Lane's Blog

July 2009 Resource of the Month

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:50:00 +0000

This month's resource of the month is C.H. Spurgeon's classic devotional, "Morning and Evening." (I apologize for the wind in the background to this video. It happens sometimes when you're filming outside and don't have much time to reshoot the video.)

Here are some links to get this book:

Free Online Reading

Amazon

Ebay

June 2009 Resource of the Month with guest Dr. James White

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 03:36:00 +0000

Here is the link to get the book.

"Sue and Lane Were on the Dividing Line...?"

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:36:00 +0000

Yes, last Tuesday (5/19/09), my girlfriend, Susan, and I were on James White's The Dividing Line. Here's the link to the show for anyone interested. (You can listen to it in its entirety by clicking on either picture below or above and downloading the mp3. The streaming audio below is only playing 30 sec now, but it should be playing in its entirety soon.)

Sue and Lane on the DL - James White

Encouragement for Faithful YouTubers

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Wed, 13 May 2009 08:28:00 +0000

Many of us put videos on Youtube without any idea of the impact they make. This video was made to remind those faithful ones who are putting up quality videos on Youtube to continue in their efforts because you never know who you reach on a daily basis.

Link to the original sermon

"You Follow Calvin? Well, I Follow Christ!"

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:42:00 +0000

Doug nails it.

"How Do I Get on Your Blogroll, Lane?"

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 07:14:00 +0000

I get this question sometimes so here's what you do:

Request it. If it's a site I like, I'll post it.

(Sorry, this excludes porn and other unsuitable sites.)

*If you're already linking here, and you're not on

my blogroll, please let me know, and I'll add you accordingly.

You may request to be added in the comment section.

My Testimony

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:23:00 +0000

Mark from ProclaimHisWord came again to Trinity Law School, and we shot this video. Here is about 8 minutes of my testimony and about a minute explaining what place I believe the Christian testimony has in relation to the Gospel.

Ms. USA, Homosexual Marriage and The Bible

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:38:00 +0000

ProclaimHisWord
deaton29

Is Your Devotion Like That of the Old Paths? {fixed 4.24.09}

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:18:00 +0000

CrossTV

Videos Coming in May 2009

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:01:00 +0000

Some of you may be wondering why this blog hasn't been updated in a while. In short, it's just plain being pressed for time. Exams for law school are coming up and BarBri essays just finished so I've been pretty busy. For that reason also, videos that I've wanted to get up and on Youtube have been postponed. Gladly, though, after May 7th, I'll have a good bit of time to make those videos and put them on Youtube. To "tie you over" until then, here's a list of the upcoming projects that will hopefully be posted by the end of May.

1. Right Facts; Wrong Conclusions (Apologetics.com with Lindsay Brooks and guests Dr. James White and Lane Chaplin)

http://www.apologetics.com

- This was a show we did right before James White's debate with Bart Ehrman on textual criticism. Dr. White went into many of the texts that are often brought up by Ehrman in his campaign against Christianity. It was a very helpful show that could be thought of as a companion piece to the debate because there were things that were brought up in the 2 hour show that were not addressed in the debate. Needless to say, I did *ALOT* more listening than I did talking in this show. :)

2. Kung Fu Panda "Sermon" Review (Fighting for the Faith with Chris Rosebrough and guest Lane Chaplin)

http://www.fightingforthefaith.com

- This was another 2 hour show where Chris and I took a "sermon" from the original "30 Day Sex Challenge Pastor" called "Kung Fu Panda" and reviewed it on the show. It was hilarious, but it was also helpful for those who are struggling with the fact that they can't find much of anything biblical in these "Purpose Driven/Seeker Sensitive" businesses. We also addressed some ridiculous news items toward the beginning. This show has a lot of laughs and was fun to be on.

3. Logical Fallacies in Evangelism (Ambassador's Alliance Radio with Tony Miano and guest Lane Chaplin)

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/TonyMiano

- This was about a 30 minute section of the Ambassador's Alliance radio program that I was on about a month ago addressing some of the logical fallacies we are faced with in evangelism and even some that we make ourselves. I pray this was helpful and have been told by several people that it was so I decided to put this up.

4. May 2009 Resource of the Month

- I'm putting together a few things for this one including a couple friends that will help with this video. It will be one that you all are probably familiar with in some respect even if you aren't aware that you are. Feel free to guess away in the comment section, but these lips are sealed!

5. Along with these, I'm working with the associate pastor of First Baptist of Boynton Beach (Mark Kielar's church) to get a good many of his sermon videos to post on the site. I will also be posting several CrossTV clips and anything else I find of interest throughout the month.

April 2009's Resource of the Month["Christless Christianity" by Michael Horton]

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:02:00 +0000

Christless Christianity Book ($10.81 Brand New):
http://www.wscal.edu/bookstore/store/details.php?id=2022

White Horse Inn Episodes:

Christless Christianity: http://www.imeem.com/lanechaplin/music/-2oTnABg/white-horse-inn-christless-christianity/

Christless Christianity, Revisited:
http://www.imeem.com/lanechaplin/music/7QxD4LxS/white-horse-inn-christless-christianity-revisited/

More information:
http://www.christlesschristianity.org
http://www.whitehorseinn.org

Life Past the 10th Grade...

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:48:00 +0000

One of the things I deal with a on a daily basis is comments from unbelievers and immature professors of Christ. I'll usually block the abrasive unbelievers and try to at least converse with those who profess to believe but aren't clear about things and even the unbelievers who are cordial. One thing that I notice in each is a fundamental misunderstanding of their beliefs about what exactly I believe. Unfortunately, this tendency is fully functioning not only in the groups previously mentioned, but also in the professing pastors that come and comment occasionally... which brings us to the case in point.

