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.

Profile

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)

Connect

Puritan Picks

Instagram

Instagram

Google+ Followers

The Tip Jar

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

Go Stand Speak

Monergism Books

Thank You Cards

Links

Follow by Email

Popular Posts

There was an error in this gadget

Blog Archive

Visitors

Paid Advertising

    • Site Meter

      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.)

      Read More...

      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.

      Read More...

      The Great Reformation
      [The Reformation Day Show]
      (Apologetics.com)

      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

      Read More...

      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



      Read More...

      "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)

      Read More...

      Related Posts with Thumbnails



      A Blue Ink Blog