read. I'm not sure of too many sites that have more of these great works in one place. Here is the link to the library.



      Meek Does Not Mean Weak
      (Mark Kielar)

      I'm not sure if you've been listening to Mark Kielar's sermons on the Beatitudes, but they are amazing. I heard one today on how being a peace-keeper is radically different than being a peace-maker as God wants believers to be. It is such a wonderful encouragement for anyone who has ever suffered for speaking out against sin and for repentance and faith. When that one's published, I'll post it, too, Lord willing.

      I posted this one on Youtube a few weeks ago using 6 videos (something I don't normally do; have never done, actually) because it was that wonderful. Here is the video in it's entirety. Kielar deals with the subject of how being meek does not mean being weak. It's very educational and will inspire you if you pay attention to it. It isn't simply a temporary "lift me up" which is why I find it so edifying. Here it is for your convenience. (Give the audio a minute after the sermon starts. They apparently had a few technical difficulties at first.)



      The Debate I Didn't Know I Was In... (Updated 9/9/08 - FINAL)

      Monday, April 14, 2008

      UPDATE 9/9/08:

      Before you set out to read any of this, know that the following post was written in April of 2008. Since then, Josh contacted me with a sincere letter of apology - one that I accept wholeheartedly. We've reconciled our differences in terms of methodology, and I believe it's beneficial to include our correspondence here before you even set out to read the rest of the post. It's a testimony of the grace of God working in the hearts of those who don't deserve it (myself included). If it wasn't for God's grace, I know I couldn't have forgiven Josh. All praises to Him. Here are the emails from 9/9/08:


      I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to write and offer you a sincere apology for some of the things that happened a few months ago. To say that a lot can happen in a short time is an understatement. I've been involved in quite a bit more discussion with opposing viewpoints since then, and I began to think about the course of action that I took with you. I've tried to implement the golden rule in the situation, and I realize that I would have felt the same way you did had someone acted toward me in that manner. It was poor judgment on my part to publish our comments on my Bebo page in the manner and format that I did, ESPECIALLY without even discussing it with you first. As I prepare to enter seminary next year and become acquainted with more Christian scholars, I realize that there is a proper way to handle doctrinal disagreements, and I did not follow that propriety. Above and beyond a Wesleyan Arminian, I want to be a defender of the Christian faith. In doing so, I see very clearly that I need the partnership of those in the Reformed tradition. Though I want to continue to discuss issues of soteriology, I don't want to do so with hostility toward Christian brethren. I've known I was wrong for quite some time now, and I thought the solution was to simply move on and not make the same mistake again. However, the Spirit of God, who is continuing to sanctify me, would not let me alone until I submitted this apology to you. I hope you will receive it with the same sincerity that it's been given.

      Josh Ratliff

      P.S. Feel free to post this in whatever forum you wish.

      My reply:

      Hi, Josh.

      First, I want you to know that I do not view your letter as a sign of weakness in the least. I know unbelievers would scoff at what you've written and declare it as such, but I see it as a sign of strength; that strength that comes from the Lord. I am truly appreciative of this. I believe it takes great courage to write as you've done, and I forgive you sincerely. Thanks for taking the time to write me about this. Since I included so much great material on that post I wrote, I'm going to leave it up, but I'm going to make this an update at the very beginning letting everyone know that you've apologized and we've reconciled before they even set out to read that article. I think it provides a great example of how God works in the hearts of all of us. I pray that your time in seminary goes well and that you continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior.

      Thanks again and take care,

      Here's the original post from April of 2008:

      BREAKING NEWS! I figured I'd get this out so you could say you heard it here first!

      Apparently I was in a debate recently in Youtube comments. Yes, you heard right... I said "Youtube comments." Well at least that's what the person I replied to in the commenting section on Youtube is claiming it was. This writer finds it humorous that the one making these claims didn't believe he got a meaningful response or a coherent answer in 500 characters or less. :)

      Ligonier gave me permission to post a video by R.C. Sproul that deals with how salvation is because of God's choice and not because of our works. Since it's on Youtube, as with most of the videos I post, I allow comments. I received one from a person by the name of JoshRatliff who started off with saying,
      "As the Arminians are also accused, Sproul approaches this text with the presuppositions derived from seminal truths given by Calvin. "Hate" is an idiom of preference(Lk. 14:26). "Election" has a much broader term when taken in context with the whole of Scripture(1 Tim 5:21, 1 Pet 2:6). Also, I Pet 1:2 debunks the point he was attempting to make about foreknowledge. There are other great truths that can be discussed in in Rom 9 concerning choice. Anyone can e-mail me to finish the discussion."
      If anyone has any idea what he's saying about the "Hate" issue, please share it with me because I'm still confused as to it all. The rest of the comment pretty much showed that he doesn't believe that God chooses people unto salvation even though Scripture says differently. (Eph. 1:4-5)

