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.