A Purpose Driven Scolding from Purpose Driven Hireling Perry Noble
Saturday, January 31, 2009
This is just sickening. I'm thankful that the Lord delivered my girlfriend Susan and I from Perry's congregation.
Special Prayer Request to thevinerhyme's Christian Subscribers
Thursday, January 29, 2009
"Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up..."
-James 5:14-15
This is a video of a friend on Youtube named Jeff Mason (Username: TheVineRhyme). A brother contacted him about praying for someone who is suffering from a late stage of cancer. Let's lift up this sister in prayer.
A Sincere Thank You
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Several days ago, I posted a need for the Youtube ministry. The response I've received has been overwhelming. I don't mean this only in a monetary sense although it certainly was. The encouragement I've received from people in terms of emails alone has been enough to liven up this young man. I am sincerely humbled and thankful for it all. I'm going to post a few of those emails in the latter part of this post. For many other ones, you can read the comments left in the original post.
First, I'm happy to say that the monetary contribution was more than I was expecting. I literally received donations from around the world. Because of the generosity of you all, I'm able to get a computer that runs faster than the one I was going to get, has better means of cooling, etc. The computer is customizable so in four years or so, if a part becomes obsolete, I'll be able to replace that part singularly without having to replace the entire computer. This means that, Lord willing, the Youtube ministry will be here for years to come. I don't know if I could be more excited and relieved about that news. Thank you all sincerely.
As alluded to at the beginning of the post, many of you sent emails. To protect the identity of each author, I'll omit the names. Before I post those, though, a very encouraging bit of news came to me earlier today from my girlfriend, Susan Yenser. Many of you know that she plays basketball for the Florida Gators. After games, they go sign autographs for the fans. Today, after their game v. Ole Miss, a man came up to her with his daughters. It turns out that he had seen her testimony that I made and posted on Youtube and came to the game and brought his daughters. He also told her that the Youtube page and this blog has been a blessing to him, and both are the reasons he started looking into Reformed Theology. To know that something I can do on the other side of the country can have this effect on someone is humbling and encouraging to say the least.
Now, here are several of the emails I received.
"I personally know people who have been saved by the preaching of Paul Washer, specifically, videos that Lane has uploaded. You can't put a price on that."
"...in my case as with my other family members and friends, this youtube ministry has blessed us a lot given the fact that we are from Asia, not from US. Nowadays, more and more people have access to the internet and this is a wonderful ministry that entirely changed and transformed a lot of lives. Know what's my next mission? Go to my hometown which is a third world country and share this ministry to the people there, share the true Gospel of Jesus Christ which I only heard from the videos uploaded by Lane. So it is undeniable that God has used Lane's ministry once and for all. ...I will hook online (wifi) and show the videos uploaded by Lane here in youtube and his blogsite and then share my testimony as well. If it's quite difficult for them to understand, I will translate to the local dialect. So it is just my prayer that this youtube ministry started by Lane will continue and keep on growing. We are all disciples and we are set to go out and preach and support one another. "
"i am glad i could help out with a resource that has helped me so much over the year that i have been over seas serving the Lord."
"Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior! I have been so appreciative of the videos and resources you have provided to the web community. I have been saved for about 5 years now and just in the last month have been introduced to the doctrines of grace. My view of God has been completely blown away! I started listening to Paul Washer a couple of years ago and came across your Stage6 channel where I could watch entire sermons by him. I am so thankful for your dedication to getting the truth out on the internet and I have pointed many of my saved and unsaved friends to many of the videos you have posted. By God's sovereignty, He has prompted me to read more Piper, MacArthur, Spurgeon, and listen to Washer over the last two years. It was only a matter of time before my eyes were truly opened to His complete sovereignty in the salvation of lost souls. I don't yet completely understand the depths of the truths in the doctrines of grace, but just last night I found myself debating one of my best friends and brothers in Christ on election! He clearly believes in a semi-Pelagian/Arminian view of salvation. I even sent him links to a couple of Mark Kielar's videos you have posted on election and he was in almost complete disagreement with what Mark was teaching. Thank you so much for your help! "
"We pray for this need of yours to be provided as this is indeed part of expanding God's kingdom. We are so blessed with everything that you have shared and placed into this ministry and we know, God will always be faithful to His children."