      Well, I responded back to the part I actually followed in his comment and a few more comments after that then "Waalah!" - all of a sudden, he claims we were involved in a debate and claims victory for himself by such statements as "It is a little lengthy, but at least read over it, and you'll get a feel for the Calvinist's erroneous position." and "[I HAVE RECEIVED NO FURTHER RESPONSES FROM EITHER CALVINIST]" Obviously Mr. Ratliff needed to give himself an "atta-boy" for his ability to utterly confuse the opposite side. (Apparently he needed to, too, since it's been posted for 10 days and only one person has posted a response comment as opposed to his earlier post that is boasting 20.) You can read all of our comments here and his reply to them here. He starts off this endeavor by saying
      "This is a recent debate that I engaged in with a Calvinist by the name of Lane Chaplin. The first comment that you'll read is my response to a video Chaplin had posted on YouTube. This video contained R.C. Sproul's teaching on Romans 9. Sproul was misusing the text in order to preach his doctrine that God predestines man giving him no choice in his salvation. Things really got interesting when Chaplin abandoned the debate altogether and allowed his friend who goes by "5xSola" to take over. From the beginning, you will see that Chaplin had no real understanding of my position. We had to spend a great deal of time at first getting past his accusations of me trying to change a part of speech in Romans 8. If you don't wish to read through all of that, simply scroll about half way down to the dividing line where "5xSola" begins responding and you'll actually see some more intelligent interaction.

      It is a little lengthy, but at least read over it, and you'll get a feel for the Calvinist's erroneous position. Again, the debate is more informative toward the end. You might be unfamiliar with some of the terminology we use, but feel free to contact me and ask any questions you like. I would be more than happy to discuss it with you!"
      (emphasis mine)

      "From the beginning, you will see that Chaplin had no real understanding of my position." Amen. I still don't. It's kind of impossible if one doesn't explain it, Mr. Ratliff. Knowledgeable readers will read the comments and see the utter obfuscation in the comments. Several people that I sent this to agreed that he wasn't exactly "being clear" in what he was putting forth.

      Let me say now that I don't devote an enormous amount of time reading and giving serious thought to Youtube comments. Whether it's the professing atheist "educating" me about Mithras or the Satanist giving random assertions followed with "Hail Satan", I just haven't found Youtube commenting to be an edifying medium as a whole. Not only that but other responsibilities take time. For example, this week I'm helping James White gather material for his upcoming debate so when I come across a comment that begins ""Hate" is an idiom of preference(Lk. 14:26)" I generally reject or approve them, maybe post a response (within 500 characters, of course :) ) and move on. Occasionally I do have some sincerely want to ask a question or even disagree with me on stuff without resorting to obfuscation and presenting their discussions with amity, but those are few and far between. After being on there for a year and posting videos, I can pretty much tell the sincere comments apart from those that support the "Greggian Ambiguity" philosophy. I will say that although Mr. Ratliff wasn't clear with what he presented, he was very cordial in his private messages to me on Youtube when he informed me that Youtube wasn't allowing him to comment on the video when he tried despite everyone else who tried being able to and his ability to comment on other videos.

      Eventually, after asking several friends to read the comments and try to make heads or tails of what Mr. Ratliff was saying, myself and others gave up because there's only so much obfuscation that one can take. It's true that there hasn't been much of a serious apologetic based on exegeting Scripture from those who oppose Reformed theology just as we saw in last week's debate with James White and Steve Gregg which I was really looking forward to because it was said that "Gregg was the one to beat." (endquote) To say I was disappointed is an understatement. If you have to make other people utterly confused as to what you're saying and what your position is to then go off and claim victory for yourself and say the other party didn't really approach the topic intellectually, well, that just shows how coherent your position actually is. All those who heard James White and Steve Gregg last week can attest to that. It's called "assuming your position". For example, Mr. Ratliff basically asserted things like "Also, I Pet 1:2 debunks the point he was attempting to make about foreknowledge." Oh, so that ends all debate apparently. It's random assertions and assuming your position that makes Arminianism or any non-Calvinist position fall flat when it's taken in light of all of Scripture. At least when Calvinists say "this is this" they can go to this and this chapter and verse to show you where it is, take Scripture as a whole, and exegete it from there. I've seen very often that non-Calvinists can find something in the Bible like the word "foreknoweldge" (which is a noun) and assume that it's that way throughout Scripture even though it's a verb in Romans 8:29! Even after all this, I still don't agree that ignorance is bliss, though. I was Arminian Southern Baptist and one time and miserable. It should really come as no surprise at this point to share that Mr. Ratliff is an advocate for Dave Hunt's position on Calvinism as you can see here on his website. Take his poll for example:

      In light of my recent debate and video, what is your view on salvation?
      a) I believe that a person must choose to repent and be saved. (Anthropological Freedom)
      b) I believe that a person must work hard to go to heaven.
      c) I believe that God predestines certain men to be saved without any choice of their own. (Calvinism)

      The video he speaks of is Dave Hunt's. Yes, folks; Dave Hunt. Those of us who are familiar with Hunt's "work" in the field of Reformed Theology may find it ironic that Mr. Ratliff accuses people of not approaching topics intellectually yet promotes Hunt in this respect.

      Again, here are the comments, here is his post, and Advil is available online here.

      Editor's Note: Mr. Ratliff has informed me in the comment section that his website is a personal blog which is why he used the term "debate" even though it is public to the entire world and anyone possessing a computer with an internet connection. If all you have to do is claim a site to be personal to say whatever you want however you want, then what would stop me from doing that here or on the Youtube site regardless of the audience and regardless of the facts?

      Ah, that's right... integrity.

      For those of you who read the assertion about "corporate election" by Mr. Ratliff and are still a little puzzled by it, you may be interested in this presentation by James White. He refutes the point within the first 20 minutes. Mr. Ratliff has challenged me to an audio debate, but taking into account how the last one went :) and my other responsibilities, I'll pass for now; in the future, perhaps. In the meantime, you can listen to people much better qualified than myself that I have learned from who have already refuted the arguments time and time again in the past. For example, give this 20 minutes in. I'm sure you will find it edifying... unless you promote Huntegesis, that is.:

      UPDATE 4/15/08:

      Mr. Ratliff wrote a new post called "The Calvinist" where he makes the following statements. I'll just answer them now for argument's sake:

      I received an e-mail on YouTube a few moments ago, and apparently my Calvinist friends have happened across my Bebo page. They don't seem too pleased with my posting their comments. They really seem to be offended that I called it a debate. Lane Chaplin wrote in a blog on his page that he found it "humorous. "
      That was Jack (5xSolas) who emailed him. He let me know about it in a message I read after I got back this evening. It appears that Mr. Ratliff continues to read things into texts. I will clear the air now, by saying, "I AM NOT OFFENDED". I made the comment "I find it humorous..." because I find it humorous. It wasn't because I wanted some special meaning read into what I wrote. Apparently eisegesis isn't novel to Scripture for Mr. Ratliff in terms of his view of the Biblical doctrine of predestination. I find it humorous that someone took comments from a Youtube page, posted them on their site, and titled it "Debating Calvinism: Josh Ratliff and Lane Chaplin." That's what I find humorous. Apparently I'm not alone in my observation, either. Many people greeted me tonight on my arrival to James White's chatroom to "console me for the loss". (Yes, they were expresssing sarcasm.) He further stated:

      "5 x Sola" called it the "great covert debate." I suppose they were upset because it wasn't official with a moderator and so forth."

