Kevin Lane Witnesses To Mark
Folks,
I want to reserve this post and comments thread for a discussion between author Kevin Lane and myself. Please nobody else participate here. Just me and Kevin. Thanks.
Kevin, could you please witness to me in this post? Let's say I'm unsaved and so you come along to present me with the Gospel. I'll repost your respenses in the comment thread here in the post. Again, thanks for the interaction.
Take it away, Kevin...
And this was Kevin's courageous response to me from another blog...
So you’ve got a minute?
posted by mark pierson at 10:59 AM
16 Comments:
The following is a composite of responses I've seen when I have presented the Gospel to the unsaved...
So Kevin, thanks for telling me the Gospel in a minute.
I have some pressing questions for you -
You see, I am a married man. Here's the problem: I've met somebody else, one of my co-workers. She also is married. At first we were just friends. Then, over the course of time, we both discovered that we complete one another. We both feel like we are soul-mates. Yes, we have gone on to be intimate. We really love eachother.
Now even Sunday-school kids know that God has said "Thou shall not commit adultry". If I were to become a Christian would I have to give this woman up? I can't see myself ever being able to do that.
October 03, 2009 12:57 PM
Predictably Kevin chose to answer from the comforts of his own blog. See here...
http://onmywalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/walking-on-water-is-not-swimming.html
November 14, 2009 11:50 AM
Kevin, let's try to stay focused, old buddy,
The person that you witnessed to at my blog asked a question that only required a yes or no answer. I've been asked such questions and now I want to see your answers to them - and please, this time without taking me on a magical mystery tour. A "yes" or "no" answer is all I need. Please also keep in mind that you should answer such a question with the Great Commission, as seen in Matthew 28:19-20, in mind.
Now once again, If you look at the question posed you...If I were to become a Christian would I have to give this woman up? I
can't see myself ever being able to do that....
Note that at no place did he ask you if he needed to give her up to become a Christian. No, his question dealt with the time after coming to Christ. Now please answer the question posed you...Would he ever have to give his mistress up - how would you answer him when he asks this question?
November 15, 2009 4:04 PM
So Kevin, how would you answer HIM when HE asks that question? How would you respond TO HIM, not me; but to HIM who asked it? Now I know how Bridget felt when you refused to answer her. You never did. Kevin, all you need to do is simply admit that your system CAN'T answer that question without the holes within that system being seen. That would be the honest thing to do.
Lou, may the Lord bless you!
November 16, 2009 10:47 AM
Folks, I now open this comments thread up for your responses. I invite you to visit Kevin's blog through the link that I provided in my November 14th, 11:50 AM comment.
November 16, 2009 10:58 AM
Kevin,
So you would tell "IP" that, yes, at one point after salvation he WOULD be called on to give up his mistress. So at that point he would say that his relationship with her means too much to him and therefore he is not interested in coming to Christ, for he now sees that Christ's Lordship cannot be separated from His Saviorhood. What you're failing to notice with "IP" is that he was already resolute in not giving her up - he said so at the outset. He has shown his love for darkness rather than light.
To recap:
So now he's heard your good news presentation, he then goes on to state plainly that he's not interested in giving this mistress up. In ongoing converation with you he discovers that at one point after salvation God's chastening would come his way because of this mistress. It seems to me that only in ongoing conversation with you, and that AFTER your good news presentation, does "IP" get to hear the whole counsel of God; and that, yes, his sin must be dealt with. And now he's hearing about how it must be dealt with even before he has come to Christ, because in ongoing conversation with you he hears that God will one day chasten him for this sin.
In retrospect something troubles me here: your good news presentation doesn't lead inexorably towards discipleship, as it is seen to be what we are commended to do in Matthew 28:19-20. Only in ongoing conversation with you, and not in your good news presentation itself, does he hear what he really needs to hear.
November 17, 2009 7:29 AM
The following took place on Kevin's blog...
mark pierson said...
So Kevin,
Please answer the question, yes or no - would that person have to give up his mistress - yes or no?
12:44 PM
Kevl said...
Hi Mark,
You wrote
So Kevin,
Please answer the question, yes or no - would that person have to give up his mistress - yes or no?
Two things - you don't have the right to make demands at this blog and I will not "debate" you.
In order to become a Christian? - No.
Once they are a Christian? I have little doubt that the Spirit would work as God declares in Heb 12 on that person. However, no human could predict how that person would react to the conviction of the Spirit.