Earlier today, I was reading Slice when I came across a quote from a person who I've critiqued here before about certain issues mainly because I used to attend his entertainment center (so according to those people, I have full reign to speak about it since attendance is a priority in critiquing these places). I know first hand what's going on and have very good friends who still go there. The quote I came across was this:

“BTW…why is it that many of the reformed guys are complete @$$holes? Did God REALLY call them to pick apart verb tenses and voice intonations of speakers who don’t say things exactly right or don’t use a particular word order?”

- Perry Noble (source)

Even though he used an explicative here, that's not really the point in me writing this post. I would be foolish to think that an 89 Sedan could fly me to Cuba. It's not in it's nature to do so. In the same gist, I would also be foolish to think that someone who has no qualms with embracing the mindset of a 10th grader would think and speak with maturity. No, the things I want to focus on in this post are the following two things:

1) Perry said, "Did God REALLY call them to pick apart verb tenses and voice intonations of speakers who don’t say things exactly right or don’t use a particular word order?"

If you think that spending time learning something that you want to be faithful to isn't what God wants us to do, you've got a lot more repenting to do than the repenting you shared that you've done previously in your post. Let's just consider this scenario: Let's say that what we "reformed guys" hold to is actually what Scripture teaches (just for kicks, of course), and, because we want to be faithful to Scripture, we take the time to parse through the verbs, nouns, etc, to make sure that we're being honest with it because of the respect we have for it. Wouldn't this make Perry someone who was going against the Scriptures? The last thing Satan wants is for us to understand what exactly the Scriptures say. It's no wonder that there are "entertainers of light" who do the same.

In case that point didn't come across, allow me to bring this closer to home in an example that might help you more, Perry. There's a game called Guitar Hero. Those who are faithful to it want to learn every tab, beat, button combo, etc. They want to represent the songs in the way that would best represent the video game they hold dear. I'm sure many of your friends hold to this. I'm wondering why I won't see a blog post on your website, Perry, critiquing them for doing so. Could it be that you hold a double standard in regard to what is being parsed through, and your critiques aren't really based on anything other than your subjective feelings, what you can get out of it for yourself, etc.? Could it be that if you did go after them for doing the same exact thing in essence that you're going after people who take time with the Greek to do, your popularity rating with them would go down? After all, Guitar Hero is so much more popular than Reformed theology, and if you keep the Guitar Hero folks happy, hey, more numbers means God's doing a work in that entertainment center, huh? I had friends in high school who were really into music. Very often, when a certain band went "big time" for the sake of "being big time" they would lament the fact that the band sold out. I am hard pressed to think of a situation where a person has "sold out" more than what I am seeing in regard to the "Seeker-Sensitive" religion these days, and the example that I've shown above certainly attributes itself to being susceptible to this lament.

2) "And if you are reformed and angry at the paragraph above…I was predestined before the foundations of the world to type it…so get over it! :-)"

Ah, the fundamental misunderstanding of double predestination. You would think that someone who's against rightly dividing the word of truth would understand certain doctrines, right? Well...

One thing that Perry is great about is pejorative rhetoric. However, pejorative rhetoric often shows a fundamental misunderstanding of certain ideas when the rhetoric is laid out for all to see. This theory holds true here. Perry actually believes that we actually believe that God was the one who made him say, "many of the reformed guys are complete @$$holes". I attribute this to two things. 1) I know when I was in the 10th grade, I didn't want to be accountable for much of anything except that which would put me in the best light possible around others and impress them the most. It comes to me as no surprise that someone who, again, has no qualms with never going past the mindset of a 10th grader would like to not take responsibility of his own actions. and 2) (I'm going to get a little technical here, but just use the same brainpower you would trying to learn "Highway to Hell" on Guitar Hero.) Perry has a fundmental misunderstanding that he'll only be able to overcome by what he doesn't seem to fond of: study. You see, there's this thing called original sin. Original sin states that we were all guilty when we were born in Adam after the fall because of the fall. So, when someone these days says something like, "many of the reformed guys are complete @$$holes", they are saying exactly what they want to say according to their nature. God doesn't force them to say, "many of the reformed guys are complete @$$holes". They do it solely because they want to, and it is what their nature desires. Here, unfortunately, we learn not only that Perry doesn't understand double predestination, but he also doesn't want to take responsibility for his own actions. It's sad, but what do you expect from someone who sees nothing wrong with playing "Highway to Hell" for their Easter concert/Sunday morning service? The Bible tells us to "study to show yourself approved". Unfortunately, today in the Seeker-Sensitive Religion, many of them hold that it should have said, "be as popular as you possibly can with unbelievers to show yourself approved."

To help you understand what exactly it is you are misrepresenting, Perry, I would like to introduce you to the doctrine of Double Predestination (Explained Rightly) with the hopes that you have a "de ja vu" and repent of this like you repented of forming uninformed opinions of others before you even knew what they held (your John Piper example).

Also, Perry, to help you understand a little about the importance of sound speech, I'm including this little video from Phil Johnson so hopefully it will bring a little more conviction.:

In closing, I'd like to emphatically stress that life past the 10th grade is wonderful, Perry. I promise. One would think it's about time to graduate from that way of thinking at 35+.

(Disclaimer: This picture is not Perry Noble, but I believe it embodies the mentality that he and many in the movement are embracing: middle aged men trying to be hip for "big time's" sake.)

CrossTV Clip List Now Available

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:45:00 +0000

I just want to let you all know of a little goodie on the net. My friend, Bill, took upon himself the task of categorizing all the CrossTV clips I have on my channel and placing them in one, concise list with links to each video. (Go to Audio/Video-->Apologetic video clips) I think this will be helpful to many of you. Thanks, Bill!

Sound Doctrine Matters!

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:13:00 +0000

Here is Doug Eaton, Mark from ProclaimHisWord, and I speaking a little about the importance of sound doctrine.