      If someone can read this post and get the idea that I was upset in an angry way, we can talk about getting help with your eisegesis in this matter, too. Just email me. I am upset in the fact that someone is trying to promulgate that it was a debate whether official or not. These are Youtube comments, folks. Let me repeat for those obfuscationally challenged... "These are Youtube comments."
      They claim that I was "confusing." You can decide for yourself. Chaplin was the one who decided to stop commenting altogether after I expressly told him that I would clarify anything "confusing" about my position. Instead of doing this, you will see from his blog that he just chooses to make light of my comments saying that he has no idea what I'm not talking about. In light of this, I have challenged him to a moderated audio debate. I'll keep you posted concerning the details.
      Certainly you can decide for yourself. If you read that and understand what he's saying in the majority of those comments, please enlighten me. Mr. Ratliff's attempt at "clarifying his position" included such assertions as "Concerning election, I'm not refuting it, I'm seeking to let the Scriptures speak- not simply read redemption into Rom. 9:11." and "I was not refuting that God is the noun and foreknew is the verb in Rom8:29. But if you take Piper's view on foreknowledge, 1Pet1:2 would read,"Elect according to the election of God." Rom 8:29 would be equally redundant." ...Yeah. As far as the debate is concerned, I've already addressed that above. You may be able to read about my decline in a post on his site soon where he may state that he won another "debate" by default declination. Just a guess if prior actions prove to repeat themselves. He continues:
      In other news, "5x Sola" has responded to more of my comments. I have too much philosophy homework to put them together in the same format as the last blog. (Plus, I'm afraid the Calvinists might find my house if I do, JK!) At any rate you can view the rest of the debate (oops, I mean comments) here:
      If any of my Calvinist brethren aren't having their baby-eating night tonight, perhaps you might like to respond to him here, too. As I've already stated, I gave up wading through obfuscation a long time ago, but I may still give it a shot depending on what's posted in the future, time permitting, and Lord willing. If you decide to, remember the link for Advil is still posted here for our convenience.

      UPDATE 4/16/08:

      Mr. Ratliff saw fit to write "one last update" in which he says "I know that you all are probably as tired of this as I am, but I wanted to give one last update as to the situation with the Calvinists." Apparently he's so tired of the issue he initially brought up that he wanted to write another post. ...Yeah. Also, he claims that his comments weren't confusing because he's found people who haven't found them confusing, either. When I played basketball, didn't do well, and knew it, my Mom always told me that I did great, too. Family members and close friends don't count necessarily, Mr. Ratliff. I've had people I don't even know read your comments and tell me that you run around the situations presented and obfuscate points made, sir. I sincerely hope you aren't relying on those.

      I'm not going to comment on this issue anymore after this; I'm conserving rope. :) If you read this, that's probably all that needs to be said.

      "Running scared",

      One last thing to address that I meant to in the last paragraph, but didn't. Mr. Ratliff said, "The sad part in all of this is that it has served as a diversion from the main issue, and that is the Calvinist position of unconditional election. I really want people to know the truth that God's grace is a free gift that takes absolutely no work or effort to receive, and this is one avenue that I thought would be beneficial."

      Here are plenty of resources for you and those who you want to know the truth to study, Mr. Ratliff.

      Here are a few to stream, too:

      Here's a little more info on Dave Hunt's "credibility":

      In light of recent events, I find these three sermons quite appropriate.



      "Contextualize That."
      (Pyromaniacs Link)

      Sunday, April 13, 2008

      This is a blog article that was posted today by Phil Johnson. As always, he lays out the issues and shows which are according to Scripture and which are not. I thought I'd share this for those who aren't aware of Pyromanics (all three of you).

      HT: Pyromaniacs
      (By Phil Johnson)

      For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

      Charity is defined in 1 Corinthians 13. Among other things, it "does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth" (v. 6).

      "Charitableness" (the postmodern substitute for charity) is something altogether different. It's a broad-minded, insouciantly tolerant, unrelenting goodwill toward practically every conceivable opinion. Its twin virtue—often labeled "epistemic humility'—is a cool refusal to hold any firm and settled convictions. These cardinal postmodern moral values are both seasoned with blithe indifference to the dangers of heresy.

      In other words, if you want to be "charitable" by the postmodern definition, you must always leave open the possibility that someone else's truth is equal to if not better than yours. You must never write off other people's beliefs completely. Above all, you must seek to be conciliatory, not confrontive. Bottom line: you pretty much take the position that nothing we believe is ultimately anything more than a personal opinion.

      Naturally, then, building bridges to non-Christian worldviews is deemed a better tactic than challenging error head on. Winning the admiration of unbelievers becomes vastly more important than demolishing the false ideologies that bind them. As a matter of fact, one of the best ways to gain non-Christians' respect and appreciation is by looking for common ground and then stressing those areas of agreement, rather than pointing out differences between what the non-Christian believes and what the Bible teaches. The more compliments and congratulations you can give to other points of view, the better. And the more your ideological adversaries like you at the end of the dialogue, the more gratified you are entitled to feel.


      (Click here to continue reading)



      "Why Do You Believe Reformed Theology?"