"Lane I don't know if you remember me. Most likely you don't since have a large internet audience. But I wanted to tell you that I have been encourged by your recent articles on standing for theology and presenting the gospel in a clear fashion. Where I live there are not a lot of people who believe the doctrines of grace so if you bring up the subject folks brand you as a false prophet or something. However by Gods grace I continue and hold firm to the truth of the scriptures. I do believe with all my heart that Theology is very important and that ture theology is rooted in Life because it proceeds from the very scriptures we hold to John 6:63 Jesus said the words he spoke are spirit and life. With out doctrine where would we be how could we defend the faith or give a man and understanding of the hope we have in us. May God continue to bless you my friend continue to rebuke and exhort as I am listening to the truth you bring which encourges me to hold true to biblical doctrine."
"Lane, thanks for your youtube work. You turned me on to Mark Kielar, I really like his stuff. I just got off your blog after making a small donation. Thanks, keep up the good work."
"I almost left a comment to some of the people who left ridiculous comments on your request but decided against it. Your blog is a place I've found great joy, not a place I want to argue with people on. Even a small donation (like mine) is something that people shouldn't have a problem with if they look at the value you create. Some of the people that left comments almost seemed like they expected you to provide the information just because they want it. I've learned that even if a resource is "free" that I should always support it if I can. I've watched sermon after sermon on your youtube account and have received so much knowledge, peace, and understanding from the teachings you provide. I really appreciate your work and know that, even if it's a calling from the Lord, it's obviously a labor of love because of the quality of your content."
"Brother, I value your ministry greatly, and don't want it to end because of lack of resources. If, on the 5th of February, you still need the funds, I'll make up the difference at that time. I need to pay my rent and bills with the paycheck I just got, but I'll be in a position to help at that time.
Let me know, and many prayers to you in your ministry..." (FYI, I didn't accept this brother's generous offer, but I am still humbled by it and thought it would be wonderful to post here.)
"I love you for all that you are doing. When you were on with Chris Rosebud it was reallly great. I actually could not watch Kung Fu Panda after that."
"Lane,
Thanks again to everyone for your support. Even though I did make my needs known unlike the giant of the faith, George Mueller, who believed that what was best in his situation was not to disclose that information, I share his sentiments in the following:
I thank the Lord for sending wonderful brothers and sisters to help me in my difficulties, burdens, and necessities. He heard my prayers and saw fit to answer them in this way.
Take care, everyone, and thank you sincerely.
"Every one is invited and commanded to trust in the Lord, to trust in Him with all his heart, and to cast his burden upon Him, and to call upon Him in the day of trouble. Will you not do this, my dear brethren in Christ? I long that you may do so. I desire that you may taste the sweetness of that state of heart, in which, while surrounded by difficulties and necessities, you can yet be at peace, because you know that the living God, your Father in heaven, cares for you.
...All believers are called upon, in the simple confidence of faith, to cast all their burdens upon Him, to trust in him for every thing, and not only to make every thing a subject of prayer, but to expect answers to their petitions which they have asked according to His will, and in the name of the Lord Jesus."
I thank the Lord for sending wonderful brothers and sisters to help me in my difficulties, burdens, and necessities. He heard my prayers and saw fit to answer them in this way.
Take care, everyone, and thank you sincerely.
- Lane Chaplin
"I Believe in 'Free-will' So I Can Boast Myself."
( "Common Grace" Refuted; Regeneration Precedes Faith)
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Many of us have had the following exchange. You ask someone why they are saved and their neighbor down the street isn't. They say "free-will". You say, "Ok, so do you believe that people go to hell?" They reply, "Yes." Then you ask, "Ok, well do you believe that everyone has free will?" They reply, "Yes." Then you reply, "Ok, so if you believe that people are going to hell, you believe that everyone has free will, and you believe that the reason someone is saved is because of free will, how can you reconcile your contradictory position? How can everyone have free will which saves someone and still there be people going to hell? At this point, they usually say, "Well, it's because they didn't choose." Then you ask, "Well, why did you choose?" 95% of my experiences at this point involve the other party saying, "Well, it's because of free will." accompanied by an ad hominem about being prideful or something because I'm a Calvinist.