March 2009's Resource of the Month["What is Faith?" by J. Gresham Machen]

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:05:00 +0000

This video explains a new feature I'm doing for the blog.

(This is my first attempt at a Youtube video narrated by myself so please bear with me. :) )

To get the book from Amazon, click on the following picture.

To get the free pdf of the book, click here.

Meet Ignatius: The New Breed of "Youth Pastor"

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:02:00 +0000

Like Ingrid says, "A little satire goes a long way."

No word yet on if New Spring has Ignatius scheduled for any upcoming sermonar series. My guess is probably not, though, since the name "New Spring Church" is not mentioned anytime throughout this video, and we all know that "church shout-outs" are a perquisite to effective ministry.

Ignatius from travis hawkins on Vimeo.

HT: Slice of Laodicea

Happy Birthday, Atheist. [One Professing Atheist's Dilemma]

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:47:00 +0000

The following is an exchange I had recently with a professing atheist on Youtube. I wanted to present it here to show that some professing atheists don't always practice what they preach.

(The professing atheist's comments are in italics. Edited for brevity.)

Professing Atheist: "Faith" in the religious context means accepting dogma as fact in the absence of evidence. This is a poor policy for uncovering the truth.

Me: Um... no it doesn't. Faith in the Christian religion is based upon fact. It's based upon the written account and oral testimony of eyewitnesses.

One thing that we could ask of you, [his screenname], is "what day is your birthday?"

PA: You claim there is an afterlife , and an invisible deity who will judge you when you die. (I assume) These are not facts Mr Lane but speculation. Just because some bronze age peasants saw Jesus produce a bottle of Merlot does not give any credibility to all that supernatural spirit world spiel does it?

My Birthday ? why ?

Me: You don't have to actually share the day here if you'd rather not. I'd just like to know if you actually have a birthday. (ie. the knowledge of the day that you were born.)

PA: Ok yes I do . I think I see where this is going. I dont have a star sign though , as I refuse to give Astrology any credence.

Me: That actually isn't where this was going. So we've declared that you do have a day you consider the day of your birth. Ok.

Why do you consider that day to be your birthday? Do you remember it? Did you write it down the day you came out of the womb? What are you relying upon to determine that that is your day of birth?

PA: My mum remembers it because I weighed nearly 10 pounds ! and I guess that medical records could be scrutinised. However , if you are attempting to suggest by logical extrapolation that this is the same as believing that the empirically tested laws of physics were broken 2000 years ago because it was witnessed by a number of people I have to point out that more people than that claim to see Elvis every year. (respectfully I might add )

Me: Well, what I am asserting is that you are relying on written accounts and eyewitness testimony for the day of your birth, so I'm wondering if you will grant that for our position. If you do, then we would have to determine whether your mom and the doctors are lying. That would be all that was left. The same would be true about the apostles. We just have to determine if they were telling the truth since we both agree then that written and oral testimony can be permitted as credible.

From that point, the conversation didn't get back to any discussion about ""Faith" in the religious context mean(ing) accepting dogma as fact in the absence of evidence." Just wanted to share so our atheist friends would have something to think about. Happy birthday this year, atheists.

Mark From ProclaimHisWord Interviewed Me

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:34:00 +0000

Mark from ProclaimHisWord interviewed me earlier today. Mark is a dear brother, and I thoroughly enjoyed my afternoon with him. Hopefully we'll have more videos in the future. He'll be posting another video this Friday that we did about sound doctrine. If you're on Youtube, I'd recommend subscribing to his Youtube channel. He has great commentary on there.

Does God Learn? [Refuting Open Theism](Doug Eaton)

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:07:00 +0000

Here is another good point coming from Doug Eaton about how, if open theism is true, then God learns and is subject to time.

God Doesn't Know What?

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:34:00 +0000

From Doug Eaton's Youtube channel:

"I came out of my garage and headed to Trinity Law School to meet Lane Chaplin to discuss open theism. In this video we discuss what open theism is and some objections to it.

If you are looking to go deeper on this topic I recommend:

"What does God Know and When Does He Know it?" by Millard Erickson

"No Other God" by John Frame

"The Freedom of the Will" By Jonathan Edwards"

- Doug Eaton

If Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians was Published in Christianity Today(Sacred Sandwich Link)

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:50:00 +0000

This is just flat out great. The Sacred Sandwich did a piece on what would happen if Paul's epistle to the Galatians was published in Christianity Today. Here's a taste of the post:

Dear Editor:

How arrogant of Mr. Apostle to think he has the right to judge these people and label them accursed. Isn’t that God’s job? Regardless of this circumcision issue, these Galatians believe in Jesus just as much as he does, and it is very Pharisaical to condemn them just because they differ on such a secondary issue. Personally, I don’t want a sharp instrument anywhere near my zipper, but that doesn’t give me the right to judge how someone else follows Christ. Can’t we just focus on our common commitment to Christ and furthering His kingdom, instead of tearing down fellow believers over petty doctrinal matters?

Ed Bilgeway; Tonganoxie, KS

To read the rest of the "letters to the editor", click here.

Marks of a False Convert(Tony Miano)

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:58:00 +0000

Tony Miano, director of Living Waters/Way of the Master's Ambassador's Alliance, gave a sermon recently called "Marks of a False Convert". In it, he identifies several marks that, if a person has, they could be a false convert. These marks include a "theology" called "Open Theism" (God doesn't know the future and learns like we do), another called "Sinless Perfectionism" (a belief that we can attain perfection in this life), and a denial of original sin among others. These errors are categorized by the name "Moral Government Theology" as well. This is a hard hitting sermon, but it's spoken in love to those who are entangled by these heresies as well as others.

Here is the list from Tony's blog, http://thelawmanchronicles.blogspot.com , that lays out all the marks he wanted to cover in this sermon. Due to time restraints, he wasn't able to hit all these topics.