      Saturday, April 12, 2008

      "Why Do You Believe Reformed Theology?" The short answer is that it's because I'm elect. I don't know how else to put it. If someone believes Reformed Theology sincerely, I'm not sure how they couldn't be. To say that it's not exactly the most entertaining, attractive "theology" to the carnal mind is an understatement. God's sovereign grace and His providence is the only explanation I can offer for that. I'm asked often if I know of a good, concise presentation not of the 5 points of Calvinism necessarily, but why I believe the doctrines of grace are what the Scriptures teach. Years ago, these mp3s were the two that turned me on to reformed theology. Before I was dilly-dallying around with KJVO and basically what was a mix of Arminianism and Pelagianism. (For those who believe the doctrines of grace and know what those two are, I'm sure you're saying "Amen" that God delivered me from that. The "as were some of you..." verse rings clear to me when I think back to those times.) God has used James White mightily in my life and in the lives of many. His uncompromising view of Scripture is welcomed by only those who believe that Scripture trumps tradition whether it be Roman Catholic, KJVO, or, as recent times has shown us, seeker-sensitive. These two mp3s will explain to you in a very large part why I believe Reformed Theology to be the true exposition of Scripture.



      Sermonaudio Now Has an Embed Player Option!

      Friday, April 11, 2008

      One of the main reasons I joined imeem is because I had so much great material that I got from Sermonaudio that I wanted to stream on this site to share with others. Sermonaudio must have realized that blogging is becoming more and more popular and recently introduced the option to allow streaming audio to be played directly from their site on yours. This will definitely add to the content that will be shared on the internet now that it's this easy to do so.

      To show you what it looks like, here is a great sermon by the puritan preacher Benjamin Keach:



      "The Bible is God's Word? PROVE IT!"
      (Mark Kielar)

      Thursday, April 10, 2008


      Why Parents Provoke
      (John MacArthur)

      Wednesday, April 9, 2008

      (By John MacArthur)

      In Ephesians 6:4, Paul writes, “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” In our series these last two weeks, we’ve looked at both discipline (specifically, spanking) and instruction (specifically, evangelism). Today, we will look at the command to not provoke.

      To “provoke . . . to anger” suggests a repeated, ongoing pattern of treatment that gradually builds up a deep–seated anger and resentment that boils over in outward hostility.

      Such treatment is usually not intended to provoke anger. Here are eight ways in which parents can provoke their children to anger:

      1) Well–meaning overprotection is a common cause of resentment in children. Parents who smother their children, overly restrict where they can go and what they can do, never trust them to do things on their own, and continually question their judgment build a barrier between themselves and their children—usually under the delusion that they are building a closer relationship. Children need careful guidance and certain restrictions, but they are individual human beings in their own right and must learn to make decisions on their own, commensurate with their age and maturity. Their wills can be guided but they cannot be controlled.

      2) Another common cause of provoking children to anger is favoritism. ... Isaac favored Esau over Jacob and Rebekah preferred Jacob over Esau. That dual and conflicting favoritism not only caused great trouble for the immediate family but has continued to have repercussions in the conflicts between the descendants of Jacob and Esau until our present day! For parents to compare their children with each other, especially in the children’s presence, can be devastating to the child who is less talented or favored. He will tend to become discouraged, resentful, withdrawn, and bitter.

      Favoritism by parents generally leads to favoritism among the children themselves, who pick up the practice from their parents. They will favor one brother or sister over the others and will often favor one parent over the other.

      3) A third way parents provoke their children is by pushing achievement beyond reasonable bounds. A child can be so pressured to achieve that he is virtually destroyed. He quickly learns that nothing he does is sufficient to please his parents. No sooner does he accomplish one goal than he is challenged to accomplish something better. Fathers who fantasize their own achievements through the athletic skills of their sons, or mothers who fantasize a glamorous career through the lives of their daughters prostitute their responsibility as parents.

      I once visited a young woman who was confined to a padded cell and was in a state of catatonic shock. She was a Christian and had been raised in a Christian family, but her mother had ceaselessly pushed her to be the most popular, beautiful, and successful girl in school. She became head cheerleader, homecoming queen, and later a model. But the pressure to excel became too great and she had a complete mental collapse. After she was eventually released from the hospital, she went back into the same artificial and demanding environment. When again she found she could not cope, she committed suicide. She had summed up her frustration when she told me one day, “I don’t care what it is I do, it never satisfies my mother.”

      4) A fourth way children are provoked is by discouragement. A child who is never complimented or encouraged by his parents is destined for trouble. If he is always told what is wrong with him and never what is right, he will soon lose hope and become convinced that he is incapable of doing anything right. At that point he has no reason even to try. Parents can always find something that a child genuinely does well, and they should show appreciation for it. A child needs approval and encouragement in things that are good every bit as much as he needs correction in things that are not.