Folks, if you believe in free will theology, you have no answer to the question 'Why do you believe and so and so doesn't?' other than you are somehow inherently better than someone else whether that be you are more spiritually sensitive than them, you were smarter, you were better looking, you sing better, you attend church more regularly, you wear nicer clothes to church, you drive a better car, you use better toothpaste, you speak in tongues, you help old ladies, you like the Cosby Show, etc. If everyone has the same amount of grace, then what makes a man differ from another in terms of salvation is that man himself. That, folks, leaves the door wide open for a man to boast. There is no reason at that point for the man not to boast himself and believe he is better than someone else, because if common grace is true, we're all on the same playing field, and what makes one man differ from another is something that man did, then believing that you are better than someone else, in that system, is required for salvation. How could it not be if that part of you that was better than someone who is supposedly on the same level as you is the reason you're saved and they are not.
Ephesians 2:8-9 says, For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
However, the person who believes in free-will by necessity has to say, "Nuh-uh-uh... the reason I'm saved is because of my work (whether that be their sinner's prayer, trip down the aisle, raising hand when every head is bowed and every eye is shut... name whatever act of faith you'd like at this point)." The notions of free-will and common grace throw grace on it's head and exalts the pride of the creature by saying that the reason someone is saved is because of something they did thus faith preceding regeneration is justification by a work.
"The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works...
I do not serve the god of the Arminians at all; I have nothing to do with him, and I do not bow down before the Baal they have set up; he is not my God, nor shall he ever be; I fear him not, nor tremble at his presence...The God that saith today and denieth tomorrow, that justifieth today and condemns the next...is no relation to my God in the least degree. He may be a relation of Ashtaroth or Baal, but Jehovah never was or can be his name."
- C.H. Spurgeon
This is part of the DVD called How God Converts the Human Soul. I highly recommend it.
You can get it at http://www.crosstv.com and 1-877-CROSSTV.
The Dangers, Results, and History of Decisional Regeneration
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
With so much emphasis these days on "evangelism" (which usually means a method that was adopted less than 200 years ago), it's amazing and freeing for many when they first hear the history of a method that we know today called "decisional regeneration" and it's founding father, Charles Grandison Finney. Maybe even more noteworthy is the fact that Finney, just before he died, renounced the very methods that he once founded and used and which many use today to gather unbelievers together in groups. If this video doesn't convince you of the dangers of decisional regeneration, I'm not sure if you truly do have a heart for the lost (as many of the proponents of this type of "evangelism" often self proclaim).
Here it is, folks. If you're looking for a good, concise way to present what is wrong with the modern approach to evangelism, I believe that you have to look no further. With the gracious permission of Mark Kielar who's allowed me to use the videos in any way that will further the Kingdom, I've taken two of the previous clips that I've posted on Youtube and added more to them from the original episode to give it context.
This is taken from the "How God Converts the Human Soul" series from CrossTV. You can get this series at http://www.crosstv.com or by calling 1-877-CROSSTV.
"I'm Debating That We Shouldn't Debate!"
[UPDATED 1/12/08]
Sunday, January 11, 2009
"The criticism of other intellectuals is, after all, one of the most important functions of the intellectual, and he customarily performs it with vivacity. ... Because it is the business of intellectuals to be diverse and contrary-minded, we must accept the risk that at times they will be merely quarrelsome."