Kev
3:52 PM
Lou Martuneac said...
Kev:
When Mark comes in for one of his drive-by postings you might just ignore him as I do.
Last go around you did well to expose the holes in his theology and his poor behavior choices.
Lou
2:48 AM
mark pierson said...
So Kevin,
If you look at the question posed you...If I were to become a Christian would I have to give this woman up? I
can't see myself ever being able to do that....
Note that at no place did he ask you if he needed to give her up to become a Christian. No, his question dealt with the time after coming to Christ. Now please answer the question posed you...Would he ever have to give his mistress up - how would you answer him when he asks this question?
Hi, Lou!
1:26 PM
Kevl said...
Mark,
Please read the full response that I gave you in my last.
Take particular note of three things.
1. You do not have the right to make demands here.
2. I will not debate you.
3. Your question was fully answered in that post.
Further demands, or invitations to debate will be deleted.
If you have some specific question (which has not already been answered) I'm sure I or someone else will be able to answer.
Kev
1:46 PM
mark pierson said...
Kevin, let's try to stay focused, old buddy,
The person that you witnessed to at my blog asked a question that only required a yes or no answer. I've been asked such questions and now I want to see your answers to them - and please, this time without taking me on a magical mystery tour. A "yes" or "no" answer is all I need. Please also keep in mind that you should answer such a question with the Great Commission, as seen in Matthew 28:19-20, in mind.
Now once again, If you look at the question posed you...If I were to become a Christian would I have to give this woman up? I
can't see myself ever being able to do that....
Note that at no place did he ask you if he needed to give her up to become a Christian. No, his question dealt with the time after coming to Christ. Now please answer the question posed you...Would he ever have to give his mistress up - how would you answer him when he asks this question?
5:03 PM
Kevl said...
Mark,
Your badgering is not welcome here.
Read my reply to you, the answer you seek is in it - and has been since I wrote it. This is your third and final chance to read it.
If understanding English is trouble for you please try to find places to interact where your native tongue is predominantly used. I am only able to write in English.
Kev
6:35 PM
Lou Martuneac said...
Kev:
Mark is a blog thug in the mold of Antonio da Rosa, Tim Nichols and Phil Johnson. Mark, like the others, apparently feels important when he thumps his chest.
Lou
8:26 PM
mark pierson said...
So Kevin, how would you answer HIM when HE asks that question? How would you respond TO HIM, not me; but to HIM who asked it? Now I know how Bridget felt when you refused to answer her. You never did. Kevin, all you need to do is simply admit that your system CAN'T answer that question without the holes within that system being seen. That would be the honest thing to do.
Lou, may the Lord bless you!
11:47 AM
November 18, 2009 6:43 AM
Kevl said...
Mark,
I'm not exactly fond of having imaginary conversations with imaginary people. Not only is it foolishness, it almost always drives people to very bad doctrine. This is how the "Crossless Gospel" was created.
I'm not talking with this imaginary person, I responded to YOU. Do you have the capability of conversing reasonably? Yes or No will do for an answer.
Kevin, all you need to do is simply admit that your system CAN'T answer that question without the holes within that system being seen.
When you grow up you're going to feel really silly about acting like that.
Kev
12:19 PM
Kevl said...
All,
Mark asked this question -
So Kevin, how would you answer HIM when HE asks that question? How would you respond TO HIM, not me; but to HIM who asked it?
I'm not sure if anyone who frequents this blog is actually unable to discern what the answer is from my initial response to Mark, found HERE
I wrote Once they are a Christian? I have little doubt that the Spirit would work as God declares in Heb 12 on that person. However, no human could predict how that person would react to the conviction of the Spirit.
Clearly I answered Mark's question more fully than he desired. He asked for a simple yes/no but that would not have resulted in an accurate answer to his implied question. It seems to ME that this has upset him somewhat.
Mark seems to want to witness me roleplaying... I'm not sure why, and I'm not even sure I want to know why...
In a desire for silence I'll break it down for all to read.
Now imagine I'm having a conversation with Mr. Imaginary Person. We'll call him Mr. IP for short.
Mr. IP. I understand that you're filling your desires with this relationship now and it feels like that is the best way to have them satisfied. However, if God were to save you He would come and dwell inside you. He's witness to everything you ever have and ever will do now because He's God. But if He were to come and live in you, then it would be HIS life you would be living, and if you were to continue in adultery then you would be tying Him to that.