      5) A fifth way provocation occurs is by parents’ failing to sacrifice for their children and making them feel unwanted. Children who are made to feel that they are an intrusion, that they are always in the way and interfere with the plans and happiness of the parents, cannot help becoming resentful. To such children the parents themselves will eventually become unwanted and an intrusion on the children’s plans and happiness.

      6) A sixth form of provocation comes from failing to let children grow up at a normal pace. Chiding them for always acting childish, even when what they do is perfectly normal and harmless, does not contribute to their maturity but rather helps confirm them in their childishness.

      7) A seventh way of angering children is that of using love as a tool of reward or punishment—granting it when a child is good and withdrawing it when he is bad. Often the practice is unconscious, but a child can sense if a parent cares for him less when is he disobedient than when he behaves. That is not how God loves and is not the way he intends human parents to love. God disciplines His children just as much out of love as He blesses them. “Those whom the Lord loves He disciplines” (Heb. 12:6). Because it is so easy to punish out of anger and resentment, parents should take special care to let their children know they love them when discipline is given.

      8) An eighth way to provoke children is by physical and verbal abuse. Battered children are a growing tragedy today. Even Christian parents—fathers especially—sometimes overreact and spank their children much harder than necessary. Proper physical discipline is not a matter of exerting superior authority and strength, but of correcting in love and reasonableness. Children are also abused verbally. A parent can as easily overpower a child with words as with physical force. Putting him down with superior arguments or sarcasm can inflict serious harm, and provokes him to anger and resentment. It is amazing that we sometimes say things to our children that we would not think of saying to anyone else—for fear of ruining our reputation!

      In closing, consider the confession of one Christian father,

      My family’s all grown and the kids are all gone. But if I had to do it all over again, this is what I would do. I would love my wife more in front of my children. I would laugh with my children more—at our mistakes and our joys. I would listen more, even to the littlest child. I would be more honest about my own weaknesses, never pretending perfection. I would pray differently for my family; instead of focusing on them, I’d focus on me. I would do more things together with my children. I would encourage them more and bestow more praise. I would pay more attention to little things, like deeds and words of thoughtfulness. And then, finally, if I had to do it all over again, I would share God more intimately with my family; every ordinary thing that happened in every ordinary day I would use to direct them to God.

      (Today’s article adapted from John’s commentary on Ephesians, published by Moody.)

      HT: Pulpit Magazine

      END OF POST.


      The "Attacks Against Reformed Theology" Lectures Now Work

      Tuesday, April 8, 2008

      I posted this for those who check their feed-readers every time there's a new post, mostly. The "Attacks Against Reformed Theology" post by James White I put up a little while ago that was only playing :30 sec of each lecture is now playing them in their entirety. Imeem contacted me early today. They were helpful in getting this problem resovled.


      Calvinism/Arminian Online Live Streaming Debate
      (James White vs. Steve Gregg)

      Friday, April 4, 2008

      The Calvinism/Arminian debate between James White and Steve Gregg has been going strong for two days now with three days left. I will link to the mp3's each day for you to download. Check back about 8pm or so each night. As of this post, yesterday's and today's has been very informative, and I believe it will be a great resource for those wishing to learn more of the doctrines of grace and to see how they stand against scrutiny.

      Click here to stream the debate each day at 5-6pm EST.

      You can join in chat with others who are listening to it, as well, HERE.
      (Type #prosapologian for the channel.)


      Financial Scandal Brewing in the LCMS?
      (Issues Etc. Cancellation Related Post)

      Tuesday, April 1, 2008

      Chris Rosebrough writes:

      HOLY COW!

      Yesterday President Kieschnick wrote a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal and justified the cancelation of Issues Etc. by claiming that the show lost $250,000 per year.

      But the Save the LCMS website has just uncovered documents that are potentially explosive.

      It turns out, that what Kieashnick wasn't telling anyone was that his administration had been borrowing MILLIONS of dollars from other ministry budgets to pay for their own operating expenses and to offset the MILLIONS they were losing on the Fan Into Flame initiative.

      What is going on in St. Louis??

      It is time for an accounting here.

      Ya'll need to read these two stories:

      Kieschnick Paid for Ablaze by Borrowing MILLIONS from Other Ministry Budgets Finances Etc.

      HT: ExtremeTheology

      END OF POST.


      Related Posts with Thumbnails

      A Blue Ink Blog