Ten Marks of a False Convert:

1. You believe that you are inherently a good person, thus denying the doctrine of Original Sin.

2. You commit idolatry of the mind and blaspheme the very character of God by denying essential doctrines such as judgment, hell, regeneration, and justification by faith alone; and you replace the truth with lies such as sinless perfection and open theism.

3. You think that only the red-lettered words in your Bible are the words of Jesus and, therefore, the rest of the Bible can be interpreted and applied to your liking.

4. You believe that a person can be a Christian while wantonly engaging in habitual sin; such as homosexuality, fornication, adultery in mind or body, the support in any way whatsoever of the murder of the unborn, or any other sin.

5. You believe that because a person has prayed a prayer and asked Jesus into their heart, then they are saved.

6. You believe a person can be a Christian, even if they bear no fruit after making a profession of faith in Christ. You treat the grace of God as a license to sin. You like the word backslider.

7. You struggle with the thought of missing a meal; but going days, weeks, even months without reading your Bible doesnt faze you.

8. You pray when you want something from God; but beyond that you have very little time for conversation with Him.

9. You believe that Darwinian, macro-evolution is a scientific fact and compatible with belief in the God of the Bible.

10. You see evangelism as a gift other people have; and you have no real concern about the fact that 150,000 people die every day, with the vast majority of them bound for hell. You soothe your conscience by convincing yourself that friendship evangelism, as it is most commonly practiced among American Christians, is actually in the Bible. You think that if you let your little light shine, you dont have to verbally proclaim the gospel.

PULPIT CRIMES: The Centrality of Preaching(David King)

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:18:00 +0000

Here's a sermon that was given at the 2006 Alpha and Omega Pulpit Crimes Conference by my brother and friend, Pastor David King. If you're not familiar with Pastor King, you should make it a point to be. Along with William Webster, he's written a three volume set on the Holy Scriptures that helps with refuting errors Rome likes to put out regarding the Early Church Fathers. You can get that from Alpha and Omega Ministries here.

Now, here's an hour well spent.:

One Professing Atheist's Perspective on Post-Modernism

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:33:00 +0000

Here's professing atheist Penn Jillette explaining his view on what has been categorized as "post-modernism" or relativism. It just goes to prove that professing atheists aren't the dummies and we're the smart ones just because we believe in Jesus. I don't agree with many of his beliefs, but he gets it regarding relativism/post-modernism unlike a wide array of present day "evangelicals" who drink the Kool-Aid without any critical thought whatsoever nor the desire to use it.

The Apologetics of the "Seeker" Religion

cedarson@gmail.com (Lane Chaplin) — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 01:50:00 +0000

A little while ago, I posted a video produced by ALittleLeaven.com containing my former entertainer, Perry Noble, chastising the "troublemakers" in his audience for expecting him to be a pastor.

I posted it on Facebook because a lot of my former friends still go there, and I wanted those that are feeling as stuck in it as my girlfriend, Susan Yenser, and I were to know that there are others out there who do not believe in putting yokes around people's necks that are extra burdensome and extra biblical. Because of this post, I received a message from a very inquisitive young woman named Lauren Mendenhall entitled "Really?" She had a problem with the video and the fact that I posted it, and she wanted to let her concerns be made known. I replied to her first reply via Facebook. For the last one, though, I asked if I could post the response here so, in the future, when I meet the same arguments (which is very often since they are anything but original), I can merely point people here without having to parrot myself again. I invite you to do the same if you find it edifying. She gave her permission for me to post it with the stipulation that I present the following disclaimer (which I will also address in my reply). I have not edited the content.:

"You are welcome to post this, but please post this with it.

I want to be clear that I'm not after anyone's approval. God will have to final word, and that's all I really care about. This is an argument that I could have all day, but God has not called us to go back-and-forth, judging the actions of others.

Was is it not the Pharisees who did this? And did Jesus not say to them "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?" (Matthew 6:7b).

I know NewSpring Church. I know that they could preach a whole message one Bible verse because the Bible is so loaded with things that we can often overlook.

I know Jesus. And I have to tell you brother, Satan would love nothing more than to see people who are heeding God's call in their lives to fail. I am firmly convinced that that very fact is the root of this commotion.

I would be very careful where I stand and would never be so ludicrous as to say that a radical, passionate Christian, modeling his church after the Church of the New Testament, "doesn't have a clue" or is teaching a "different religion."

I challenge you to get reall about this and wrestle with it."

With that now said, before I get into the final reply, I believe it would help to share our correspondence thus far so as to not take any of Mrs. Mendenhall's words out of context. I will do that now. Her messages are in italics. Mine are in regular print.

Subject: Really?

Your profile video makes me sick. How many people have you lead to Christ? Who on God's green earth are you to criticize someone who has the balls to do what God has called all Christians to, which is to shameless and unabashedly proclaim the name of Jesus? I wonder how many of your hypocrit old man friends will bring with them into the Kingdom. This pettiness is the EXACT reason people are turned off by Christians, not because so fake "pastor" is best friends with everyone in their itty-bitty, holy- huddle congregation. Perry has it exactly right. Jesus is the way to Heaven, not being best friends with your pastor.

Who determines if someone leads someone to Christ? I'd just like you to clarify that. Mormons shamelessly and unabashedly proclaim the name of Jesus, too, but they attribute different meanings for Christians terms much like Perry does. You see, Jesus came to make sure you have your best life now and reach your leadership potential according to Perry. The Christian faith, however, no where claims that Jesus came to make sure you have a your best life now and/or meet your leadership potential. It's that Jesus came to die on the Cross to propitiate God's wrath that's on you for being unrighteous if you believe. Quite a difference. Perry's adopted the religion of the seeker. However, Scripture claims that there is no seeker (as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. (Rom 3:10-11)) therefore Perry isn't preaching Christianity. He's preaching another religion. Although the terms are similar, the definitions are different much like Mormonism.