- Richard Hofstadter; Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1964 Pulitzer Prize Winner); p. 8
All it takes is a simple perusal of the New Testament to realize that Hofstadter's quote rings true. Paul, one of the most intellectual men to ever walk this earth, was indeed quarrelsome with those who opposed sound doctrine concerning Christ. (The word "quarrelsome" is not used here in a physical sense, but in the way that describes the battle of differing ideologies among people.) Paul argued his case with vivacity to the Jews, he withstood Peter to his face for compromising the truth of the Gospel, and he and Barnabas split during one leg of his trip because of the contention between the two. Could Peter or Barnabas have used the excuse that what Paul was doing was causing division? Most definitely. In fact, if he hadn't been so adamant in his position, the quarrels would have probably never happened. The question is not whether it was evident that Paul was causing division by being uncompromising regarding doctrine. The issue is whether he was in the right. If he wasn't, then he should have been reprimanded. If he was in the right, then trying to stifle his arguments by claiming that his arguments were causing division was actually an anti-Christian stance.
Allow me to lay out the terms simply so there is no ambiguity as to what I am saying. I believe that the soteriology (how a person is saved) that is classified "Calvinism" is what the Bible teaches regarding the subject. I do not care about the name. It could have been classified years ago as "Q-Bert", "Bob Hopeism" or "Cheesy Potatoes", and I would still claim to be "Q-Bertian". Why? Is it because I desire to worship Q-Bert? No. Is it because I wish to have a shrine set up in my room with rainbow discs as the floor tile? No. It would simply be because that's what the classifying name of what I believe the Bible teaches in regard to salvation is. Think of it like this. When we speak of multiplication, we mean that it's 2x2=4; 3x2=6; 2x0=0; and so on. We speak of wrong multiplication when we see 2x3=19, though. If you were a high school math teacher, and it was your duty to teach the class multiplication aright, would you tell them what 2x3 actually is, or would you say, "All this specification about what numbers mean is divisive. What really matters isn't the multiplication... what matters is the math." ...? If you heard of someone who did that, you'd probably think it was absurd. I'd agree. Regrettably, though, this is exactly what is happening in much of Christendom today by those who don't want to logically think through their presuppositions regarding soteriology. Where the person in our hypothetical says, "All this specification about what numbers mean is divisive. What really matters isn't the multiplication... what matters is the math.", they say, "All this specification about what the Bible means (doctrine) is divisive. What matters isn't the doctrine... it's Jesus and seeing people saved." ...Huh? Well what do we tell these people in regard of salvation? At this point, many will say, "Well, we just tell them what the Bible says (which is usually an Arminian stance)." The people we are witnessing to are obviously going to have questions, and we need something a little deeper then "Jesus died for you, and has a wonderful plan for your afterlife." That isn't much better than "Jesus died for you and has a wonderful plan for your life." It's just a matter of elapsing time between the two. No, we need to have the answers to questions if we are going to reach any kind of culture whatsoever namely the sinful culture which pretty much includes everyone.
As an aside, today, we also have a cry very often from those who claim to believe the same things that we do in regard to soteriology. They cry, "Don't worry about all this doctrine. We shouldn't be debating this. What matters is that souls are saved by believing in Jesus." Well, I agree, but believing doctrine is what saves souls so getting that doctrine right is essential. Take this for example: I tell you that Jesus was the lead singer of U2 back in the 1800's. That's doctrine. Is it true doctrine? Is it doctrine that will save your soul? What if I assert that it will? Will you debate me on this? Well, now you see the crux of the issue, and know why I believe it's imperative that while we may not be able to have perfect theology, we strive for that perfection.
Now take the doctrine of limited atonement for example. From the outset, I want to make clear that I don't believe that believing in the doctrine of limited atonement is what saves a person's soul. I believe nothing of the sort. Rather, what I'm contending is that I believe it is a biblical position, and if it is a biblical position, my contention is that those who want to not discuss the issue prove to do more harm to the body of believers as a whole than those that do. Very often Christians are regarded as not very bright people. I can vouch that from the brothers and sisters I know that this is certainly not the case. However, when there are doctrines that are up for dispute and debate, there should be a willingness to discuss them to see if these things are so rather than a stifling of talk about them or a monologue pontificating one's own views. I assert that if limited atonement is taught in the Bible, if it is true, and you truly have the Holy Spirit living inside you that leads you to all truth, you are going to at least consider the doctrine at some point in your Christian life. It may be that the Holy Spirit leads you away from this doctrine if it isn't true. If that's the case, though, surely one would want to debate the points. Monologues aren't effective means of persuasion to those who hold that consistency and logic are important issues.