I can't tell you how it will work out but God promises to discipline everyone of His children. This isn't a threat, it's a promise. He will be as true to that as He is to save those who call on Him.
So if you were to continue, I fully expect that you would find His discipline to be intolerable. He's God and isn't going to change, and He's also all powerful so He's not going to get tired of correcting you. If you were to continue in that, or any sin, He would correct you and that correction could be unimaginably uncomfortable.
Do I really have to continue this game Mark????
Put away your theology manuals (you'd be better to burn them), give your head a shake and read your Bible for a change.
Kev
12:29 PM
November 18, 2009 6:45 AM
mark pierson said...
Kevin,
So you would tell "IP" that, yes, at one point after salvation he WOULD be called on to give up his mistress. So at that point he would say that his relationship with her means too much to him and therefore he is not interested in coming to Christ, for he now sees that Christ's Lordship cannot be separated from His Saviorhood. What you're failing to notice with "IP" is that he was already resolute in not giving her up - he said so at the outset. He has shown his love for darkness rather than light.
To recap:
So now he's heard your good news presentation, he then goes on to state plainly that he's not interested in giving this mistress up. In ongoing converation with you he discovers that at one point after salvation God's chastening would come his way because of this mistress. It seems to me that only in ongoing conversation with you, and that AFTER your good news presentation, does "IP" get to hear the whole counsel of God; and that, yes, his sin must be dealt with. And now he's hearing about how it must be dealt with even before he has come to Christ, because in ongoing conversation with you he hears that God will one day chasten him for this sin.
In retrospect something troubles me here: your good news presentation doesn't lead inexorably towards discipleship, as it is seen to be what we are commended to do in Matthew 28:19-20. Only in ongoing conversation with you, and not in your good news presentation itself, does he hear what he really needs to hear.
8:27 AM
Kevl said...
Mark,
I said that the Lord would discipline. I know you have a hard time reading what I actually say, but please do try.
I'm not sure how I was supposed to "notice" anything Mr. IP as it's an imaginary conversation...
Enough game play. Everyone is well aware that you desire that people agree to discipleship in order to become a Christian.
I'm not interested in debating your extra-biblical view again.
Discipleship is discipleship, and receiving the Gospel is something entirely different. No matter how many times you beat your chest and insult the people you blog with.
Kev
12:30 PM
mark pierson said...
"Discipleship is discipleship, and receiving the Gospel is something entirely different."
==============
You can't prove that exegetically, only systematically.
7:27 AM
November 18, 2009 6:45 AM
There's more...
Kevl said...
Mark,
You're already famous for making bold statements of knowledge you do not actually possess. (No one who understands LS theology also rejects it...remember?) I suggest you don't continue on that path.
Actually I can prove it from the Scriptures themselves - not systematically. If I simply read the Gospel as Scripture declares it... and don't add to it...
You may be interested in the post called Proof-Texting The Gospel?
Kev
7:35 AM
mark pierson said...
"Mark,
You're already famous for making bold statements of knowledge you do not actually possess. (No one who understands LS theology also rejects it...remember?) I suggest you don't continue on that path."
===
Actually, Kevin, I stand by that statement because you have yet to prove me wrong - you show no signs of understanding it, else your arguments against it would evaporate.
=========
"Actually I can prove it from the Scriptures themselves - not systematically. If I simply read the Gospel as Scripture declares it... and don't add to it...
You may be interested in the post called Proof-Texting The Gospel?"
==========
But you arbitrarily narrow your view here. How about where Paul said, "testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 20:21. Again you do show your propensity to not consider the whole counsel of God. Very disturbing hermeneutic, Kevin.
November 19, 2009 6:28 AM
Kevin said..
Mark,
You said,
Actually, Kevin, I stand by that statement because you have yet to prove me wrong - you show no signs of understanding it, else your arguments against it would evaporate
This is just plain foolishness.
You also said,
But you arbitrarily narrow your view here. How about where Paul said, "testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 20:21. Again you do show your propensity to not consider the whole counsel of God. Very disturbing hermeneutic, Kevin.
I take comfort that God's Word is proven true so often. The Cross, and the Good News of it that announces the free Eternal Salvation provided there are offensive to so many.
To those who can not look at the Cross and see themselves fully, and finally justified there apart from anything of themselves: I can have no assurance of their Salvation. They do not match the pattern of Abram that Paul points to.