I encourage you to watch the following video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shxQcczYuAA

Also, you ask, "How many people have you lead to Christ?" I answer, "none." I don't lead people to Christ. God draws people to himself. I merely proclaim the message that God uses to draw those to Him.

PS. I'm pretty sure that this past message will make you angry. I'm not positive, but 95% of my experiences with this sort of thing has resulted in such, so I'm not surprised when that happens. I just want you to know that I didn't reply with the sole intention of making you upset. If you get upset because of the things I say, I really can't help that as it is a byproduct of what I've said and not the sole purpose for saying what I've said. I just wanted to clarify that with the hope that you'll understand.

Also, one last thing. When you say, "Who on God's green earth are you to criticize someone who has the balls to do what God has called all Christians to, which is to shameless and unabashedly proclaim the name of Jesus?" You assume that it is, in fact, Perry who is "shamelessly and unabashedly proclaim(ing) the name of Jesus." I ask how do you determine that he doing so? Is it because of his testimony? Your friends? Scripture? What is it? I'd also like to answer that if it is, in fact, me that is proclaiming Christ the way that the Scriptures have declared that we should, wouldn't that same question be directed toward you rhetorically? So your real task now is proving that Perry is "shameless and unbashedly proclaim(ing) the name of Jesus".

Sorry, I realized that I said that was the last thing, but I wanted to ask you about this, too, after rereading your message. You say, "I wonder how many of your hypocrit old man friends will bring with them into the Kingdom."

Would you like to name one and their hypocrisy? Can you name one?

You then say, "This pettiness is the EXACT reason people are turned off by Christians..."

I would contest that if you can't name one and their hypocrisy that trying to argue with informal logical fallacies called straw men would fit into the category of "reasons that people are turned off by Christians."

Here is the message she shared that I now would like to reply to. I will post it first in whole, then reply to each part that needs to be addressed piece by piece.

Lane,

Of course when someone ignorantly criticizes the pastor of a church that is near to my heart, I'm going to have something to say. But that doesn't really matter. What truly matters, and what should really matter to you, is what upsets God. And to claim that God is not active in NewSpring Church, and therefore all of the other churches like it, is really standing on dangerous ground. Not because anyone there is any better than anyone else, but because the church is the Bride of Christ, and when you mess with the Church, you mess with God. When you criticize the Church, you criticize God (and please be clear, there is a difference in the Church, where the Holy Spirit is actively changing people's lives, and a little huddle of people who get together to carry out legalistic tradition and make people feel good about themselves).

I'd encourage you to listen EVERY one of Perry's sermons. They are all central to Jesus and based on Scripture. Every single one of them. Please, find me one that is not. I would especially encourage you to listen to the first sermon of the recent series, "No Perfect People Allowed."

So to answer your question, I know (and what's more important, God knows) that Perry is shamelessly and unabashedly proclaiming the name of Jesus and not spending all of his time trying to become BFF with the thousands of people in his congregation, because I attended that church for 3 years. How could he be expected to visit every sick person in the hospital? How could he be expected to counsel everyone who needs counseling? There are plenty of resources available for people in need at the church, but the concept is that JESUS is who you need when you're in the hospital. JESUS is who you need when you're going through things that are bigger than you feel you can handle. Do you honestly believe that having a pastor be everywhere for everyone all the time somehow convinces Jesus that He needs to be more present in any give situation. I think not. I'm pretty sure He's got that one covered.

To address your point that Perry preaches soley on how to increase your leadership and have your best life now, yes, there are plenty of sermons about how to live the best life possible, because the best life possible is only found in Jesus. As He said himself, "I came that you may have life, and have it to the full." Not that you can sit around and judge people who are following Jesus allowing Him to use them to spread His Word.

If you honestly believe that Perry is "teaching another religion" I have to wonder how many times you have even attended NewSpring before making such dangerous accusations.

Please show me in Scripture where it says that being best buds with your Pastor is the ticket to Heaven. Please explain what "different terms" Perry uses that are analogous to Mormonism.

Of course Jesus came to die on the Cross to propitiate God's wrath that's on you for being unrighteous if you believe. I'm not sure where you got that I was ever questioning that. And I'm not quite sure where you got that NewSpring has missed that point as well. "We’re NewSpring Church and we exist to make the name of Jesus Christ famous." Afterall, doesn't He deserve all of the glory for saving us from our inevitable self-destruction?

Hmm...I don't about you, but that sounds like a Christ-centered church to me.

Yes, God draws people to Himself, and yes, He alone is the way to salvation, so for that very reason, is it not our purpose on this planet to proclaim his name, to spread His Word to ends of the earth? In case you missed it in what I would estimate is the meager handful of times you've attended NewSpring, that's the basis and motivation of the church. It's in every message. Again, I challenge you to find a message where this isn't the case.

The Romans passage you have cited states the fact that in our sinful human nature, we do not seek God. But when God changes our lives, which He has done in my life, my husband's life, and many of my friend's lives through Perry's preaching at NewSpring, "the old is cast away, and [we are] a new creation," we are commanded to seek after Christ with our entire being, and there we will be met. "And it will be given to you; SEEK and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you," Matthew 7:7-8a.

So I leave you, and your judgmental friends, with this Scripture: "Why do you look at the plank in you own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye.' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck from your brother's eye, " Matthew 7:3-5.

It astounds me that Christians would have anything negative to say about another Christian allowing Jesus to use their life for His glory. I believe that God is doing a huge work through NewSpring and many other churches like it. I also believe that Satan would like nothing more than to see these churches fall. So criticism is to be expected. Does the Bible not say that we will endure many hardships for following Christ? It is scary to me though, that this opposition, the Satan loves, is coming from people who proclaim to know Christ.