It may be that you have tradition that is holding you back. It may be that I have my tradition that is holding me back from seeing that it isn't a biblical position. The difference is, though, that very often, you'll find those who adopt the same position that I do wanting to debate the issue, contend for it, and make sure that the statements that aren't consistent with it are proven to be faulty. You will also find that very often, us Calvinists are quarrelsome when it comes to defending the doctrine we hold. I don't contest this. In fact, I embrace the fact that we are, but you see, in this respect, are we more like a Pharisee who would have rather shut Jesus up, end all debate, and have a monologue, or are we more like Paul?
With all this said, those who argue that we shouldn't argue, and those who debate that we shouldn't debate are at best sincerely confused and at worst willfully idolatrous hypocrites. No, if Calvinism truly teaches what the Bible teaches and it's just a label that we put on to it, then the person who says, "Well, I just believe the Bible" also has put a label on their position. It's called "My beliefs = the Bible." The difference, though, again is that one side usually wants to see if that is so while the other calls the opposing side "arrogant" and "prideful" with no real basis for doing so. I ask you today, which side is truly prideful and arrogant?: the one who is quarrelsome like Paul regarding how he gets what he believes is true is attacked, or the one who sits back from afar and desires monologues instead of dialogues on doctrine hoping that no one comes along and proves him wrong? I believe the answer is pretty obvious. Are you going to debate that we shouldn't debate?
UPDATE: Here's an interesting video that I found the day after I wrote this. It gives a little more insight to the problem of anti-intellectualism in evangelical life specifically regarding this issue of limited atonement.
"Pre-Game" Debate Show with guest Dr. James White about the Upcoming Bart Ehrman Debate
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Later tonight, Lindsay Brooks will be the host, and I'll be a guest on a kind of "pre-game" debate show with guest Dr. James White regarding his upcoming debate with Bart Ehrman of "Misquoting Jesus" and "God's Problem" fame. The show is Apologetics.com and will be 2 hours long! Due to time constraints and other things, we'll be recording the show tomorrow immediately following the Dividing Line, and it will be broadcast on KKLA at midnight PST this Friday Night/Saturday Morning (1/9-1/10/09) [00:00 military time 1/10/00]. The mp3 will be available soon thereafter at the Apologetics.com Archive. Of course, I will keep you updated on that when it's available, too. In the comment section of this post, please post any questions you think would be good to ask Dr. White regarding this debate and/or textual criticism.
What Exactly is Doctrine? [REPOST from 12/17/2007]
(...and a short note)
Monday, January 5, 2009
Reader,
I apologize for the lack of posts lately. I've been very busy finishing up exams for law school, traveling from coast to coast, and recovering from a minor surgery that I had last week. To keep the blog going and to introduce people who may not have read some of the past posts to those actual posts, I'm going to print some of the archives here for a bit. There are some exciting things happening that I'll keep you updated on accordingly. One is that I've been invited to cohost Apologetics.com with Lindsay Brooks, and our guest is going to be Dr. James White. The topic is going to be his upcoming debate with Bart Ehrman. Think of it as a "pre-game show" of sort. Also, the Crosstalk interview has been rescheduled, but it's still pending as to when that will be. On a final note, we've produced a new Youtube group for Reformed Brothers and Sisters on Youtube. You can access it by clicking here. When you get there, request to be added, and I'll let you through (given that you are, in fact, Reformed). Right now there are 28 members, and the discussion board stays pretty active.
Thanks everyone for your patience and support (who gives it). Here is a post from over a year ago about doctrine. I pray you find it edifying.
- Lane
"Doctrine divides!"
It's the "cry of anguish" from the culture. They insist that we shouldn't preach doctrine, just love, but is this possible?
The Greek word for doctrine is didachē (did-akh-ay'), and it means "teaching; that which is taught" so basically when someone says, "Doctrine divides! We shouldn't preach doctrine, just love!", they are preaching doctrine. They are providing a teaching that says, "We shouldn't preach doctrine, just love!" Believers, however, bring the false doctrine to light because those who teach false doctrine are not presenting doctrine (or teaching) in accordance to Scripture which is why there is so much hostility from them. Think about that for a second...
