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

      Quick to Speak, Slow to Listen?

      Friday, September 14, 2012

      One of the instructions from James is to be "quick to listen, slow to speak." (James 1:19)  This is a trait I have been trying to become better at during the last few years.  One of the main things you learn quickly when talking to a Judge is to, first, listen what he has to say, and, only after that, respond when you have all the facts.  It has helped me immensely not only in the profession I'm entering but also in my relationships with others.  Sadly, there are those who do not always abide by James's words, though, and the following can occur.

      Recently, a person accused me of defending antinomianism and New Calvinism... twice. The first time can be found in these series of sequential Tweets:

      1. RT @LaneChaplin: Dear legalist, Christ fulfilled the law so we don't have to. Sincerely, The Bible / Christ obeyed so you don't have to??? ( link
      2. If you think Christ obeyed so now you don't have to, you haven't understood grace, nor the Law of God. ( link )
      3. Thanks to new Calvinists, the doctrinal enemy of our day is once again....antinomianism. ( link )
      4. Christ fulfilling the law never means our dismissing the duty and desire to obey. John 14:15 ( link )
      5. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." John 14:15 @OldRuggedCruz ( link )
      6. If you don't love Jesus, call everyone born again and who does keep His commandments a legalist. John 14:15 ( link )
      7. & 8. (Two replies to @OldRuggedCruz)
      9. @LaneChaplin Lane, do you believe obedience to the imperatives of Scripture have no place in the Christian life because of grace? Curious. ( link )
      Now, I don't like to usually say this because it's so prejudicial instead of informational, but here I will make an exception: Any reasonable person can see...

      ...That, in the context of these Tweets, the person Tweeting was trying to convey that I'm a New Calvinist and adhere to a form of antinomianism.  This was said within the context of debating whether "Christ obeyed so you don't have to..." etc, etc, etc.  (Keep in mind this is all because I said, "Christ fulfilled the law so we don't have to."  I'm not sure how one could have a problem with this statement unless they believe that we have to fulfill the law because Christ didn't.  But I digress.)  When I read these statements in context, it became pretty apparent to me that he was accusing me of these things because of my initial Tweet and only looking to clarify after the 8 or so Tweets in between.

      So there was the one instance.  Here's the next:  Lane Chaplin Defending Antinomianism and New Calvinism?

      This second instance came about when he realized I unfollowed him on Twitter then explained why I unfollowed him.  He then took my explanation as a defense of antinomianism and New Calvinism instead of me showing my disdain that he accused me of being such.  I know, boggles the mind.

      But, anyway, let me say unequivocally that antinomianism is a damnable heresy.  Telling someone they can keep on sinning because they're saved is not just bad doctrine, it leads to hell.  Also, New Calvinism is error.  Though it's still a little sketchy as to what exactly it is, most people associate it with a form of Calvinism that borrows heavily from personal revelation (and sometimes a denial of limited atonement) a la Mark Driscoll and crew.  I do not believe either of these are Christian ideas.  For that matter, even if I did, I would completely contradict everything I've put on my blog and Youtube channel for the past five plus years... and, according to this individual, I would have decided to "come clean" to all of that in a single Tweet reply to someone on Twitter!  Boggling.

      Now with that said, I unfollowed the individual in question, but it was not just because of this situation.  This is the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.  After hearing repeatedly that John MacArthur isn't saved ( link ), James White is a fraidy-cat ( one | two ), Shai Linne is a blasphemer ( link ), Phil Johnson is a cherry picker ( link ) etc, etc, etc, and now this, I'm not sure if there was much value in following him anymore.  The reasoning reads like a DUI:  It weaves all over the place trying to make the case to others "sharing the road" that the driver is pulling it off when, in reality, he's not.

      In summary, this post wasn't made to bash this individual.  It was made to: 1.  Defend myself yet again against ridiculous accusations and 2. Show what happens when we are more set upon pegging someone with a charge than we are hearing them out.  The Bible says to be "quick to listen, slow to speak." (James 1:19) This individual seems to understand this verse in the reverse.

      2 comments:

      Lane Chaplin said...

      I deleted the previous two comments because that's not the way I wanted this post to go, but thanks for the support, guys.

      Man from Modesto said...

      One of the troubles in interdenominational conversation is the frontloading of pew sitters against certain words. Some of these words are "trinity", "baptist", "five fold ministry", "broken", "born again" and others.

      If one Christian meets another, and uses one of those terms, and the second person is conditioned to reject or hate that word (and the people who use it), the conversation dies.

      I have seen many, many angry debates on facebook between two Christians who were actually saying the same thing, but with different key words. Neither knew the other's denominational doctrines, and assumed it was strange fire.

      This is easily overcome by just saying what the Bible says.

      In this article, Lane, you use two phrases I have never even heard before today. What is antinomianism? Is it bigotry toward gnomes? People against using the name of God, maybe? And New Calvinism, what is that?

      We all need to understand that most other Christians don't know the denominational and regionally popular teachings of other churches. The people who were kicked out of churches long ago for believing the Bible don't know these terms, either.

      I do believe, however, that these conversations can be beneficial- but only to those who are truly seeking after God.

      In the UMC, I heard, ad nauseum, "No one was ever argued into believing". This phrase meant, in practice and explanation, "Never debate about the Kingdom of God." That is wrong. There are many who reject God or have a challenged relationship because of false beliefs.

      Even though they reject what is said in the moment of the conversation, don't be surprised to hear them preaching the exact same thing a few months from now, when they have forgotten it is not their own revelation.

      Related Posts with Thumbnails



      A Blue Ink Blog