I understand that it was not your intention to upset me, or the thousands of people who will join you in Heaven, who also believe that Perry has had the courage to lead NewSpring Church in the radical and passionate way all churches should be lead, proclaiming the name of Jesus Christ above all things. But it's inevitable that people will be upset by your reckless, unsubstantiated statements.

Lauren

Here's my response:

"What truly matters, and what should really matter to you, is what upsets God."

First notice the implication here in this statement. ie. If I don't endorse Perry Noble and his methods, ideals, etc., I'm upsetting God. I fully agree with the statement on it's own merits, but when taken in the context of her entire exchange, the implication is obvious.

"And to claim that God is not active in NewSpring Church, and therefore all of the other churches like it, is really standing on dangerous ground."

First, you'll notice that I nowhere made this claim. I believe that God is active in New Spring, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness churches, and Mosques, but, as Scripture tells us, "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." (Eph 5:6) God is active in unbelievers, but it's an active wrath that's at work inside of them. God is active in believers, too, but it's an active grace that's at work inside of them. Now, I believe there are people who are saved at New Spring. I know several of them personally. However, I believe that they're saved in spite of New Spring, and not because of it. I attended New Spring. I know the ego-stroking that goes on there, and with Noble not preaching the Gospel, I believe that would constitute disobeying God as much it would for someone to defend him for not doing so. This will be addressed more in detail in a bit, though.

"Not because anyone there is any better than anyone else, but because the church is the Bride of Christ, and when you mess with the Church, you mess with God. When you criticize the Church, you criticize God (and please be clear, there is a difference in the Church, where the Holy Spirit is actively changing people's lives, and a little huddle of people who get together to carry out legalistic tradition and make people feel good about themselves)."

Here we have possibly one of the most telling aspects of this young girl's argument. Aside from it sounding curiously Roman Catholic at its core, I'd like to point out several inconsistencies between her assessment and the Bible.:

1) Notice her implication again. It's basically "if you criticize someone in the church, you're criticizing God." Wow. So get this, folks: No matter what, if you see something that you are convicted of that is wrong going on inside of the church, you are to keep your mouth shut because by criticizing that, you're criticizing God. Now, one only needs remedial logic to then ask the young lady, "Well, aren't you criticizing those who are criticizing? I mean you've already indicated that you consider Lane a brother, so your argument that "he isn't considered a Christian so you have a right to criticize" is null." So here, the only possibility left is that this young lady has employed what is called "a double standard." ie. It's ok for me to do, but if you do it, it's wrong. And because I'm standing for God, I shouldn't be held to the same standard that you are held to. ie. Hypocrisy account #1

Note this instance because it shows up quite a bit in this letter, and it will help in the critique of her "Pharisee" claim later.

2) I would also like to inquire of the young lady if she considered Peter to be of the church post Christ's crucifixion. We are told in Galatians that Paul withstood Peter to his face. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal 2:11) Paul then went on to critique Peter's conduct as that of one who was compromising the Gospel. Does it follow using this young lady's logic that Paul was criticizing the church? Apparently so. We move on.

"I'd encourage you to listen EVERY one of Perry's sermons."

She encourages me to listen to "EVERY one of Perry's sermons." That's right. I have to listen to every single one before I make a determination of where this man is coming from. Again, I'd like to ask the young lady if she's read EVERY post I've ever written. Not because I want to hold her to this ridiculous standard, but to prove Hypocrisy account #2. If she has not read EVERY post I've ever written, why is it alright for her to call me a Pharissee (make a conclusion about me, my work, etc.), but it's not alright for me to assert that Perry is in error (make a conclusion about him, his work, etc.) It's an inane standard for judging another's work, and, by her own words, she doesn't follow it herself.

"They are all central to Jesus and based on Scripture. Every single one of them. Please, find me one that is not. I would especially encourage you to listen to the first sermon of the recent series, "No Perfect People Allowed."""

Ok, I admit. I appreciated this softball. Click the following play button where Perry insists that God told him to preach on the history of New Spring Church for about a half hour instead of preaching the Gospel and where, when Perry argued with God, "God told him to shut up and preach on the history of New Spring Church." Perry claims that's how God talks to him, btw.

"So to answer your question, I know (and what's more important, God knows) that Perry is shamelessly and unabashedly proclaiming the name of Jesus and not spending all of his time trying to become BFF with the thousands of people in his congregation, because I attended that church for 3 years. How could he be expected to visit every sick person in the hospital? How could he be expected to counsel everyone who needs counseling? There are plenty of resources available for people in need at the church, but the concept is that JESUS is who you need when you're in the hospital. JESUS is who you need when you're going through things that are bigger than you feel you can handle. Do you honestly believe that having a pastor be everywhere for everyone all the time somehow convinces Jesus that He needs to be more present in any give situation. I think not. I'm pretty sure He's got that one covered."

As you saw in the original video I posted, one of ALittleLeaven.com's major critiques was that Mr. Noble would rather spend time with his family then with someone sick at the hospital therefore, based upon Mr. Noble's preference, it was ok for him not to visit that person in the hospital. Mrs. Mendenhall, here, takes exception to the fact that pastors are expected (and the ones I know like to) visit the sick, spend time with them, etc. I can see where Mr. Noble is coming from, though. If the people under your care are really just a number to you anyway, why visit them? They won't be in your doors so you won't be able to brag about them. You could, however, brag about the number of people you went to see that were sick. Perhaps he hasn't thought of this possibility yet or it isn't deemed cool enough for the "Seeker" religion, though. I'm not sure about this one.