Kev
11:32 AM
Kevl said...
All who are reading -
With regard to my reading the Gospel out of the Text of the Bible Mark claimed I was "narrowing [my] view" in a disturbing way.
He then cited Acts 20:21 as a supposed missed point by the Gospel declared in 1 Cor 15:1-11 (the subject of the post I linked Mark to.)
You will notice that Mark simply quotes these words as though they disagree with the Gospel Paul declared.
In fact, what is in disagreement with the Gospel of Christ that Scripture declares is Mark's extra-biblical definitions for the words "Repentance" and "Faith."
I spent several weeks back in August and September getting Mark to define these and other concepts from his point of view. Any interested can go back to those conversations... though I warn you they are tedious and long...
I'm not going to get into a debate about the definitions of these words here. If any are interested in Mark's point of view he had several weeks of freedom to post it here. That window in time has been closed.
Kev
11:39 AM
mark pierson said...
"To those who can not look at the Cross and see themselves fully, and finally justified there apart from anything of themselves: I can have no assurance of their Salvation. They do not match the pattern of Abram that Paul points to."
=========
And this, Kevin, is where you show your ignorance of my position. I can and DO look at the cross and see myself fully and finally justified apart from anything of myself. Foolish statements from you like these is why your position will never gain any traction among anybody outside Chaferian Dispensationalism. And that includes progressive dispensationalist, covenant theologians, and new covennant theologians - or, in other words, the most of christendem.
1:39 PM
mark pierson said...
And again, where you speak of repentance in your link, "So You Have a Minute", please consider scripture within your definition of that word. In no case in scripture did it NOT include a change of attitude that brought about a change in direction.
November 19, 2009 12:49 PM
Kevl said...
Mark when I say there will be no debating something I mean it. Your view has been exposed elsewhere. I have zero interest in having those reading endure it again.
Kev
4:59 PM
Lou Martuneac said...
Kev:
You wrote, "...Mark's extra-biblical definitions for the words "Repentance" and "Faith."
The "extra-biblical" views that Mark (and many LS people like like him) has come to believe often drift into anti-biblical views.
You can really see just how seared in conscience he has become in these attempts to bolster the corrupt theology of Lordship Salvation's works-based message.
A real shame.
Lou
November 20, 2009 10:42 AM
I guess the real shame is that two folk who have great zeal to see souls come to Christ are themselves blinded by a theological system, a system that should never have come about in the first place. Artificial divisions into the Word, along with artificial dichotomies, rule the day in that system. It is a system that revolves around the notion of "carnal Christians" and the idea that a person can be a believer without being a disciple. Now THESE are what is anti-biblical.
November 20, 2009 11:05 AM
Kevl said...
Mark,
If I were you I would consider if I truly was "submitted to the Lordship of Christ" and if you have truly taken that unwavering yoke upon yourself. Compare your behavior to that of the Lord's and see if you truly are a slave to His righteous nature or not.
That's just a suggestion... I suspect that if you TRULY do this without bias and limit that it will throw you into an upheaval - but I am completely CONFIDENT that it would lead you to a more orderly Christian walk.
As for your last comment, when you demonstrate that you are not "falling short of the Glory of God" every single day then I'll believe that you are not "continuing in sin" and that you are not a "carnal christian." Until you show me that you are prefect like the Holy Father is perfect IN PRACTICE, THOUGHT, WORD, and INTENT then and only then will I take your claims more seriously.
As for now I'm tired of your banter and foolish proding.
I'm not calling you a "fool" Mark, but I see a great deal of "foolishness" in you. It ought not be so, and it need not be so.
Kev
November 20, 2009 11:53 AM
Ya gotta love that Kevin!
He then shut down the comments on this post at his blog.
November 20, 2009 11:57 AM
kevin,
When a person does not acknowledge the role of all three persons of our triune God, then you get the distorted man-centered gospel that you and Lou Martnec are promoting. Your concept of lordship salvation is based on the error of works and obedience flowing from man alone without the power of the Holy Spirit. You then accuse those who believe in the power of the Holy Spirit in sanctification as being believers in justification by works.
With such a faulty dispensational theological foundation, it is little wonder that your views are so much in conflict with Biblical revelation.
I certainly admire Mark for engaging you, but you have proven to be unwilling to confront him on his blog. If you ever do get up the courage then Mark and I will be waiting.....
wayne
November 20, 2009 4:08 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home