The emergents have doctrine. Their's is, "We can't really know what the Bible teaches about homosexuality." That is doctrine. That is teaching. Is it true, though? Is their doctrine true? Let's look to Scripture:
If a man also lies with a man, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
(Lev 20:13)
According to Scripture, their teaching (or doctrine) is in complete contradiction to what God says. Why do they get so angry at those who decry their cry for "peace"? Well, it's because the sound teaching or doctrine contradicts their false teaching or doctrine. Keep that in mind. Christ, Himself said that he didn't come to bring peace but a Sword. That's sound doctrine. The debate isn't really there because one camp is teaching doctrine and the other isn't. The debate arises because one camp is professing false doctrine and the other camp is professing true doctrine. Understand that, and your courage will grow. There is no neutrality. Our Lord made it very clear that you're either with him or against him. He who doesn't gather scatters.
When you go to one of Osteen's services or watch him on television, he is teaching, is he not? His teaching or doctrine mainly consists of self-esteem and "personal fulfillment", though; not the teaching or doctrine of Scripture.
The non-seeker sensitivites hold to doctrine. That may come as a shock to some of you, namely non-seeker sensitives, but they do. They teach things like, "God is all about the numbers." and "We need peace at all costs, truth only if possible." That's doctrine or teaching whether they will teach you that it is or not.
Satanists have doctrine. The father of Satanism, Aleister Crowley, tought doctrine. He said things like, "Do what you will shall be the whole of the law." It is doctrine, but it is Satanic, demonic, and false doctrine.
Britney Spears has doctrine. She's said, "When you're comfortable with someone you love, the silence is the best. And, that's how me and J are." She held to this doctrine, but apparently there should have been more communication between her and J. It wasn't wise doctrine.
The point is, doctrine is everywhere, regardless if you label it so. It is true that the Bible is full of doctrine, but the difference between the doctrine of Scriptures and the doctrine of the world is the same as the difference between darkness and light. When one comes to Scripture, eats of Christ and drinks His blood, they are receiving sound doctrine or teaching. When Christ says, "Sell all you have and give the money to the poor," He is professing doctrine the same as 50 Cent is professing doctrine when he says, "Get rich or die trying." One difference between the two, though, is that 50 Cent will stand to be eternally judged before Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ will never stand to be eternally judged before 50 Cent. Jesus Christ's doctrine is true because he is truth, the eternal Son of God. Christ is come in the flesh.
Paul the Apostle gave many warnings, but this I seem to think wraps the entire issue up in a nutshell:
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine (didache or teaching) which you have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the innocent. For your obedience is well known unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and innocent concerning evil.
(Rom 16:17-19)
Note what he says. He does not say, "The doctrine is dividing the true believers between the true believers." Rather, he says that there are those who cause divisions within the believers by presenting doctrine that is against the sound doctrine that has been brought forth. This is key, and it is vital to understanding. Our cry shouldn't be, "Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine!" It should be "Sound doctrine, sound doctrine, sound doctrine!" because doctrine is everywhere.
You see, those who always make the claim, "Doctrine divides!" as always, never tell you the complete truth because if they did, their evil deeds would be brought to light. The truth is stated in it's entirety here:
"True doctrine divides... the believers from the unbelievers!"
That is the true teaching of Scripture. So when people who are opposed to what the Bible teaches chides those who hold to Scripture as their final authority, "All you do is preach doctrine," what they are really saying is, "All you do is preach sound doctrine." I know what several of you who read this will think: "Oh these people who are always talking about the Bible are so arrogant to think they've got it all figured out...", but what's really arrogant? Is it obeying God and his Word or thinking that your subjective opinion overrides God's commandments and laws and should be considered in a "conversation" over God's Word? It's definitely the latter. Light and darkness can never have agreement. What agreement can a believer have with an infidel? (2Cor 6:14-15)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I may not be rich monetarily (far from it!!) but I am happy to offer what I can to my brother in Christ.
God bless you my friend. United in Christ we stand."