"To address your point that Perry preaches soley on how to increase your leadership and have your best life now, yes, there are plenty of sermons about how to live the best life possible, because the best life possible is only found in Jesus. As He said himself, "I came that you may have life, and have it to the full." Not that you can sit around and judge people who are following Jesus allowing Him to use them to spread His Word."

Ah, you knew this verse was going to come out eventually. It's a favorite of the "Seeker" religion. They believe that that verse means that Jesus came so we could live our best life now, as Mrs. Mendenhall rightly declares her religion's profession. I would like to ask her at this point, do you consider those who are suffering for their belief overseas in places like China, the Middle East, etc. to be Christians? Would you tell one of the mothers of someone who just was murdered for their belief in Jesus that this is what Jesus had in mind when he was speaking of the "abundant life"? I would hope not. You see, the Scriptures, if we take them as a whole, mention many things including being persecuted for our faith, being without worldly goods at all times, etc. As Paul says, though, "I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need."(Php 4:12) Abundance you say, Paul? But, Paul, your life was ended with you being beheaded. Was this the abundant life you were talking about? Yes, it was. You see, Paul learned that "to live is Christ, and to die is gain." That's what the verse "live life more abundantly" means. In no way did he mean for this verse to be taken in the context of what I call "Closet Narcissism" (self love in the form of wanting your best life now covered up with a seemingly pious veneer of love for others).

Also notable to bring up is #3 Hypocrisy account. Here she says, "Not that you can sit around and judge people who are following Jesus allowing Him to use them to spread His Word." Yet she... um... calls me a Christian and judges me. Yeah.

"If you honestly believe that Perry is "teaching another religion" I have to wonder how many times you have even attended NewSpring before making such dangerous accusations."

Again, here we are presented with a stipulation. It's basically "Before you can critique someone, you must attend x place y amount of times." She asks for Scripture in her next quote which we'll get to, but I'd like to ask where this stipulation is found in Scripture, too.

This portion of my critique may be the most important of all. She says, "If you honestly believe that Perry is "teaching another religion"..." I must emphatically declare that I do believe that the "Seeker" movement is another religion altogether at worse, a cult at best. There are many reasons for this, but I believe this clearly illustrates the reason.:

When we work through something, we start off with a premise. If that premise is false, the entire syllogism is false. There may be true aspects of the syllogism, but as a whole, it is false because the premise cannot be false while the syllogism be true. Here is the entire "Seeker" movement's premise:

"Unbelievers seek after God."

That's it. The entire movement is based on this premise. The Bible, however, states that no unbeliever seeks after God. (Rom. 3:11) The notion that unbelievers seek after God is an anti-biblical notion. If the "seeker-sensitive's" premise were taken out of the equation, the entire movement would falter to nothing. It's what it's built on. It's not even built on the fact that Jesus died for our sins. It's certainly mentioned at time to time, but like a syllogism that says, "All dogs are black. I am a male. I used to own a black dog." even though the two later statements are true, the first is false therefore the entire "truth" crashes. Here's the "Seeker" movement's syllogism: "Unbelievers seek after God. Jesus died for the sins of those who believe. Get them in the church no matter what so we can save them." The syllogism fails.

Christian religion teaches: "Unbelievers do not seek after God."

The "Seeker" religion teaches: "Unbelievers seek after God."

The "Seeker" religion is an anti-biblical religion.

There are numerous other things that could be brought up to substantiate this, but because of the length of this post, I'll move on. You can refer to the fact that they redefine certain terms like "abundant life", sin as "mistakes", etc. for further evidence of this.

"Please show me in Scripture where it says that being best buds with your Pastor is the ticket to Heaven."

I can't do it, because it's not there. However, I'd like for this young lady to show me where I ever made that assertion. Just for future reference to Mrs. Mendenhall, when arguing points, straw men don't necessarily help your position if you're seeking to be taken seriously and found credible.

"Please explain what "different terms" Perry uses that are analogous to Mormonism."

Reference above, and please realize that I wasn't saying that the "Seeker" religion's terms are the same in substance as those used in Mormonism. Realize that I was saying that in the same manner as the Mormons who attribute different definitions to Christian terms, much of the same is done in the "Seeker" movement. I'm not sure if Mrs. Mendenhall understood my assertion.

""We’re NewSpring Church and we exist to make the name of Jesus Christ famous." Afterall, doesn't He deserve all of the glory for saving us from our inevitable self-destruction?"

Jesus does deserve all of the glory, but preaching Him is the only way that He receives that glory. He doesn't care about your self-esteem, whether your checkbook is balanced, etc. (HT: Paul Washer). "Making Jesus famous" by not preaching Him in His fullness to unbelievers because the entire premise of your religion is wrong, is not the way to glorify Him, though. I also find this kind of ironic that someone who partakes in decisional regeneration asserts that Jesus receives all of the glory. If your decision was what saved you and nothing more of what He has done for everyone, why shouldn't the glory go to yourself for saving yourself? Predestination is the only soteriology that gives all of the glory to God. The other professes to give all the glory to God, but even that is a masked self-righteousness.

"The Romans passage you have cited states the fact that in our sinful human nature, we do not seek God. But when God changes our lives, which He has done in my life, my husband's life, and many of my friend's lives through Perry's preaching at NewSpring, "the old is cast away, and [we are] a new creation," we are commanded to seek after Christ with our entire being, and there we will be met. "And it will be given to you; SEEK and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you," Matthew 7:7-8a."

I admit, out of her entire response, this may be the part that befuddled me the most for this purpose: She said, "The Romans passage you have cited states the fact that in our sinful human nature, we do not seek God. But when God changes our lives, which He has done in my life, my husband's life, and many of my friend's lives through Perry's preaching at NewSpring, "the old is cast away, and [we are] a new creation," we are commanded to seek after Christ with our entire being, and there we will be met." If she adheres to this, why is she in a place called the "Seeker" movement which openly professes to try to be relevant to the culture to bring unbelievers who are "seeking after God"? It doesn't make sense. It seems that here she needs to truly determine where she stands on the issue because right now, she and the Bible are saying one thing, but the religion she's defending says and operates on another.

Also, just to clarify, I believe that if we "seek we shall find", but Mrs. Mendenhall and I may differ on the reason one seeks. One might believe that it was the decision one made for Jesus which saved them apart from any regenerating work of the Spirit while I believe it's because God gave me faith. I'm not sure of her position on this, but since she brought up the verse, I figured I'd clarify.

"So I leave you, and your judgmental friends, with this Scripture: "Why do you look at the plank in you own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye.' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck from your brother's eye, " Matthew 7:3-5."

#4 Hypocrisy account: She says that my friends are judgmental, and implies that's wrong by quoting Matthew 7, but didn't she just make a judgment saying that we're judgmental? Hmmm...

"It astounds me that Christians would have anything negative to say about another Christian allowing Jesus to use their life for His glory."

#5 Hypocrisy account: She has provided several messages now calling me a Christian and even calling me one in this statement, but has had a lot of negative things to say. Hmmm...

"I believe that God is doing a huge work through NewSpring and many other churches like it."

Well, it must be true if she believes it, then. Who am I to argue that means of arbitrating truth?

"I also believe that Satan would like nothing more than to see these churches fall. So criticism is to be expected."

Here, she shares the implication that if we are against these place's way of doing things, we're in cahoots with Satan, himself. This has already been dispelled earlier in this post in a similar statement she made, but think again as to how this would have related to Paul and Peter when Paul "withstood him to the face". Peter was just trying to make himself relevant by eating with the Jews, right? I mean, what's more important, Paul? The Gospel or making sure that several Jews make their decision for Jesus? Folks, this sounds more and more to me like the Roman Catholicism that every Protestant disavows. It's sola ecclesia when it really comes down to it. "What the church says goes." Remember, even the Roman Catholic church quotes Scripture from time to time to attempt to substantiate what they're doing.

"Does the Bible not say that we will endure many hardships for following Christ? It is scary to me though, that this opposition, the Satan loves, is coming from people who proclaim to know Christ."

Allow me now to point you all to a site called "The Voice of the Martyrs." Here you can read about brothers and sisters around the world who are going through persecution for their faith. Persecution that doesn't involve Starbucks being out of the cardboard holders on their cups on a certain night, but real persecution involving limbs being chopped off, eyes gouged out, and even murder among other things. I'm so ready for missionaries from other countries to start coming here to evangelize and give some of the pansy American "church" a wake-up call. For Mrs. Mendenhall to equate "persecution" to someone criticizing another's Gospel presentation just shows how sheltered, secluded, and ignorant many of these people involved in this religion truly are of real persecution being experienced by brothers and sisters throughout the world. It's only natural that you don't want to concern yourself with much of that kind of stuff, though, when your "Gospel" is focused on your "abundant life."

"I understand that it was not your intention to upset me, or the thousands of people who will join you in Heaven, who also believe that Perry has had the courage to lead NewSpring Church in the radical and passionate way all churches should be lead, proclaiming the name of Jesus Christ above all things. But it's inevitable that people will be upset by your reckless, unsubstantiated statements."

I would like to ask her at this point, which statements *specifically* does she claim are unsubstantiated. I smell the burning of another straw man.

With all of this now done, I'd like to point specifically to an assertion she made several times throughout the time of our correspondence. It's the issue of me being like a Pharisee. To help show some light on this, let's examine some of the key aspects of the Pharisee.

1) Their hypocrisy.
They said one thing and did another. It was one of the things that Jesus railed on them for.

2) Their assertion that anyone who didn't follow what they said *without allowing for critique* was against God and therefore of the devil.
They even claimed that Jesus was of Satan when he debated the Scriptures with them and what they were teaching was really what God had said and intended.

3) Their denial of certain Scripture and their acceptance of other Scripture to fit into their worldview.
We hear very often in Scripture of the Pharisees trying to corner Jesus by taking verses out of context to fit their worldview. They didn't want the same standards that they applied to others to be applied to themselves so when Jesus confronted them on issues, they grew very upset and angry.

I would now like to address each of these in terms of our conversation.

1) I counted at least 5 instances (and I can find more) of double standards employed by Mrs. Mendenhall in her critique. She claimed that it was wrong to critique other Christians in her critique. Even in the stipulation she gave me for posting this, she said, "This is an argument that I could have all day, but God has not called us to go back-and-forth, judging the actions of others." then she goes back (or is it forth?) judging my actions by saying, "Was is it not the Pharisees who did this? And did Jesus not say to them "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?" (Matthew 6:7b)." 1) = check

2) As I just mentioned, she claimed that it was wrong to critique Perry because he was of God. This is not only anti-historical, it's anti-Christian in nature. We're always supposed to examine not only ourselves, but every teaching that comes out and flee that teaching that doesn't conicide with God's Word. (1Tim 6:3) This is a Christian telling us this (Paul). So, while Mrs. Mendenhall's critique is not only hypocritical, it's also anti-Biblical. 2) = check

3) This was mainly addressed in the above in the places dealing with the "abundant life" redefinition and other places. You'll also note, though, that Mrs. Mendenhall became pretty upset when I tried to see if Perry Noble was keeping in accordance with Scripture because "when someone ignorantly criticizes the pastor of a church that is near to [her] heart, [she's] going to have something to say." I believe I've already proven that not only was my critique warranted, it was anything but ignorant. 3) = check

Given all these things and all the experiences I've had within the "Seeker" religion itself, I have no other conclusion than what follows:

Folks, I submit to you the Apologetics of the "Seeker" Religion: the Phariseeism of our day.

Take care,
Lane Chaplin